Shop OBEX P1 Docs P2 Docs Learn Events
Propeller II, one more step toward copyright infringment? — Parallax Forums

Propeller II, one more step toward copyright infringment?

Oldbitcollector (Jeff)Oldbitcollector (Jeff) Posts: 8,091
edited 2009-09-13 18:50 in General Discussion
Ok: Perhaps this will be considered "off-topic" for the Sandbox thread, but then hey
A lot of sand has been tracked around lately... [noparse]:)[/noparse]

I've been following the story of Apple's removal of the Commodore emulator because
of the fact that BASIC was hidden in it's software. A complete "no-no" either because
Apple is afraid of copyright issues, or because they are concerned that someone will
create a C64 BASIC hack right into the core of the iPhone OS. (Wouldn't that be hoot?)

It's got me thinking about issues of copyright again... As we achieve more with the
current Propeller, and accelerate even faster with more memory and more speed with
the Propeller II, I wonder if issues of copyright are going to come knocking on our
doors? We've scraped the edges of this issue already with new abilities to use
graphics from the PC in our games, or even convert music files to run on the Propeller.
So far we've been able to "fly under the radar", and not making people look at it
has worked so far.

What do you think? Will we be limited to what we can post to the forums because
we are able import Namco sprites into our programs, or music score?
I'm not looking forward to seeing the DMCA start mixing in my microcontroller hobby.

OBC

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
New to the Propeller?

Visit the: The Propeller Pages @ Warranty Void.

Post Edited (Oldbitcollector) : 9/10/2009 6:32:51 PM GMT

Comments

  • Clock LoopClock Loop Posts: 2,069
    edited 2009-09-10 12:32
    Long live the propeller underground.
  • photomankcphotomankc Posts: 943
    edited 2009-09-10 12:48
    Considering picking your nose has been patented and every variation to include each of the fingers is a new 'invention'. I have no doubt some issues may arise if something gets too much attention.
  • Agent420Agent420 Posts: 439
    edited 2009-09-10 13:28
    Provided that Parallax does not themselves provide the software in question, I don't see any problems.· The Apple issue seems rather 'Apple' oriented to me, gawd knows there are a million C64 simulators and emulators;
    Jeri Ellsworth's C64 system-on-a-chip must be the most famous hardware implementation.· I think it is part greed and part Apple keeping a thumb on what happen with their products.

    As far as other emulations here, I'd only worry about it if somebody complains, but I really don't expect too much heat here.

    The irony is that the current Propeller doesn't even provide any kind of IP or code protection ;-)


    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔


    Post Edited (Agent420) : 9/10/2009 1:38:06 PM GMT
  • photomankcphotomankc Posts: 943
    edited 2009-09-10 14:55
    Good point. That's the flip-side of it... the objects are not Parallax code and most of them do not represent pockets deep enough to be interesting suit targets since they are not commercial offerings. Unless of course you started cutting into someone's business in which case your not having deep pockets would work to their advantage. There is always the threat to the hardware of stepping on that "A method of moving electrons between points using a system of wires and chemical compounds" type patent that always seems to lurking around.
  • waltcwaltc Posts: 158
    edited 2009-09-10 15:13
    So some folks can play audio and video files on a Prop, its a non-issue. That can be and been done just about with any processor with enough processing power.

    Also consider that in the FPGA arena, folks have coded 68000, Z80, 8051 and 6502 in VHDL and never got flack from the respective vendors.

    I think what we're seeing here with Apple, is Apple just being Apple.
  • CounterRotatingPropsCounterRotatingProps Posts: 1,132
    edited 2009-09-10 16:19
    OBC

    As Phil once so eloquently put it recently: "Breathe into a paperbag, Man!"

    echoing the others here, I'd say that until a fellow Prophead generates a few hundred thousand dollars in one whack *and* makes this news publically visible, infringments are a non-starter. It costs too much money for anything less than a bigger settlement.

    And if our newly wealthy Prophead does get nibbled on by a hungry lawyer, he or she should have enough $ to properly defend.

    Until then, as Clock Loop says, let our motto be:

    Long Live the Propeller Underground!

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
  • Clock LoopClock Loop Posts: 2,069
    edited 2009-09-10 19:11
    I may have to write a book...

    "Don't start the propeller revolution without me."
  • CounterRotatingPropsCounterRotatingProps Posts: 1,132
    edited 2009-09-10 19:12
    Too late,

    "The revolution is upon us!"

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
  • LeonLeon Posts: 7,620
    edited 2009-09-10 19:37
    waltc said...
    So some folks can play audio and video files on a Prop, its a non-issue. That can be and been done just about with any processor with enough processing power.

    Also consider that in the FPGA arena, folks have coded 68000, Z80, 8051 and 6502 in VHDL and never got flack from the respective vendors.

    I think what we're seeing here with Apple, is Apple just being Apple.

    Advanced RISC Machines jumped very heavily on some students who developed a synthesisable version of the ARM. They had to withdraw it. I downloaded it at the time, but don't have it any more.

    Leon

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
    Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle
  • Clock LoopClock Loop Posts: 2,069
    edited 2009-09-10 21:51
    Leon said...
    some students who developed a synthesisable version of the ARM. They had to withdraw it. I downloaded it at the time, but don't have it any more.
    Leon

    Students and downloaders will be the ones who save the entire human race. (greed only destroys)
  • CounterRotatingPropsCounterRotatingProps Posts: 1,132
    edited 2009-09-10 23:04
    " You say you want a revolution. Well, you know. ... We all want to change your head "

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
  • PJAllenPJAllen Banned Posts: 5,065
    edited 2009-09-10 23:54
    Like the man said, it's not an issue till it goes public.· They aren't out to swat every fly, just the flies with delusions of grandeur.
  • waltcwaltc Posts: 158
    edited 2009-09-11 01:32
    Forgot about that one Leon, but it was expected since the students were essentially reverse engineering a ARM cpu, a chip in wide scale production.

    Though I don't know about students saving anyone by reverse engineering someone else's product. Would you guys like it if one the folks here who has turned the Prop in VHDL code were to release it to the public, thus hurting Parallax?
  • CounterRotatingPropsCounterRotatingProps Posts: 1,132
    edited 2009-09-11 23:12
    From the NOOB stuff I know now about VHDL, doing a prop would probably be possible, but difficult and tedious (hub and multi-cogs!?). Yet, in any case, I'd say that wouldn't hurt Parallax at all because they have way too many loyal customers.

    There's no VHDL code for Excellent Customer Support and Good Faith.

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
  • waltcwaltc Posts: 158
    edited 2009-09-12 23:42
    CRP

    Ok, you're cool with IP theft, I can respect that.
  • localrogerlocalroger Posts: 3,452
    edited 2009-09-13 13:03
    The issue with Apple is not copyright. It's about protecting the uniformity of the user experience across their user base. So it's not about copying or hacking, it's about not allowing any end-user programmability of any kind at all, without Apple's explicit permission. While C64 BASIC probably isn't a threat to their model, if they allowed it they would then be on much shakier ground forbidding more useful end-user dev tools. At the end of the day they want to make sure that if you pick up an iPhone you will be able to use it intuitively no matter what apps are installed on it and that it is as unlikely as possible for you to brick it, get a virus, etc. You can make a lot of valid arguments (the jailbreakers already have) that they're being unreasonable, but that is the argument from their point of view.
  • HollyMinkowskiHollyMinkowski Posts: 1,398
    edited 2009-09-13 18:50
    I think the iphone has an ARM11 cpu.

    We are getting some ARM11 dev boards and I have been looking at the
    data sheets on the Samsung S3C6410 chip that is on the boards. There is a 3D
    accelerator and 256MB of flash/128MB RAM. I think I will try Ubuntu 6.04
    on these things. If the iphone uses this cpu then it would be fun to hack the iphone.
    I may have to start hanging around on iphone hack sites to see what is possible.

    www.samsung.com/global/system/business/semiconductor/product/2008/5/30/785500s3c6410_datasheet_200804.pdf

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    "Where am I? Where am I going? Why am I in a handbasket?"
Sign In or Register to comment.