On 05/06/2018 00:48, Jim Brain wrote: > I am convinced the term "overlay" is significant from a legal > perspective, regardless of how you define it. BTW by distributing the original unchanged code as well as the modifications, then the legal definition is a "derivative work". The original copyright holder has the exclusive right to authorise derivative works. CMD thought selling large numbers of JiffyDOS licenses to the clone drive manufactures was a solution to the infringement. They didn't ship 1541 JiffyDOS kits as the clone drives have no switches, the ROMS need to be encoded as some lines are swapped. They must have known that CBM would check. I'd love to know the exact story CBM & CMD spun the court in the 80's, because from what you're saying they changed their tune on the stand. There is no technical reason why JiffyDOS roms had to contain CBM copyright code, it's just cheaper. Although if they lied to the court and said it was the only way, then the court would probably have believed them.Received on 2018-06-05 10:00:04
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.