Date   : Tue, 31 Jan 1995 09:45:51 GMT
From   : wturner@... (William Turner)
Subject: Re: Re : Roms and (C) (Mon Jan 30 20:58:50 1995)

> Hi Chris,
> 
> > For those of you who weren't on the list from the start, we've actually 
> > had a similar discussion to this before but nobody decided to release any 
> > code. Check out the newly-formed archives, maybe. Or are they the ones I 
> > haven't sent Mark yet? Oops...
> 
> :-)  yep.  They predate the ones I've archived - but I was about and just
> about remember the discussion we had.
>
> > > > This would not encrypt the files, but make them unavailable for general
> > > > access.  Possibly skirting on illegal though.
> > > 
> > > Aha! But PKZIP does allow for file encryption with a password. So it
could be 
> > > done.
> > 
> > I don't really think this is the point. The thing is, say we were all 
> > writing a program which read AutoCad version 1 files. I mean, AutoCad 1 
> > was superceded donkey's years ago and the chances are a lot of us would 
> > have it already but there is no way you could release the program. It is 
> > still protected by (C), like the BBC ROMs.
> > 
> I agree.  That's the reason I would put them in a protected directory,
> which only people with beebs could access.  I know it's still not a great
> solution, but sure beats making them world readable.  BTW What do you do if
> your beeb bit the dust and you want to run your emulator?  Ask Acorn nicely
> if they wouldn't mind sending you a copy of the roms?

Well, from having a preliminary chat with Developer Support, it would appear that
the BBC ROM code is covered by a licence agreement that they should not be used
outside of the equipment in which they were provided (ie the BBC you bought).
This
obviously makes their use in emulators illegal.
 
> > This is a personal view and I don't know the detailed ins and outs of 
> > copyright, so I could well be wrong. However, it looks pretty sound to 
> > me; BBC ROMs = (C) = no (C)ing.
> Again yes, except people owning a beeb can use the roms.  Before I get

Apparently not (see above)

> excessively worked up again, I should suggest that I have had some
> feedback from Acorn and that we should wait and see what happens with this
> latest request for them to release the roms into the public domain.
>
> I suppose, worst case, people could find someone who has a copy of !65Host
> on their arc, and nick the roms from that.  I could probably write a

Harrrggmmm <clears throat>. 'nicking' the !65Host code is just as bad as pinching
the BBC ROM code....(I think you'll find !65Host is covered by a similar licence-
ie no use of any of it's constituent parts outside of the application).

> program to fix the differences between the !65host and the original roms.
> (!65Host modifies the codes to break out to native arm code so it runs a
> bit quicker).
> 
> On a more serious note :
> 
> William (the nice man from Acorn) suggested that we should elect a

Flattery will get you nowhere :-). BTW I _did_ post to the emu list (at least,
I think I did...)

> chairman for the group to put our case to the appropriate authority in
> Acorn.  William is currently trying to locate that authority for us (as is
> a friend who has a friend in customer services).

Mark - Email me & tell me names....

> I don't mind doing this, but maybe it would sound better if one of the
> gang who has released code/source were nominated.  We should try to get
> our case together - number of people writing code, expected release as
> pd/shareware/commercial, platform etc, just to show Acorn how big a user base
> is involved.
> 
> I don't actually know what would be involved in Acorn releasing the images
> as public domain, presumably they could just declare the images are free
> for distribution, so long as they are kept in their original form.

Without giving too much away (as I am going to continue trying to get to
the bottom of this), there are more complex reasons why Acorn are reluctant
to release the ROM code...

William