Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!umn-d-ub!umn-cs!thelake!steve
From: steve@thelake.UUCP (Steve Yelvington)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Shareware MAC
Message-ID: <1105890110063264@thelake.UUCP>
Date: 5 Dec 89 07:10:06 GMT
References: <89120107511652@masnet.uucp> <3395@brazos.Rice.edu>
Reply-To: pwcs.StPaul.GOV!stag!thelake!steve
Followup-To: comp.sys.atari.st
Organization: Otter Lake Leisure Society (MN-USA)
Lines: 28
X-Mailer: UUMAIL/Atari ST/TOS 1.0
X-Member-Of: STdNet, the ST Developers' Network
X-Snail-Mail: 1392 Brandlwood, White Bear Lake, MN 55110 USA

In article <3395@brazos.Rice.edu>,
     bro@titan.rice.edu (Douglas Monk) writes ... 

>
>The suggestion was made that instead of using a cartridge, code that works
>like the MAC ROMs but doesn't violate Apple's copyright could be used. This
>is a great idea. No one has done it yet, which is one of the reasons why no
>Apple clones (other than STs :-) exist yet.
>
>It is a technical difficulty, or a legal one? How does Phoenix et al. get
>away with IBM clone ROMs? Licensing? Work-alike?
>

Work-alike.

But there is a big difference between PC-clone ROMs and Macintosh ROMs.
The PC-clone ROM is quite tiny, just a BIOS (Basic Input-Output System)
that allows the rest of MS-DOS to function. Macintosh ROMs provide a much
richer foundation for the portion of the Mac OS that comes on disk.

Recreating the functionality of the Mac ROMs would be quite a technical
achievement. If anyone solves the technical difficulty, though, they had
better be prepared for an ugly legal fight. Apple already has sued Digital
Research over GEM and Microsoft over Windows, and they're not even
Mac-compatible.

-- Steve Yelvington at the (almost frozen enough to skate) lake in Minnesota
   UUCP: ... pwcs.StPaul.GOV!stag!thelake!steve