[Coco] [Color Computer] Re: RAINBOW scans

[James Diffendaffer]

James Diffendaffer wrote:

>> As long as someone brought up software...
>><snip>
>> EDTASM is copyrighted and you aren't supposed to reverse engineer or
>> copy it yet I've seen someone selling patches to it.
>>
>
> The software license for EDTASM is the first page in the EDTASM owner's
> manual. In section IV is a list of what the customer may or may not do.
> There is no mention of reverse engineering. You may copy EDTASM for your
> own use within limits.
>
> Have you seen other limitations stated elsewhere? 

Nope.  As long as you are just distributing a patch you are probably safe.

Now, if you distribute a working patched version... if the company
could show you used their product in yours then that's different. 
Also, "within limits" is kinda broad to be enforced, if that's
actually in the license.

But then you missed the point.

(point now spelled out)

If you (speaking to the group) are going to beat the copyright issue
over someone's head make sure you are consistent and beat everyone
over the head with it instead of picking and choosing who to enforce
it on.  And don't even pretend that your morals are somehow
superior... I don't want to vomit on my keyboard.

Would you guys really like it if I threatened to contact Nintendo
America about a potential unauthorized Donkey Kong clone???
I'll bet they would have a cease and desist out the door by the end of
the day.  They have had several retro sites shut down for piracy.  You
would have real trouble convincing me that a legal license from
corporate headquarters was ever given for that, and it's not like it's
just a similar game.  It copies look, feel, logic, sound... hell... it
IS Donkey Kong.  If ANY of you that have spoken out against
distribution of these old magazines but have a copy of Donkey Kong for
the CoCo3 in your collection I suggest you look up hypocrite in the
dictionary.  Just because the author is giving it away does not mean
it's not a copyright violation.  If he was not granted rights then
it's still a violation.

Do I really need to prove my point by actually contacting Nintendo? 
If I thought it would kill the copyright posturing in this group once
and for all, I would.  Sadly I don't think some of you would get a
clue no matter what, and I don't want to see everyone punished for a
handful of people's so called morality.