Reverse Engineering

Anything QL Software or Programming Related.
User avatar
Pr0f
QL Wafer Drive
Posts: 1298
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:54 am

Re: Reverse Engineering

Post by Pr0f »

I remember the first IBM PC manual had a complete listing for the BIOS, so they were not too concerned

I had a look at the 2 spectrum rom disassembly books - seems the shadow rom was done with permission - not sure about the Dr Logan book for the main ROM, but there is the usual copyright notices about the ROM contents...


User avatar
tofro
Font of All Knowledge
Posts: 2685
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:53 pm
Location: SW Germany

Re: Reverse Engineering

Post by tofro »

Pr0f wrote:I remember the first IBM PC manual had a complete listing for the BIOS, so they were not too concerned

I had a look at the 2 spectrum rom disassembly books - seems the shadow rom was done with permission - not sure about the Dr Logan book for the main ROM, but there is the usual copyright notices about the ROM contents...
IBM publishing the source code on paper was actally more a legal precaution than a sign of no concern. At that time software copyright was not very well established, so IBM lawyers went along the line of "let's publish on paper, then copyright for printed works can be applied". You could argue the IBM BIOS was "literature" ;)

Tobias


ʎɐqǝ ɯoɹɟ ǝq oʇ ƃuᴉoƃ ʇou sᴉ pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ʇxǝu ʎɯ 'ɹɐǝp ɥO
User avatar
Pr0f
QL Wafer Drive
Posts: 1298
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:54 am

Re: Reverse Engineering

Post by Pr0f »

It was a fascinaing read - how different the world would be now if IBM had gone with the Motorolla processor's as was their intention originally...


User avatar
Artificer
Brittle Membrane
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 8:43 am

Re: Reverse Engineering

Post by Artificer »

Decompiling program code that you own to see how it works is not illegal.

So decompiling CPORT and CFIX should be OK as would be patching or amending them for ones own use.

But it could be challenged if the decompiled code was passed off as your own, or snippets of decompiled code were used to enhance other products without recognition and agreement or possibly even just distributed.

There have been a few disputes like this previously between some big name software producers.

For a commercially unsupported retro computer system it is probably unlikely that anyone who owned the copyright would challenge activities of a hobby group unless there was a significant new commercial value to it or they were really mean and had very deep pockets.

Cheers


User avatar
XorA
Site Admin
Posts: 1358
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:31 am
Location: Shotts, North Lanarkshire, Scotland, UK

Re: Reverse Engineering

Post by XorA »

Artificer wrote: For a commercially unsupported retro computer system it is probably unlikely that anyone who owned the copyright would challenge activities of a hobby group unless there was a significant new commercial value to it or they were really mean and had very deep pockets.
And it would put us in touch with the copyright holders :-D


stevepoole
Super Gold Card
Posts: 712
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 2:03 pm

Re: Reverse Engineering

Post by stevepoole »

Hi,
What about reverse engineering the QL itself ?

I seem to recall that the rights belonged to Alan Sugar Trading ?

And that QL Tinkering was allowed ... on the hardware.

But any other reverse engineeering is of course subject to such permission having been obtained.


Steve Poole.


User avatar
Artificer
Brittle Membrane
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 8:43 am

Re: Reverse Engineering

Post by Artificer »

Steve Poole wrote
I seem to recall that the rights belonged to Alan Sugar Trading ?
I think that Amstrad, who had the rights, were sold to BSkyB (Sky UK) around 2007 so it might be Sky who now possess the rights to QDOS and the Sinclair hardware.

Cheers


RWAP
RWAP Master
Posts: 2834
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 4:51 pm
Location: Stone, United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Reverse Engineering

Post by RWAP »

Artificer wrote:
Steve Poole wrote
I seem to recall that the rights belonged to Alan Sugar Trading ?
I think that Amstrad, who had the rights, were sold to BSkyB (Sky UK) around 2007 so it might be Sky who now possess the rights to QDOS and the Sinclair hardware.

Cheers
The design rights to the SInclair hardware expired many years ago... (10 years for an unregistered design, 25 years for a registered design, subject to being re-registered every 5 years)

The rights to QDOS are based on copyright law - permission was granted some years ago for the non-US rights to QDOS, and Paul Holmgren provided rights for the US ROMs (I seem to recall) a few years ago. Not sure whether these rights were granted on a restricted use basis or not but there are plenty of old JM ROM sets in my store room if anyone needs them !!


Post Reply