Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!usc!apple!uokmax!slfields From: slfields@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Scott L Fields) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: Mac is software - why not on NeXT? Message-ID: <1990Nov8.183314.8028@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> Date: 8 Nov 90 18:33:14 GMT References: <1990Nov7.002438.12949@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK Lines: 17 In article curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Curt Sampson) writes: >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. Actually, that is not true. Apple published the code to their roms for the apple ][/][+/][e but only for the built in routines and startup. The code for the basic was not included since that belongs to microsoft. {the case may be different for the ][ since as far as I know integer basic was all apples.