Date   : Tue, 31 Jan 1995 17:22:12 GMT
From   : wturner@... (William Turner)
Subject: Re: Roms and (C)

> > 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).
> 
> Well, no doubt you are right. However, I thought we were discussing the
> legality of posting or making available the code in question. While it would, 
> according to you, be illegal to _use_ the code, I doubt that it would be 
> illegal to post a patch for the 65Host code, given that it would be a very 
> small part of the original work (i.e. the BBC micro's OS1.2 and BASIC ROMs).

My guess is that it would be illegal to patch (derived works?). However, don't
jump on me for Acorn's decision - I have no say in these matters whatsoever. I'm
just covering my back (I've been hauled over the coals for 'inappropriate'
postings
before & don't want it to happen again :-(

I still haven't managed to get hold of Dave Bell yet though, so I don't know what
the actual situation is at the moment (it may have been different while we
were putting
!65Host on all our machines). So, be patient or only recommend theoretical
courses
of action... :-)
 
> Since the use of all these emulators appears to be illegal anyway, we may as 
> well scrap this mailing list and give up, according to you.

According to me - no. According to Acorn - who can say? (not me, that's for sure)

> I await Acorn's decision with interest.

Ditto & I'll try & influence it if possible (I'm fed up of playing C64 Revs!)
 
> Alan

William