Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att-cb!att-ih!pacbell!ames!ncar!gatech!mcnc!decvax!mandrill!neoucom!wtm
From: wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Firmware Piracy
Summary: Unavailable IBM BIOS ROM is not the same thing
Message-ID: <1066@neoucom.UUCP>
Date: 30 Mar 88 04:00:54 GMT
References: <1167@percival.UUCP> <18600045@clio>
Organization: Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine
Lines: 27


Replacing a defective BIOS ROM in an IBM PC-1 with a ROM duplicated
from and associates PC-1 is merely changing a part.  The end user
agreement presumably signed as part of the warranty registration
licenses the user to the software therein under nondisclosure,
limited use, etc.  In such a case the person copying and the person
offering the copy of the ROM are probably within the bounds of the
IBM agreement, as each user's software use has not been extended and
nothing has been disclosed to 3rd parties.  This, of course,
presumes that the defective ROM and the one being copied are of the
save REV level.

In the case of going ver 3.x to 4.x on a Telebit, the person
offering the copy would be violating at least nondisclosure clauses
of the user agreement re: the firmware.  As has been stated, 4.x
contains Lev Zimpel compression and uucp spoofing algorithms that
were not part of rev 3.x.  The licensee of 4.x is bound to not
disclose the algorithms therein to 3rd parties.  This means in a
word, "thou shalt not dupe".  (Unless it is for your own archival
purposes)

I wouldn't feel morally offended if you dumped your ROMS to disk or
made backup chips for yourself, but that is being rather obsessive,
isn't it?

Don't be chintzy,
--Bill