[NTLK] Last attempt at ROMs for Einstein, I need your help

Tue Aug 29 17:31:42 PDT 2023

I've posted to the CCTalk mailing list -- a large group of 
retro-computing folks -- asking if anyone there might have knowledge of 
the CHM donations process and might be willing to help us.   I'll 
forward any helpful replies here.

d

Marisa Giancarla via NewtonTalk wrote on 30/8/23 05:56:

> I don't know about getting the source to NewtonOS, but as they 
> officially released the classic Mac's ROM files the Newton ROM is not 
> too far of a stretch, I hope...
>
>
> Marisa
>
> On 8/29/23 12:50, Matthias Melcher wrote:
>> Thank you very much, David and Allan, for this great summary of the 
>> issues. My only addition: they probably simply don't care.
>>
>> There are two goals:
>>
>> First goal is getting the permission to make the ROM binary part of 
>> Einstein. It's purely educational in purpose. I doubt that Einstein 
>> would deminish a single sale in any modern product or software.
>>
>> The second goal, getting the source code of NewtonOS, seems 
>> unreachable. The release of the Lisa code is amazing in itself, but 
>> NewtonOS with its HWR may contain binaries where Apple doesn't own or 
>> even have access to the source code. Again, this would be highly 
>> educational, as NewtonOS is a minimal and ingenious 32 bit OS, but it 
>> has not much real life application in the 2023 world of 64 bit 
>> computing. Even with the source code, we could not just recompile the 
>> code and run NewtonOS as an app. We could however find out more about 
>> the hardware that we are emulating in Einstein.
>>
>> Again, I am rambling. Sorry about that.
>>
>> Maybe contacting CHM and figuring out how they did it would be a 
>> great first step?
>>
>>> On 27. Aug 2023, at 23:26, David Arnold <davida at pobox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> In my understanding of such matters, the main roadblock ends up 
>>> being legal: even if there is executive willingness to make 
>>> something available, there is both the cost (time) and practical 
>>> ability to determine whether some software can be made available to 
>>> copy/distribute at no cost.
>>>
>>> Legal folks need to determine to their satisfaction that there’s no 
>>> third-party obligations to be met. The sort of thing that 
>>> immediately springs to mind is the cursive handwriting recognizer 
>>> from Paragraph: Apple potentially had/has a royalty obligation to 
>>> pay a per-copy license fee for it.  Often, the parties to such 
>>> agreements are long since defunct or the ownership of specific 
>>> products is buried under layers of corporate acquisitions: it can be 
>>> impossible to determine who to even pay, even if you know what is 
>>> included in the ROM.
>>>
>>> Such ambiguities are legal timebombs: a lawsuit waiting to happen 
>>> years later when someone desperate for money figures out that they 
>>> own it (maybe), and Apple has been giving it away — jackpot!   Apple 
>>> legal will never sign off on a release with this kind of thing 
>>> unresolved.
>>>
>>> Given the elapsed time, the documentation chaos that likely occurred 
>>> with the Newton Inc spin-off and subsequent reabsorption, and the 
>>> frankly limited upside for Apple even if it were possible to 
>>> identify and sort out all the legalities, I don’t hold much hope 
>>> that such a release would be possible.
>>>
>>> All that said, if someone wants to draft a letter, I’d be happy to 
>>> help with editing and refining the message (and sign it, of course).
>>>
>>> Apologies for the pessimism,
>>
>>
>>> On 28. Aug 2023, at 02:01, Alan Grassia <alan.grassia at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Newton Friends,
>>>
>>> It is an interesting question as to whether or not Apple would 
>>> release the Newton (an eMate) ROMs or the Newton OS source code.
>>>
>>> I was trying to think of and example of Apple releasing the ROMs, 
>>> OS, or application source code to the public.   The one example that 
>>> I came up with was the release of the Lisa OS Software via the 
>>> Computer History Museum (CHM).
>>>
>>> CHM’s Hansen Hsu has a 1/19/2023 curatorial insights blog post on 
>>> the subject at:
>>> https://computerhistory.org/blog/the-lisa-apples-most-influential-failure/ 
>>>
>>>
>>> The Apple Lisa software download page lists the Apple Academic 
>>> License Agreement for Lisa OS Software v3.1 restrictions that one 
>>> may not "redistribute, publish, sublicense, sell, rent or transfer 
>>> the Apple Software.”  The Lisa OS software download page, including 
>>> the agreement, can be found at:
>>> https://info.computerhistory.org/apple-lisa-code
>>>
>>> Back in 2010, CHM, in partnership with Apple, released the MacPaint 
>>> and QuickDraw source code (again, for non-commercial use.)
>>> https://computerhistory.org/blog/macpaint-and-quickdraw-source-code/
>>>
>>> One possible approach to having a request for Newton ROMs or 
>>> software released to the public could be to approach CHM to see if 
>>> they could petition Apple for a release as part of their Art of Code 
>>> program.
>>>
>>> To David’s point, there are likely many sticky legal issues at hand 
>>> that would need review and sign-off.  Maybe a non-commerical use 
>>> license could get around some of them.
>>>
>>> It would be nice getting the source to the Newton ROMs, but it seems 
>>> like we’re still going to have to rely on pulling the software off 
>>> ROM chips from devices we purchased first or second-hand.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Alan Grassia
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> http://newtontalk.net
>> http://twitter.com/newtontalk
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://newtontalk.net
> http://twitter.com/newtontalk