Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 13th Jan 2015 23:15 UTC
Microsoft

This is the original 1978 source code of Microsoft BASIC for 6502 with all original comments, documentation and easter eggs:

[...]

Given all this, it is safe to assume the file with the Microsoft BASIC for 6502 source originated at Apple, and was given to David Craig together with the other source be published.

Which, coincidentally, makes it quite illegal, since this code is being published without Microsoft's or Bill Gates' permission. Still, a very interesting look at a very crucial bit of code - at least, from an industry perspective.

Order by: Score:
Comment by cb88
by cb88 on Wed 14th Jan 2015 00:11 UTC
cb88
Member since:
2009-04-23

You presume they didn't buy the source outright... rather than licese it for use on thier machines.

It could be the have the right to do whatever they want with it...

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by cb88
by Earl Colby pottinger on Wed 14th Jan 2015 05:07 UTC in reply to "Comment by cb88"
Earl Colby pottinger Member since:
2005-07-06

Does the copyright even hold for this long?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by cb88
by Anachronda on Wed 14th Jan 2015 07:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by cb88"
Anachronda Member since:
2007-04-18

Surely you jest. Steamboat Willie (1928) hasn't fallen out of copyright yet.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by cb88
by nicubunu on Wed 14th Jan 2015 07:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by cb88"
nicubunu Member since:
2014-01-08

copyright for a corporation holds 95 years from the publishing date

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by cb88
by Kochise on Wed 14th Jan 2015 10:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by cb88"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Haven't it been extended by Disney through lobbying to 140 years ? Because Mickey (1928) was short of falling in public domain...

Edited 2015-01-14 10:37 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by cb88
by nicubunu on Wed 14th Jan 2015 10:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by cb88"
nicubunu Member since:
2014-01-08

"95 years from publication or 120 years from creation whichever is shorter (anonymous works, pseudonymous works, or works made for hire, published since 1978." (Wikipedia)
1928 + 95 = 2023 so the next duration extension should be around the corner.

Reply Score: 6

RE[5]: Comment by cb88
by winter skies on Wed 14th Jan 2015 16:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by cb88"
winter skies Member since:
2009-08-21

That's sick.

Reply Score: 3

A misspent youth
by jockm on Wed 14th Jan 2015 05:09 UTC
jockm
Member since:
2012-12-22

I spent part of my misspent youth disassembling AppleSoft basic on the Apple ][; and I can still recognize sections of the source.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by judgen
by judgen on Wed 14th Jan 2015 11:46 UTC
judgen
Member since:
2006-07-12

We should go back to the 28 year patents as it was intended by the founding fathers (extendable by a high court to 36 if really necessary)

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by judgen
by Megol on Wed 14th Jan 2015 16:00 UTC in reply to "Comment by judgen"
Megol Member since:
2011-04-11

We should go back to the 28 year patents as it was intended by the founding fathers (extendable by a high court to 36 if really necessary)


Patents and copyright are two completely separate things.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by judgen
by judgen on Thu 15th Jan 2015 15:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by judgen"
judgen Member since:
2006-07-12

Coyright in the western world was initially 14 years. We should go back to that as well.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by judgen
by james_gnz on Fri 16th Jan 2015 11:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by judgen"
james_gnz Member since:
2006-02-16

Coyright in the western world was initially 14 years. We should go back to that as well.


Simply reducing copyright wouldn't allow the distribution of source code for closed source software (since it was never published). All we'd get out of this would be the right to distribute outdated unpatched binaries. Reducing copyright would, however, allow closed source projects to "embrace and extend" open source projects (since this source code is published).

To allow the distribution of source code, in addition to reducing copyright, the source code would have to be published in the first place, which I think is a reasonable expectation. Modern copyright was originally intended "for the encouragement of learning" (Statute of Anne) or "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts" (USA Constitution), much like patents, and patents require method disclosure in part for this reason. Copyrights didn't need to do this before the advent of software, but I don't think copyright on closed source software does much "for the encouragement of learning" or "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts".

I don't think requiring source disclosure for copyright grant would be practical, partly because the copyright holder isn't always the publisher. e.g. the copyright holder might license libraries for inclusion in software published by others, and it wouldn't make economic sense to void a copyright holder's copyright on a work (or derivatives) because of an act of another party (the publisher), especially since the other party may actually benefit from this. Taxing the publication of software without source would have the intended effect though, I think.

And to avoid closed source projects "embracing and extending" open source projects, I think it would be good for works, at the end of their copyright term, to become CC BY-SA. (GPL isn't practical, because it would forbid the distribution of works for which the source has been lost.)

Reply Score: 2

Illegal?
by signals on Wed 14th Jan 2015 14:21 UTC
signals
Member since:
2005-07-08

If this is illegal, and I'm not saying it isn't, how does a high-profile project like VICE manage to distribute all of the old Commodore (Microsoft) BASICs without incurring the wrath of Microsoft?

http://sourceforge.net/p/vice-emu/code/HEAD/tree/trunk/vice/data/

I can see someone's blog flying under the radar, but VICE? From the bit of Internet research I've done, it appears that you had to provide your own ROMs for VICE at one time, but now you don't. I'm not sure when it changed, or why. Does anybody know what the legality of the ROMS included with VICE is?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Illegal?
by rihno on Wed 14th Jan 2015 15:01 UTC in reply to "Illegal?"
rihno Member since:
2014-12-18

I'm not sure when it changed, or why. Does anybody know what the legality of the ROMS included with VICE is?


The ROM's are illegal. You could say that "nobody cares", but that's not true. In fact, one emu' was removed from Apple AppStore exactly because it included illegal ROMs (Manomio got in some trouble...)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Illegal?
by signals on Wed 14th Jan 2015 15:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Illegal?"
signals Member since:
2005-07-08

In fact, one emu' was removed from Apple AppStore exactly because it included illegal ROMs (Manomio got in some trouble...)


I thought that was because you could get to BASIC from the emulator, which makes the software capable of running code that didn't go through the App Store approval process on an iOS device. Not because of any legal issues with the ROMs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manomio

But, I believe you when you say that it isn't legal. I'm just surprised the VICE is leaving themselves open to this, instead of putting the onus on the end-user to find a copy of the illegal ROMS, as many other emulators do. Especially when they used to do just that. Something has to have changed to make the VICE team comfortable distributing that code...

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Illegal?
by rihno on Wed 14th Jan 2015 16:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Illegal?"
rihno Member since:
2014-12-18

"In fact, one emu' was removed from Apple AppStore exactly because it included illegal ROMs (Manomio got in some trouble...)


I thought that was because you could get to BASIC from the emulator, which makes the software capable of running code that didn't go through the App Store approval process on an iOS device. Not because of any legal issues with the ROMs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manomio

But, I believe you when you say that it isn't legal. I'm just surprised the VICE is leaving themselves open to this, instead of putting the onus on the end-user to find a copy of the illegal ROMS, as many other emulators do. Especially when they used to do just that. Something has to have changed to make the VICE team comfortable distributing that code...
"

The emulation in itself was enough, but the real legal issue was the ROMs, not that it matters. It's clearly illegal.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Illegal?
by jockm on Wed 14th Jan 2015 16:43 UTC in reply to "Illegal?"
jockm Member since:
2012-12-22

IIRC Commodore did a one time buyout for MS Basic. Microsoft was under a support contract for some period of time, but the license never expires. This was not the case with Apple, their deal required the periodic renegotiation of the licence.

At this point I believe most (if not all) of the Commodore IP is owned by creditors, who are unlikely to notice what VICE is doing... if they even realize they hold that IP.

As for the source pointed to in this post, that is a different story. Maybe the person has the right to distribute the source, but they certainly don't say so. MS may well take notice, especially if it gets some traction and starts showing up on larger sites.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Illegal?
by rihno on Wed 14th Jan 2015 16:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Illegal?"
rihno Member since:
2014-12-18

Maybe the person has the right to distribute the source, but they certainly don't say so. MS may well take notice, especially if it gets some traction and starts showing up on larger sites.


Unlikely.

In fact, I expect it to end up here soon: http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/tag/source-code/

You see... if Microsoft were to sue over this, just months after Apple releasing Apple II DOS source to Computer History Museum, it would be really really bad marketing.

Microsoft doesn't even have a history of suing over leaked source code, even for its contemporary software.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Illegal?
by jockm on Wed 14th Jan 2015 17:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Illegal?"
jockm Member since:
2012-12-22

They wouldn't sue, it would be a cease and desist letter which would almost certainly be honored; and I doubt very people would notice

Reply Score: 3

v 1
by Anonymous on Wed 14th Jan 2015 15:17 UTC
comment by ezraz
by ezraz on Wed 14th Jan 2015 21:32 UTC
ezraz
Member since:
2012-06-20

Good old 1978 computer code. Good thing we don't ever need anything more than that, since people can't think any faster than 1978 computer code. Or at least we haven't found a formula for thinking yet. 1978 Computer Code is all you will ever need. Ever. Math says so.


Now replace "1978 Computer Code" with "1978 Audio Codec"
replace "think" with "hear"
replace "faster" with "more"
Ridiculous, right?

Reply Score: 0

RE: comment by ezraz
by signals on Wed 14th Jan 2015 22:54 UTC in reply to "comment by ezraz"
signals Member since:
2005-07-08

Good old 1978 computer code. Good thing we don't ever need anything more than that, since people can't think any faster than 1978 computer code. Or at least we haven't found a formula for thinking yet. 1978 Computer Code is all you will ever need. Ever. Math says so.


Now replace "1978 Computer Code" with "1978 Audio Codec"
replace "think" with "hear"
replace "faster" with "more"
Ridiculous, right?


Hi ezraz! This seems a little off-topic for this thread, but I'll be happy to argue more with you about audio in an appropriate place. I wish OSNews had a private message feature. :-)

But when you get right down to it, all computer code is essentially what was in that article. We've abstracted away most of it with high level languages, but after compiling/JIT/interpreting what comes out looks an awful lot like what Bill Gates did by hand back in the 70's.

Someday we may come up with a machine that doesn't run sequential code as we know it now, and then things will be different. But for the most part the machines of today are just REALLY fast versions of what we had in the '70s. To the machine, the code of the 70's is pretty much the same thing it deals with today.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: comment by ezraz
by ezraz on Thu 15th Jan 2015 16:52 UTC in reply to "RE: comment by ezraz"
ezraz Member since:
2012-06-20

My analogy isn't perfect, I know. And I don't really care at all about 1978 computer code, I'm trying the hijack to my favorite topic of late. I see you want to join in on the fun ;-)

Redbook as a Standard is built on misrepresentation of Nyquist-Shannon science and false assumptions about our equipment's (scopes/mics/ADC/DAC's) abilities to detect sound information as well as the human being, IMHO.

I don't even believe the inventors of the format thought we'd stay at 16/44 (or below) for 30+ years. And nowhere does Nyquist say that he fully understands the capacity of the human auditory system or the perception of music. He died of old age 4 years before redbook, a barely remembered telephone engineer. His name is now cited to explain all things hearing, which is bull.

Redbook is currently propped up by ABX tests that confuse the ear, disorient the listener, and give bad results. They are usually sponsored by those that profit from the confusion such as the DSP industry or the compressed audio industry. The results of ABX or "blind" tests are garbage data and you won't see me citing them.

Most people focus on the main program aka the lead instruments in the recording. That's why we are listening, right? But the entire room, the delays, the timing, the verbs, were all put in a very special way for musical reasons. What most of us hear daily is but a poor misrepresentation of what the masters actually sound like. You go to the room with the artist, you get so much more out of it. This stuff does not show up on waveforms or scopes, it just doesn't. Therefore there is no math for it. Sorry, I love math and science too, but we are still pretty blind to this stuff.

There has been at least 2 attempts to get better quality digital audio to the masses, and they both failed pretty quickly, for pretty obvious reasons such as not being backward compatible or requiring new hardware or licensing issues. I don't see 24bit FLAC facing the same problems because it is a simple open digital file, tagged up just like an mp3.

By 2016 I imagine people will start owning music files again, just a few of their favorites (under 100 albums) and it will be at minimum CD rips, and it won't be MP3 because everyone can stream that from anywhere. Hopefully more people will have DAP's or quality sound cards on their rigs so we can step-by-step bring quality back up for everyone.

If clubs and venues start piping in HD audio, bars and breweries, and cars, maybe enough people hear it that we actually move forward with quality again. here's my precious new audio rig and it's been a very exciting first month of ownership: http://wp.me/a2MP5A-140


Back to topic - my favorite 1978 computer code is Eliza. Or maybe atari basketball.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: comment by ezraz
by signals on Thu 15th Jan 2015 19:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: comment by ezraz"
signals Member since:
2005-07-08

I'm trying the hijack to my favorite topic of late. I see you want to join in on the fun ;-)


Yep, it is fun. But, hijacking this thread is really poor etiquette. This is a discussion for head-fi, audioasylum, or any number of other hifi related forums not OSNews, and certainly not in a 1978 BASIC related comment section.

Reply Score: 3

RE: comment by ezraz
by BluenoseJake on Thu 15th Jan 2015 15:58 UTC in reply to "comment by ezraz"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

You're right, the whole post is ridiculous.

Reply Score: 3

1978 called...
by sb56637 on Fri 16th Jan 2015 05:46 UTC
sb56637
Member since:
2006-05-11

...and they want their [A] back. At least according to the comment in line #2844:

;GET [A] BACK FROM APPLE.

Apparently this is where all the rivalry started. ;-p

Reply Score: 2