Re: A Note to the FAQ Keeper (was Re: Nathan does it again!)

["matthew p. conte" <spam@somebody.else>]

Steve Mentzer <!smentzer@pacbell.net> wrote:
 
> True enough. But Nathan doesn't believe in emulators, because they rub
against 
> his moral fiber. 
> 
> And isn't this whole FAQ debate about what NATHAN believes in anyway?

well, i can see how he could get the impression that they are illegal, due
to the fact that emulators are associated with piracy of ROM images, etc,
mainly in the newer console emulators.  but for someone like me who owns an
apple IIGS, using XGS with a ROM 01 image (which i dumped from my machine
myself) and all the software that i have on disk (remember the "1 backup
copy" spiel on the disk bags?) is perfectly legal.  no apple employees were
held at gunpoint to reveal the secrets of the IWM interface, no one was
blackmailed into giving away the instruction set of the 65c816; the
emulator merely reproduces the functionality of the machine, and it was
written 100% legally.

now, just because nathan proclaims a jihad on emulators because he can't
get his way (i.e. authors won't add .shk support for him), does _not_ make
them illegal.

and anyone who tells you that emulation of the apple II has not increased
interest in the machine needs a 12-point inspection of their cranium.

matt,late.
-- 
   _  _ _______________________ _  _
  [itsbroke.at.ix.dot.netcom.dot.com]   "simple solutions created by black
  broke | XGS-DOS | PC Atari Emulator     and white thinking - too bad the
  \[http://www.netcom.com/~itsbroke]/          world not work that way..."