FUSE - Z80 ROM documentation

[Patrick Barnes]

Paul F. Johnson wrote:

>Hi,
>
>  
>
>>On 9/1/05, Paul F. Johnson <paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Eh? The ROMs are essential for all of the 8 bit machines and the wording
>>>from Amstrad is that as long as you're not selling (which we're not),
>>>then you have their blessing.  
>>>      
>>>
>>That is absolutely not good enough.  At some point in the future...
>>there very well maybe be iso images of Extras that we as a project
>>will be encouraging vendors to sell.. vendors like cheapbytes for
>>example. 
>>    
>>
>
>Fair enough - I can understand that. The question is there though is
>what is being charged for? If it is to cover the media, then there is no
>charge being made for the software. If the cost to also cover cheapbytes
>costs (for example), then again, the software is not being charged for.
>
>  
>
This is far too open to interpretation.  We cannot take the risk.

>There is also precedent on this in that the emulator has been published
>on the Linux Format July cover CD and DVD. The magazine is available
>world wide. There was no charge made for the software.
>
>  
>
The emulator is no longer in question.  The emulator can go into Extras.

>>Not only that but it has to be clear that such 3rd parties or
>>any party who wants to make a fedora based distro can take anything
>>from Extras, rebrand the collection of software and "sell" it via
>>pressed media or binary downloads as is the case for all other
>>projects in Extras.  This isn't a self-serving community, we have to
>>think hard about the potential infringement any derivative work might
>>run afoul of. 
>>    
>>
>
>Again, I can fully understand that. The same point as above though
>applies - are they charging for the software or for the media and their
>costs? Surely also if someone does rebrand and sell and this breaks the
>terms of the package, then it the person who did the alteration who
>breaks the licence and not us. IANAL, but that's how it works in the UK.
>
>  
>
We aren't just watching our own backs.  We want to be sure that others
can repackage and redistribute the software.

>>If people aren't free to make a derivative work that
>>includes these ROM packages and sell that derivative work..then that
>>package has no place in Extras.  And frankly its just not clear to me
>>that the one group posting provides enough legal cover. Let's put it
>>this way.. if they had just said "no commercial use" then the ROMS
>>would not be allowable. Instead they say something much more vague
>>that may or may not be interpreted as "no commercial use."
>>    
>>
>
>The posting was made by one of the "senior" management at Amstrad who
>would have had to have had what he said cleared by a lawyer (I would
>imagine)
>
>  
>
We can't make assumptions.

>The wording is certainly not cut and drive. AIUI
>
>1. Anyone can use the ROMS and alter the ROMS
>2. No-one can charge for the ROMS, but shareware is fine as long as no
>charge is made for the ROMS
>3. You can't use them in anything embedded
>
>Now 1 is easy enough as is 3. 2 is the problem as it is a case of having
>to prove that no-charge is being made for the ROMS
> 
>  
>
The post really doesn't clear anything for us.  2 is the biggest issue,
and 3 is a lesser concern.  We need something solid that allows
unrestricted redistribution.  We don't have it, and, quite frankly, as I
look further into this, it casts greater doubts on the present licensing
of the various ROMs.  Amstrad doesn't hold copyrights or even
redistribution licenses for much of the software, only the core ROMs
necessary to emulate some Spectrum models.  For most of the ROMs, you
would have to get redistribution licenses directly from the current
copyright holders.

>>>It does get a bit fuzzy in that if you're charging, as long as it's not for the ROMS, they're 
>>>cool with it.
>>>      
>>>
>>The wording in the groups posting...is extremely vague here. 
>>    
>>
>
>Yep
>
>  
>
>>Who
>>exactly gets to make the judgement as to whether the cost of a future
>>pressed ISO sent to you in the mail or a future binary download you
>>paid access for includes a value placed on the ROM packages or not?
>>    
>>
>
>Amstrad I would imagine.
>
>  
>
The copyright holders might see things differently.

>>This sounds to me like its open to rather wide interpretation...and
>>that could very well mean a lawsuit if the copyrights change hands
>>again..or if the company management changes.  
>>    
>>
>
>If the copyright changes hands (unlikely as Amstrad are using the
>Spectrum ROMS in embedded technologies in the UK and making a fortune
>out of it!), then the packages would need reviewing, have the licence
>checked and anything else that could be expected. Amstrad is not like a
>normal company. Rather like Donald Trump's company, once you get past a
>certain point in the company, you never leave. Alan Sugar (head honcho
>of Amstrad) has had exactly the same management and legal team (to a
>person) for the past 18 years.
>
>  
>
That's simply not good enough.

>>If i generously
>>interpret what that group posting said..sure it sounds okay..but
>>looking at it from the standpoint of potential legal problems. the one
>>phrase "in any sense, charging" is a big red flag to me.
>>    
>>
>
>Okay, can one of the RH legal eagles check the legalities on this? The
>constant go/no-go is not much fun. We're trying to predict the future
>and every eventuality with nothing but conjecture and the insane legal
>mentality prevalent in the US.
>
>TTFN
>
>Paul
>  
>
You're good to go on the emulator itself, but the ROM situation should
probably be reviewed by Legal.

-- 
Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes
nman64 at n-man.com

www.n-man.com
-- 


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20050901/f551ded0/attachment.sig>