Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!helios!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!seismo!uunet!samsung!emory!gatech!purdue!haven!umbc3!gmuvax2!peraino From: peraino@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Bob Peraino) Newsgroups: comp.sys.handhelds Subject: RE: Copying ROMS to RAM Keywords: hp48 Message-ID: <3336@gmuvax2.gmu.edu> Date: 31 Jan 91 22:23:57 GMT Organization: George Mason Univ., Fairfax, Va. Lines: 99 >From: sburke@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Scott Burke) >I have a few thoughts on this beginning thread on ROM copying. In fact, >being a commercial developer with Sparcom, I have thought about it a _lot_. I'm going to play devil's advocate here: >1. You don't need to back up ROM cards. Ever. Therefore code that is > designed to extract a library object from a ROM card is not excusable > as a backup device. I disagree. If I buy software, I don't OWN the software; I am licensed to use it. What if I damage/lose/suffer theft of the application card? Are you telling me I automatically lose the license I paid for? This isn't how most software vending works. The only difference between most software and the applications cards is the media. The courts have already ruled that I have the right to copy my software for archival. So legally, I can copy those ROMS for my own backup purposes if I wish, and I listed three reasons why I might want to do that. >2. Earlier, someone posted and asked for that code because they only wanted > _part_ of the EQLIB card, but not all of it. That, I believe, would be > piracy. Unless of course they own the card, in which case they should > just plug the darn thing in. Even if "they" didn't own the card, it wouldn't be piracy. Technically, it would be 'software creep'. It would only truly be piracy if the copies were being sold. And if "they" owned the card, plugging it in takes a port. I think the original poster meant that he wanted to buy the card, and extract only those pieces he used, so he could save the port. Nothing illegal there. >3. For serious users, the 48SX really is a one-slot machine, because they > must always have a merged 128K or 32K RAM card in one of the ports. This > means that only one commercial ROM card can be used at a time, and that > access to only one set of libraries is provided. All the more reason for the previous paragraph. >4. If libraries are distributed (i.e., sold) as code objects like Donnelly's > Toolkit, which comes on a disk, then they can be downloaded to the 48. > But this eats memory--does anybody out there actually use all his code in > a 32K machine? No, of course not. If you have a 32K machine, you down- > load ... But Donnelly's libraries can be pirated because of this. So what? The possibility of piracy is an accepted fact. He is using a distribution channel that most of the world uses- disks. If EVERYONE put their blasted code on applications cards, NO ONE would buy them, since only two slots are available. >6. If Joe owns two ROM cards, he can pull one out and plug the other one in. > This is simple. There is no need to complain about the 3 seconds taken > to do this if Joe wants to access two different ROM cards, he doesn't > need to extract one of the libraries and put it in RAM. It takes longer than three seconds, and you know it. Especially if like me, you want to be real careful. It potentially can be a real hassle. Besides, what if my application requires TWO 128k cards? Then what do I do? Not buy YOUR software? I'm sure you wouldn't like that. >I really can't come up with a reason other than piracy for the ROM-extraction >code. Reasons above. > I respect the author's desire to break an encryption scheme, and I >believe it is perfectly ok to post the fact that it has been broken. BUT I >must point out (as HP pointed out the author) that posting such code is not >responsible, as there is no need for it. The need is there, as detailed above. Based on the above, I would not call the action "not responsible". >..................................................................Sure, >Sparcom could include software copy protection. We could include hardware >copy protection. And it would be broken. I haven't seen a perfect system yet. > But spending time on such financial protection merely cuts >into the time spent developing intriguing new products for the 48sx. No, it cuts into my wallet, and I won't buy your product. >sburke@jarthur.claremont.edu I started by saying that I was playing devil's advocate. That's because I would not pirate software. On the other hand, I truly believe that I have the right to protect my investment from something as trivial as static discharge. I DO NOT buy software that I cannot personally back up. That doesn't automatically mean I give it away. Hell, if I'm the registered, user, I wouldn't want MY copy floating around. peraino@gmuvax.gmu.edu Systems Analyst Security Administrator (Thought I'd add this so you know I'm serious about software protection).