oh.. it is currently on exhibit, so getting access internally will be difficult On 1/25/17 8:15 AM, Al Kossow wrote:

Not that we are aware of. It would have saved literally a year in our development because we wouldn?t have had to work out the paging and GC bits the hard way. Do you have any experience dumping the contents of SMD disks? RG has at least two Lambdas in his garage, but conditions are bad and they have been exposed to outside air for who knows how long; it will be another several months before he returns to the east coast. I?m considering a trip out to see if there?s anything salvageable. Hopefully if nothing else the disk contents can be read out. If you can read/write on your disk, we can give you software to run on your machine(s). It uses 1024-byte sectors.

No. :) I presume you?re working on something related to CADR, LMI Lambda, and TI Explorer emulation. Why not do so in the open? -- Chris

I think this is the first time I've seen this claimed. What is the basis for it? That is, what law would be violated by such a thing? Note that I am not talking about _using_ an emulator to run copyrighted code. If that's what you were talking about, then I misunderstood, and I retract my question. /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

That would be jurisdiction-specific, probably to be settled by case law in most jurisdictions. However, there are people (and companies) with legitimate copies of the protected code; an emulator is a useful thing for them (for example, if I had a machine and it broke, I may want to continue running software written for it). I suspect (though it is a non-lawyer's guess) that any such case would hinge on how provable intent-to-infringe was. To pick an analogy, I have been working on a MicroVAX-II emulator. For it to be useful, you need the ROM image from the board. That software is copyrighted - but I own a KA-630 and thus have a legitimate copy of it. (The emulator is nevertheless useful to me, since I lack other hardware to surround the KA-630 with to make a useful system, notably disks.) Consider also MAME. As for a LispM emulator, personally, what I'd like to do (but don't have the resources to do and have other things I'd prefer to put my time into) would be to develop an emulator - with a legitimate copy of the software to test it against - then work on developing an alternative, open, system to run on it. (I've used (Symbolics) Lisp Machines, and, as much as I like them, there are numerous things I would prefer the OS did differently.) /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

However, doesn???t developing the emulator make you an accessory to the violation? Emulators are fully legal to write, maintain and develop in the US and EU. What is illegal is the distribution of copyrighted material. For example, any boot ROM would have to be stripped, software to get the emulator running, etc etc unless a license from the copyright holder has been granted. On the other hand, dumping the ROMS, software, etc legal access to the original. Nobody is going to buy the excuse that my hypothetical lispm emulator has any use other than to infringe on TI/Symbolics/Gigamos/etc???s copyrights. Legal precedent has already decided that emulators are fully legal with the jurisdictions of the EU and USA. And even if they do, I'd still have to show up in court to defend myself, and lawyers don???t work for free. Even if I could get EFF or someone to defend me, I???d still be burning their money, and I???m sure they have better things to spend it on than me. You are never safe from frivolous lawsuites though. Even if you do something that is fully legal, you might stil get sued. Copyright law is stupid in many regards.

On 9 February 2017 at 18:06, geneb <geneb at deltasoft.com> wrote: AIUI -- and IANAL -- this is correct, yes. The issue here is not running the software, it's _owning_ the software. This sometimes ties in to ownership of the vendor's hardware it was intended to run on. Apple is slightly different -- the licence for Mac OS X stipulates that you're only allowed to run it on Apple-branded hardware. This is somewhere between rare and unique, though, and it has recently been relaxed slightly to permit use of hypervisors. But otherwise, so long as you own the software or a licence thereto, you can run it on whatever you want, in most cases. If proprietary firmware or drivers are involved, it's harder still, as the only way to get a licence for them is to own one of the original boxes. That's how it's treated in the emulation scene of old home computers anyway -- often licences there were scant. Do you own at least 1 of the original machine? Did you extract its ROMs or whatever from hardware you possess? And you own original media for the program you wish to run? Then you have met the terms of any normal licence and are in full legal compliance, even if the original hardware and media are in a box in the attic and you're using a umpteen-gigahertz 42-core machine with a terabyte of RAM to actually execute the binaries. Did the author reverse-engineer the original hardware in order to emulate it, or use publicly-available docs? Then the emulator is clean and legit, too. -- Liam Proven ? Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? Google Mail/Talk/Plus: lproven at gmail.com Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven ? Skype/LinkedIn/AIM/Yahoo: liamproven UK: +44 7939-087884 ? ?R/WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal: +420 702 829 053

EULAs have the same value as toilet paper and should be used for the same purpose. Legally, they can and have been enforced. So their value is not nil when it comes to screwing up someone.

I'd love to see more info on when one was successfully enforced on an end-user. Wikipedia is a good start. ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg Microsoft v. Harmony Computers Novell v. Network Trade Center Ariz. Cartridge Remanufacturers Ass'n v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc.

On Fri, 10 Feb 2017, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: On Fri, 10 Feb 2017, geneb wrote: That case upheld the click-through/shrinkwrap adhesion contracts. But, none of the ones listed were an "end-user". Zeidenberg bought a single-user (NOT the commercial user) version of a CD, and made a website selling access to the data. The data in question (phone numbers) was not copyrighted nor copyrightable. The case was about violation of EULA. He had clicked the "I Accept". I assume that the shutdown of Slysoft (ANYDVD) was facilitated by DMCA. I do not expect Hollywood to come after a user for copying a few DVDs to computer drive. They would, instead, go after the suppliers of the tools for doing so, or those with very deep pockets, or unless they were desperate to "make an example", to scare end-users with POSSSIBLE consequences. The cost of a lawsuit is substantial. But, I would hate to rely on being "potentially technically withing the law" nor "not worth the effort" as sole defense. -- Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com

AnyDVD appears to be still available outside Germany... https://www.redfox.bz/purchase.html Dave

On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 11:24:55AM -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: As usual with legal questions, the answer is "it depends". For example, shrink wrap EULAs (where you only get to read the EULA once you have purchased the product) have been declared the equivalent of toilet paper in Germany many years ago. Microsoft was not pleased. ;-) Kind regards, Alex. -- "Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Paul Koning <paulkoning at comcast.net> wrote: Copying that's not covered by fair use or other permissible acts without the permission is a copyright violation. Copyright owners may bar that copying in their license, but that doesn't make those acts unlawful. There's nothing in copyright law about original media being your savior. You are permitted to make copies for backup purposes, and to use those copies if the original copy becomes corrupt, for example. But this statement isn't absolute for newer copyrighted material that's copy protected, which has its own set of bizarre rules. The license to copy (and therefore use) is not tied to any particular thing in the law, so there are many cases that determine what the rules are in the absence of an explicit license, as well as what terms in a license may or may not be enforceable. Speaking in absolutes in the IP field is often unwise. Warner

I started answering Gene with this: Even having a clean official distribution doesn?t automatically grant a license to use it, and I certainly wouldn?t be able to distribute it. Speaking of which, I don?t know what the original license terms were - They may not have been transferrable. They may even have had a specific requirement that only authorized machines can use the software, like Apple?s OS X license. But while I was typing that, Liam?s mail came in, so... See above - I don?t know what the original license terms were. They may have had a clause like this. And there?s the rub, because... Nope. I?ve never even SEEN the machine in real life. Can?t even say this.

I wish I had the opposite problem. This whole hypothetical emulation from hypothetical zilch business is a hypothetical pain in the hypothetical ass. Well, unless I?m missing something, that might make MY use of it legal but it wouldn?t help anyone else.

Yeah, that?s how Meroko was distributed. Someone else had already posted binaries of TI?s stuff though, and I had worked from those. Did you tell them? Did they take it down?

Oh, I meant to include that if someone did happen across a Lambda Lisp distribution tape, that would be extremely helpful. (The ones on Bitsavers are Unix, not Lisp) And if you have a Lambda that you are willing to part with, that would certainly help too. Or even just the console - CHM has two machines but no console. If someone somewhere could assemble a working machine that would make the work go lots faster.

On Feb 9, 2017, at 3:34 AM, Daniel Seagraves <dseagrav at lunar-tokyo.net> wrote: As others have pointed out, this is not the case. Remember that Sony purchased the rights to the Virtual Game Station emulator from Connectix because they lost in court. A reference to the case is on the wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectix_Virtual_Game_Station As near as I?ve been able to find, without hiring lawyers to do more in-depth research, the assets of the former Lisp Machine, Inc. were seized as part of the GigaText affair; do a Google search for GigaText Guy Montpetit for some details. The IP in this case is likely owned by either the government of Canada, Saskatchewan, the United States, or Massachusetts, depending on who did the actual seizing, what entity owned the IP at the time, and whether the seized assets were ever transferred as a result of the case(s). Do you have any pointers to the situation being different? -- Chris

I think also that whatever your decision is, that people should simply respect that. Better be safe than sorry after all.

It's a really cool emulator, too. Works well. *pats G4* -- ------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ -- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com -- Kind of dangerous, but what fun is a safe shredder? -- Mike McFadden -------