Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!van-bc!cynic!curt From: curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Curt Sampson) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: Mac is software - why not on NeXT? Message-ID: Date: 8 Nov 90 03:57:00 GMT References: <1990Nov7.002438.12949@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> Organization: Mad Artists' Technological Hangout, Vancouver, B.C., Canada Lines: 20 wln@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (William L Nussbaum) writes: > ...but these Apple II clones were "clones" - copies -- not compatibles. PC > clones exist without legal problems because IBM published the BIOS code. Appl > didn't do the same; though I don't remember how Franklin and Laser avoided > problems... Apple *did* publish the source code to both the regular and autostart Apple II(+) ROMS. However, this has nothing to do with the clones. Had a clonemaker copied the ROM code from any publication it would still be an illegal copy. Phoenix reverse engineered the PC's ROM, just as Laser probably reverse engineered the Apple II's autostart ROM. cjs curt@cynic.UUCP | "The unconscious self is the real genius. curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca | Your breathing goes wrong the minute your {uunet|ubc-cs}!van-bc!cynic!curt | conscious self meddles with it." --GBS