[A83] Re: DS Thread Extended onto this list
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
[A83] Re: DS Thread Extended onto this list
Why don't you use os 1.14, or a previous version, or create a program
that sets up the calc to recieve an illegall OS, like the one in the 89 and
92+ archieve(www.ticalc.org)? No one needs to no how to do it then, and the
os recievers are leagal.
----- Original Message -----
From: <robvanwijk@gmx.net>
To: <assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2002 4:53 PM
Subject: [A83] Re: DS Thread Extended onto this list
> > " I tried to make a long and complicated story a little shorter. Sorry
> > if I oversimplified matters."
> >
> > I think you, like every other poster in that thread, lack a grasp for
> > what the original email said:
> >
> > v1.15 os is copyrighted by TI. The license to use it does not include
> > any rights to modify or distribute. Making available the routine to
> > "unlock flash" may contribute to infringement by others and would not
> > be viewed on favorably by TI.
> >
> > We trust that now that this has been brought to your attention you
> > will not support or endorse copyright infringement behavior by your
> > members or staff.
> >
> > Where in that statement did he even /mention/ an OS other than v1.15
> > from TI?
>
> He didn't. The problem is that Michael can only distribute his os if he
> tells
> everyone how to load a non-ti os on the calc. This would enable others
> to load anything they like, including illegal stuff, like "modded" version
> of
> ti-os without signature checking, for instance.
>
> > He proceeds then to quote from the forums calc83p saying:
> >
> > I have heard that Michael Vincent is writing his own os for the 83+. I
> > was wondering if this was true because I would like to edit, not
rewrite,
> > the v1.15 os so that i can take out the finance app... Could you,
> > Michael Vincent, help me with this?
> >
> > And Michael responded with:
> >
> > I shall. I'm just waiting until I'm done with my OS, and then it will
> > be released.
>
> With all due respect, this was stupid of Michael. His os-from-scratch is
(if
> we overlook the way how it is put on the calc) perfectly legal, there is
no
> way ti could do anything to stop him. Here he basicly said: "I'll modify
ti
> os
> for you", which *is* illegal.
>
> > SOOOOO... you, like every reader of the email, have grossly expanded old
> > Herb's objections to a "flash unlock" routine to: You can't make a new
> > OS. You must understand that placing a new OS /doesn't require editing
> > the old codebase/.
>
> I *do* get that. (Some other posters on the ds forum didn't.)
>
> > The relevant discussion is because a circumvention of the validation is
> > required (requiring no modified codebase, mind you).
>
> There is a big gap between forging a digital signature, and using a trick
to
> the effect that the signature is never checked (or an incorrect signature
> ignored???). The forging is definitly illegal (US and elsewere). I'm not a
> lawyer, but I'd expect that the circumventing would be illegal too, (in
the
> US) because of the DMCA (and legal in (most) other countries?).
>
> > Also, I would like to apologize: The validation requires 3 bytes, not 2.
>
> Whether it's two bytes or three is irrelevant, there is no way ti could
> copyright that, even if it's 3 bytes.
>
> > --
> > Scott Dial
> > scott@scottdial.com
> > AIM GeekMug : ICQ# 3608935
>
> Rob van Wijk
>
> --
> +++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
> NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
>
>
>
Follow-Ups:
References: