Re: A86: ROM Images (legal battle thread)

[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: A86: ROM Images (legal battle thread)


Can we PLEASE STOP discussing this?!

I can think that I speak for the whole list when I say that NO ONE CARES!
If you don't distribute or post the rom, then you aren't going to get into
trouble with TI or anyone else!  I don't have a page with the rom available
for download, so TI's not going to come after me!  As long as you aren't
posting the rom, then they aren't going to come after you either!  TI has
much more money than you, so they would almost certainly win in court
whether or not you are right!  So drop it now!

This is an assembly list, so let's stop talking about legalities that no one
really knows about (because you're not a lawyer and neither am I). You've
sent at least 20-30 messages about this.  I know you haven't sent that many
about assembly related topics.  I don't think I've even seen you post one
message about assembly!

Thank you.  Maybe you could email Magnus and have him setup
legal-battle@lists.ticalc.org for you...

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas J. Hruska <thruska@tir.com>
To: assembly-86@lists.ticalc.org <assembly-86@lists.ticalc.org>
Date: Wednesday, November 18, 1998 11:51 PM
Subject: Re: A86: ROM Images (legal battle thread)


>
>At 10:05 PM 11/18/98 EST, you wrote:
>>In a message dated 11/18/98 22:02:11 Eastern Standard Time,
thruska@tir.com
>>writes:
>>
>>> At 03:02 PM 11/17/98 EST, you wrote:
>>>  >In a message dated 11/17/98 1:08:34 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>thruska@tir.
>>> com
>>>  >writes:
>>>  >
>>>  >>
>>>  >>  Ummm...He who is the archiver at ticalc.org doesn't know that the
82
>>has
>>>  >>  assembly capabilities?  He who personally put CrASH, ASH, JASS, and
>>>  >>  OShell-82 shells for the TI-82 says it no longer exists.  This
sounds
>>> like
>>>  >>  hypocrisy to me.  Besides, how did we get an 82 shell in the first
>>place?
>>>
>>>  >>  Someone had to use the TI ROM for research purposes.  So, Bryan
>>>  Rabeler, if
>>>  >>  TI doesn't allow their ROM to be used for research purposes, you
had
>>>  better
>>>  >>  remove every last assembly shell, game, and program from the 82
>>>  directories
>>>  >>  or you are in serious legal trouble.  However, TI can't and won't
>>>  prosecute
>>>  >>  since "programming research" is legal under the copyright law.
>>>  >
>>>  >
>>>  >ti did not support assembly on the ti-82, so it was NOT meant to be
>>>  >programmed, which voids all uses of "programming research" in
>>investigating
>>>  >the rom of the ti-82. in contrast, ti supported assembly on the ti-86,
>so
>>> it
>>>  >was meant to be programmed, justifying the "programming research"
claim.
>>>
>>>  So, according to the paragraph that you have just written, you are
fully
>>>  supporting everything that I have said.  Since "programming research"
is
>>>  void for the investigation of the 82 ROM image, then every last
assembly
>>>  shell, game, and program must be deleted from the TI-82 directories at
>>>  ticalc.org (and other major sites) or they are in serious legal trouble
>>>  since everything can be linked to "programming research" on the 82 ROM.
>>>  Yet, you also give the EXCEPTION that it is perfectly legal to
distribute
>>>  the 86 ROM image since TI supported assembly under the legal umbrella
of
>>>  "programming research."  So, I'm just making sure that you know that
you
>>>  are _FOR_ 86 ROM image distribution and _AGAINST_ 82 ROM distribution
>>>  because of one minor thing:  internal assembly support.  You are saying
>>>  therefore that it is perfectly legal to distribute any TI ROM image
that
>>>  has internal assembly support.  This excludes the TI-85 and TI-82
>>>  calculators only.
>>
>>
>>if you think you've caught me implying something i didn't mean, you're
wrong.
>>that's EXACTLY what i meant.  just like microsoft has to reveal info about
>>windows (even though they don't completely...), ti has to release info
about
>>the TI-86, because they're both programming platforms.
>
>At least we are in agreement on several TI ROM images.  The ROM images that
>have internal assembly support are legal to distribute according to your
>agreement and the copyright law exception of "programming research."  Thank
>you for your support in this issue.
>
>
>                 Thomas J. Hruska -- thruska@tir.com
>Shining Light Productions -- "Meeting the needs of fellow programmers"
>         http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Heights/8504
>                    http://shinelight.home.ml.org