Re: What are the chances of a Replica II project?

[et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Black)]

Matthew Russotto (russotto@grace.speakeasy.net) writes:
> In article <VYGdnRa819gp_FvZnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>But many software licenses (like firmware) are restricted as to the
>>class of hardware they can be used on.  For example, software licensed
> 
> Licensing?  The copy of the firmware in the computer was purchased,
> not licensed.
> 
Licensed as in "OSI bought a license for Microsoft BASIC for their
computers", and maybe specifically mentioning ROM.  OSI may have bought
source code (I don't know), but they did not have the right to sell a
general Microsoft BASIC to the population at large.

We saw the same basic thing with MS-DOS, when Microsoft would sell versions
to specific clone makers as OEM software, and it was technically illegal
for them to sell off the packages to others who weren't buying the hardware
that the company made.

When the Radio Shack Color COmputer III came out twenty years ago it
had some big changes from the previous CoCo.  Apparently Microsoft
was not interested in adapting their BASIC for the new hardware, though
Radio Shack's license was such that they could continue to use it. So
each CoCo III came with the original Microsoft BASIC in ROM, just
like the pervious CoCos, but the ROM was suddenly larger.  Radio
Shack had brought Microware (of OS-9 fame) in, to adapt the BASIC
to the CoCo III.  And what they did was add code to move the ROM
contents to RAM, and then code to patch that BASIC to fit the new
hardware.  The code I disassembled was messy, because they couldn't
start from scratch or even fiddle with the source code.  But
the terms of the license that Radio Shack had with Microsoft apparently
prohibited them from directly altering the BASIC.

  Michael