|
|
| Re: Jiffydos for the C16 ..?? [message #207600 is a reply to message #207599] |
Thu, 20 January 2011 09:40   |
James @ cbm264
Messages: 419
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Jan 20, 1:50 am, PK <f.ke...@LEVAMIlibero.it> wrote:
> As in topic: does it exist?
A beta did exist in 2006, I have one of the NTSC betas here but it's
not what I would consider "ready for sale". If I remember correctly,
the PAL version had a higher level of compatibility with C16-Plus/4
software.
C16-Plus/4 Jiffydos was developed by Maurice Randall as an extension
of his license with CMD. Therefore, I'm not sure if Jim Brain could
distribute it even if he had it -- it's not completely CMD's for them
to license to Brain Innovations.
-J
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jiffydos for the C16 ..?? [message #207602 is a reply to message #207600] |
Thu, 20 January 2011 10:16 |
James @ cbm264
Messages: 419
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Jan 20, 8:40 am, "James @ cbm264" <doctorduc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> A beta did exist in 2006, I have one of the NTSC betas here but it's
> not what I would consider "ready for sale". If I remember correctly,
> the PAL version had a higher level of compatibility with C16-Plus/4
> software.
Just for completeness: here's a list of bugs I submitted to Maurice in
February 2006. All tests were done with original disks, not .d64s from
the 'net.
Bug #1: @Q gives "Device Not Present" error if disk drive is not on.
So does @F. I haven't gotten around to all the @ commands yet, but
these two should work even if the drive isn't on, as they disable
JiffyDOS or the JiffyDOS function key definitions -- disk drive
shouldn't matter. (Maurice replied: "The 64 and 128 do this as well.
The way the code is written would take a lot of work to eliminate
this. This is generally not a problem since in most cases, a disk
drive is in use and JiffyDOS is a "Disk Operating System". Personally,
I agree though, that CMD should have accounted for these two commands
when a disk drive is not present.")
Bug #2: Key 6 is "LIST"+CHR$(13), contrary to manual (manual states
key 6 should be left arrow, SAVE).
Bug #3: Function key definitions not disabled during program
execution:
10 SCNCLR
20 KEY
30 GETKEYA$
RUN
PRINT A$
.... the JiffyDOS function key definitions are displayed, and pressing
F3 captures an @ in A$. Proper function key disabling should redefine
the function keys to Commodore's default definitions? Manual states on
page 45 under @F: "The JiffyDOS function keys are active only in BASIC
direct mode and are disabled when programs are run...."
Bug #4: C16 program "Leaper" has a multi-part loader like many UK C16
games. (1) A boot file is loaded, which (2) displays a copyright/title
screen as it (3) loads a graphic title screen (some play music), then
(4) the copyright/title screen is displayed again while (5) the actual
game code is loaded. Disk operations occur at steps 1, 2, and 4. The
bug is that the game is corrupted upon final load (at the end of step
5). Either the game doesn't start (hung on copyright screen) or the
graphics are corrupted. (This may go back to the JiffyDOS 255 byte
buffer at the top of memory. A lot of commercial C16 games fool the
Plus/4 into reporting 16K memory (12288 bytes free) even after a soft
reset.)
Bug #5: C16 program "Skyhawk" hangs upon loading its' loader program.
A one-block file shouldn't cause me to hit the reset button after 30
seconds. :(
Bug #6: Pressing F2 ("/", load from directory listing) will error out
with "?File not found error" apprxomately half the time. It may be due
to the 1541 not through spinning down after displaying the directory
with F3 ("@$"). The 1541's red activity light is left solidly on.
OPEN15,8,15;CLOSE15 from direct mode closes whatever file is being
left open. @ is not turning the red light off when this happens
(because there's no disk drive error to report?).
Bug #7: "ACE" from the same page errors out during its' boot process
as well. It dumps me into the MONITOR with a flashing 1541 light and I
can't get out of MONITOR to read the error channel. I have to hit the
RESET button, which clears the 1541. The only way I can load ACE is to
turn off JIffyDOS at both the computer and the drive. This title has a
disk-directory copy protection, one must type LOAD"ACE",8,1 for it to
boot.
Bug #8: I have a customized "Plus/Extra". It hangs during the boot,
after displaying the first screen (insturctions for a Notepad that
comes up by pressing Commodore-Control), before it loads the selection
menu. Error given is "File not found in line 750". About half the
time, I can type GOTO750 and it will finish loading; the other half of
the time, the 1541's light stays on (not flashing) and goes back to
the "File not found in line 750" error. Once again,
OPEN15,8,15;CLOSE15 turns the red light off on the 1541. If you want a
copy of this one I'll email it to you, as the custom one isn't on my
site.
Bug #9: File copy doesn't work right. I've only attempted to copy the
"Action Pack" as referenced in the last message, and the copy won't
run even if I turn off JiffyDOS on both the Plus/4 and the 1541. It
seems that the copy process is corrupting these ML files.
Bug #10: If I put a file on the destination disk before file copying,
then the first file on "Action Pack" disk isn't copied. The filenames
are different.
But for the good news: basic operations with the 1551 (load, save, do
disk directory) seem to be fine. JiffyDOS plays fine with Script/Plus,
the Plus/4's built-in software, LOGO, and Scott Adams' Pirate
Adventure cartridge. Once in a while I still get the "file not found"
error, and once Pirate Adventure claimed an IO error when I saved my
place in the game... so there's still evidence of a problem but I
wasn't able to repeat it this time.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jiffydos for the C16 ..?? [message #207608 is a reply to message #207600] |
Thu, 20 January 2011 23:44 |
Jim Brain
Messages: 962
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 1/20/2011 8:40 AM, James @ cbm264 wrote:
> On Jan 20, 1:50 am, PK<f.ke...@LEVAMIlibero.it> wrote:
>> As in topic: does it exist?
> C16-Plus/4 Jiffydos was developed by Maurice Randall as an extension
> of his license with CMD. Therefore, I'm not sure if Jim Brain could
> distribute it even if he had it -- it's not completely CMD's for them
> to license to Brain Innovations.
The state of the copyright on that port is uncertain, at best. Mark
Fellows (who now owns the rights, as he wrote it originally), noted that
the agreement was created before the rights were signed to him, and he's
not sure if the "ports are copyrighted by CMD" clause was in the contract.
As such, though Mark has copyright over the code, it's unclear of
Maurice *ALSO* has a copyright on the code (his changes, essentially. I
talked to him about licensing the code, but he appeared uninterested in
discussing it.
Mark's only suggestion to me was to re-port the code. THe VIC port,
also done by Maurice, shares the same issue.
I'm waiting for someone who has a passion to see it on those platforms
legally to step up with an offer to re-port the code.
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jiffydos for the C16 ..?? [message #207628 is a reply to message #207623] |
Mon, 24 January 2011 13:40 |
Jim Brain
Messages: 962
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 1/23/2011 6:22 AM, Groepaz wrote:
> Jim Brain wrote:
>> As such, though Mark has copyright over the code, it's unclear of
>> Maurice *ALSO* has a copyright on the code (his changes, essentially. I
>> talked to him about licensing the code, but he appeared uninterested in
>> discussing it.
>>
>> Mark's only suggestion to me was to re-port the code. THe VIC port,
>> also done by Maurice, shares the same issue.
>
> if he (maurice) wasnt an employee of CMD, i dont even see a possibility of
> him not owning the copyright on his code =)
>
It is possible if the port was considered "work for hire", even though
he was not an employee. This is the same reason why consultants often
cannot copyright the code they write, even though they are not
"employees" of the company they are working with. Since the work was
done while CMD owned the copyrights, it could be considered a "work for
hire" if MR called CMD, asking if it was OK to create a port, and CMD
said, "sure, we'll let you keep some of the royalty for each port sold".
The verbalization of a monetary aspect makes it a work for hire (MR
would, in effect, get a royalty payment for each port sold). The lack
of a written contract does not necessarily invalidate any claims, if
both sides entered into the verbal contract in good faith.
However, to be pedantic about the issue, the main issue is whether CMD
had a contractual "right" to any derivative works. If they did, then
Maurice's copyright would not preclude CMD (now Mark Fellows) from
licensing the port.
Obviously, MR's copyright is of limited use, because he cannot
distribute the port without obtaining rights to distribute the original
product it is based on. Still, it can be used to verify aspects of the
port, and any works derived from the derived work might be subject to
his approval.
However, it's a messy state of affairs, which is why most contracts
either stipulate no modification of the product, or they state the
copyright ownership of any derived works explicitly in the contract up
front.
If folks haven't paged out by now, congratulations. IANAL, but I do
know a few things about contract law.
Jim
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jiffydos for the C16 ..?? [message #207647 is a reply to message #207628] |
Mon, 24 January 2011 17:02 |
James @ cbm264
Messages: 419
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Jan 24, 12:40 pm, Jim Brain <br...@jbrain.com> wrote:
> However, to be pedantic about the issue, the main issue is whether CMD
> had a contractual "right" to any derivative works. If they did, then
> Maurice's copyright would not preclude CMD (now Mark Fellows) from
> licensing the port.
>
> Obviously, MR's copyright is of limited use, because he cannot
> distribute the port without obtaining rights to distribute the original
> product it is based on. Still, it can be used to verify aspects of the
> port, and any works derived from the derived work might be subject to
> his approval.
Jim, can you confirm that MR had a time-limited distribution license?
If MR's license was not limited in time, then technically he could
still distribute the versions he ported, simply because he had the
rights at the time he were developed them.
A *derivative* work does not necessarily revert back to the *original*
work's author after a length of time. It really depends on how the
contracts were written, both between Fellows and CMD back in the '80s
and CMD and MR last decade.
It could also hinge on how the "return to Fellows" transaction was
worded. Was Fellows given back what he wrote, or was he given **all**
JiffyDOS rights, to include any CMD-authored derivatives as well as
MR's derivatives? (I'd have to research to know for sure, but
something in the back of my head says that Fellows didn't author some
of the later ROMs that CMD offered to the public.)
And finally, what control does whomever-owns-CBM's-rights-today (grin)
have over all of this? JiffyDOS ROMs revert to CBM (or a disk drive
manufacturer's) code when they're turned off, so half the code in a
JiffyDOS ROM technically belongs to CBM or a drive manufacturer, not
Fellows or CMD.
I really didn't mean to get into all this when I mentioned the beta
ROM.... but since the topic has gone that way, I'm curious as to where
this little piece of silicon fits into the rest of the CBM universe.
-J
PS: This all reminds me of the Clerks movies. Kevin Smith once stated
that a 'Clerks Universe' box set could never happen because, though
Smith owns the rights to the characters and their background stories,
the copyrights were owned by Mirimax for some movies and a different
studio for some of the other movies, and non-Mirimax Weinstein Bros
for "Clerks 2".
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jiffydos for the C16 ..?? [message #207659 is a reply to message #207647] |
Tue, 25 January 2011 00:18 |
Jim Brain
Messages: 962
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 1/24/2011 4:02 PM, James @ cbm264 wrote:
> Jim, can you confirm that MR had a time-limited distribution license?
I'm not at liberty to discuss the particulars, but it has expired.
> A *derivative* work does not necessarily revert back to the *original*
> work's author after a length of time. It really depends on how the
> contracts were written, both between Fellows and CMD back in the '80s
> and CMD and MR last decade.
If I implied this, I did not intend to. All I know is that the
derivative work uses copyrighted code from the original, and those
copyrights were not assigned to the derived work's author. Beyond that,
no one knows.
> It could also hinge on how the "return to Fellows" transaction was
> worded. Was Fellows given back what he wrote, or was he given **all**
> JiffyDOS rights, to include any CMD-authored derivatives as well as
> MR's derivatives? (I'd have to research to know for sure, but
> something in the back of my head says that Fellows didn't author some
> of the later ROMs that CMD offered to the public.)
CMD transferred all rights to CMD 8-bit products to Mark, not just Mark
authored items.
> And finally, what control does whomever-owns-CBM's-rights-today (grin)
> have over all of this? JiffyDOS ROMs revert to CBM (or a disk drive
> manufacturer's) code when they're turned off, so half the code in a
> JiffyDOS ROM technically belongs to CBM or a drive manufacturer, not
> Fellows or CMD.
It does belong to CBM. Think of the lower half of the ROM as an
"archival" copy of the original ROM. (Yes, it's a bit more complicated
than that, but that's the gist of it). That is why, in a previous post,
I noted that one must technically keep their "original" ROM to be
perfectly legitimate (Yes, I stuffed them in a box long forgotten, just
like everyone else, but that is the legal perspective).
> I really didn't mean to get into all this when I mentioned the beta
> ROM.... but since the topic has gone that way, I'm curious as to where
> this little piece of silicon fits into the rest of the CBM universe.
It's not my favorite subject either, but I feel it's a valuable
discussion for a couple of reasons:
1) Even though the system in question is many years old, it's not "old
enough" from a copyright perspective to no longer matter
2) Stuff like JD doesn't just lose it's protection because time passes,
even though people may forget about it, or it may no longer have large
commercial value.
3) This sort of "mess" can easily be created without any intention to do
so. CMD wanted to find a good home for their old product line, MR
wanted to keep it going, MR thought it would be neat to create some new
variants, etc. No one plans for it to fall apart, but it will without
precautions.
4) Truly, this is mostly academic. People know where to get the ROMs if
they want to burn them, postings here won't change that. But, the same
issues occur in other places, there's just more money in those other cases.
5) It was (and is) non trivial to understand all of the nuances in this
case. One would tend to think that legalities for a 64kB 8 bit home
computer could not possibly get this complicated, but they do and they are.
Jim
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jiffydos for the C16 ..?? [message #207706 is a reply to message #207659] |
Fri, 28 January 2011 12:01 |
Clocky
Messages: 1212
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Jim Brain" <brain@jbrain.com> wrote in message
news:ihlmfj$ijp$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 1/24/2011 4:02 PM, James @ cbm264 wrote:
>> Jim, can you confirm that MR had a time-limited distribution license?
> I'm not at liberty to discuss the particulars, but it has expired.
>> A *derivative* work does not necessarily revert back to the *original*
>> work's author after a length of time. It really depends on how the
>> contracts were written, both between Fellows and CMD back in the '80s
>> and CMD and MR last decade.
> If I implied this, I did not intend to. All I know is that the derivative
> work uses copyrighted code from the original, and those copyrights were
> not assigned to the derived work's author. Beyond that, no one knows.
>> It could also hinge on how the "return to Fellows" transaction was
>> worded. Was Fellows given back what he wrote, or was he given **all**
>> JiffyDOS rights, to include any CMD-authored derivatives as well as
>> MR's derivatives? (I'd have to research to know for sure, but
>> something in the back of my head says that Fellows didn't author some
>> of the later ROMs that CMD offered to the public.)
> CMD transferred all rights to CMD 8-bit products to Mark, not just Mark
> authored items.
>> And finally, what control does whomever-owns-CBM's-rights-today (grin)
>> have over all of this? JiffyDOS ROMs revert to CBM (or a disk drive
>> manufacturer's) code when they're turned off, so half the code in a
>> JiffyDOS ROM technically belongs to CBM or a drive manufacturer, not
>> Fellows or CMD.
> It does belong to CBM. Think of the lower half of the ROM as an
> "archival" copy of the original ROM. (Yes, it's a bit more complicated
> than that, but that's the gist of it). That is why, in a previous post, I
> noted that one must technically keep their "original" ROM to be perfectly
> legitimate (Yes, I stuffed them in a box long forgotten, just like
> everyone else, but that is the legal perspective).
>> I really didn't mean to get into all this when I mentioned the beta
>> ROM.... but since the topic has gone that way, I'm curious as to where
>> this little piece of silicon fits into the rest of the CBM universe.
> It's not my favorite subject either, but I feel it's a valuable discussion
> for a couple of reasons:
>
> 1) Even though the system in question is many years old, it's not "old
> enough" from a copyright perspective to no longer matter
> 2) Stuff like JD doesn't just lose it's protection because time passes,
> even though people may forget about it, or it may no longer have large
> commercial value.
> 3) This sort of "mess" can easily be created without any intention to do
> so. CMD wanted to find a good home for their old product line, MR wanted
> to keep it going, MR thought it would be neat to create some new variants,
> etc. No one plans for it to fall apart, but it will without precautions.
> 4) Truly, this is mostly academic. People know where to get the ROMs if
> they want to burn them, postings here won't change that. But, the same
> issues occur in other places, there's just more money in those other
> cases.
> 5) It was (and is) non trivial to understand all of the nuances in this
> case. One would tend to think that legalities for a 64kB 8 bit home
> computer could not possibly get this complicated, but they do and they
> are.
>
> Jim
Well, I guess one way to find out who owns what is to start selling VIC-20
JD ROM's on Ebay ;-)
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
