> Since I can think of dozens of other scenarios (CBM put restrictions > on license, CMD noted restrictions to FSD, FSD ignored. That doesn't make sense as FSD already knew they were in litigation with CBM, so any restrictions wouldn't achieve their aim of getting out of litigation. It would be like trying to take out insurance on a car that you stole, to avoid being pulled over by the police. If they are going to ignore the restrictions, they might as well not bother paying to license JiffyDOS. > I think we can all agree that the manufacturer of the drive was not > entirely ethical, so creating shell companies to purchase legit JD to > bypass litigation concerns seems hardly outside their scope. We can agree that they didn't think they needed permission to copy the 1541 rom, whether they were ignorant of the law or ignored the law. When sued they decided to spend money to become legal, but they were prevented from doing so but CMD still got paid. > I posit that the word "overlay" is legally important. Legally it's a derivative work, back in the 80's you could get away with baffling a non technical court. > I further posit that copying the CBM object code into a replacement > ROM was the only practical way to provide a speeder ROM. > It's the cheapest and most convenient way, it would certainly be possible to do it. Even if it required making a new case. I certainly think you could do it. > Without Mark Fellows, Charles Christensen Jr, or Sr., or Doug Cotton > dropping by, I doubt we'll get more clarity. > I agree. It's up to you, but without knowing what the terms of the original license was then if cloanto got upset then you might struggle to prove you were distributing it in good faith. I thought they had a cast iron license to distribute the code copyrighted by CBM, which they transferred to you. But you've put doubt in my mind..Received on 2018-06-07 12:00:04
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.