So from here: https://www.ibm.com/legal/dmca
I wrote to: [email protected] to ask them the below. But I got a reply of: Address not found Your message wasn't delivered to [email protected] because the address couldn't be found or is unable to receive email. The response from the remote server was: 550 5.1.1 User Unknown I'm currently in Ligao, Albay, Philippines. I'm reluctant to try to phone my "local" IBM branch to try to explain the situation. Oh well ... Hi IBM legal team. Sometime around 1977, IBM released DOS/VS R34. I believe this entire platform is considered to be public domain, or at a minimum it was freeware. I recently discovered that when a DOS/VS executable that does I/O is linked, the following modules are automatically linked in to the executable itself: IJJFCBZD IJGUIZZZ IJGUOZZZ I'm only interested in the object code, not the source code - but as I noted - I believe even the source code is considered to be public domain. (Note that I was also able to separately punch the object code using RSERV). Given that these modules - in object form - originate from IBM source code, these are considered to be part of the "runtime library" (even for assembler programs). In modern times, companies like Microsoft still claim copyright over their runtime libraries, but they are normally much bigger. Either way, they spell out what you can do with their runtime library that is linked in to a customer's executable. The (relevant) IBM runtime library is extremely small, perhaps 2000 bytes of machine code (I can try to get a more accurate byte count if you think it is relevant). However, at the machine code level, even 2000 bytes is not "trivial", except for the man who doesn't have to write it himself. I have used a disassembler to convert the object code into (generated) source, to simplify the external ("pdld" on the PC) link procedure, and I am currently trying to see if I can get that to work. (the disassembler I used didn't do a perfect job). Note - I used disasm.zip from here: http://csg.uwaterloo.ca/sdtp/watcutil/index.html and ran it on my Windows 2000 system. (DOS/VS isn't the only ancient system I use) Note that other environments like MVS, CMS, MUSIC/SP and MTS do not link in any runtime library like DOS/VS is doing. In the short/medium term, I would like to include this disassembled code in my own assembler code (which is hand-written and explicitly public domain). And the code would basically be unchanged for now, although I might improve it over time for readability. In the long term, I want to focus on the actual SVCs that this (and other) code invokes, and I have my own OS (PDOS-generic) that will be done in such a way that C applications "directly", but conditionally (the other condition would use a callback instead, thus not require a real SVC or associated privilege) call the raw SVC, so that I can eliminate this complicated assembler. Something like int86x() on MSDOS, if you're familiar with that. In order to eliminate this 2000 bytes (estimate) machine code (now disassembled assembler code), I will need to decipher what it does (non-trivial for the man who has to do it himself). You could potentially call this reverse-engineering. But since the original source code is available (I believe), I don't really need to reverse engineer it. (Note that I am NOT saying that I am not allowed to reverse engineer this code - regardless of whether it is necessary or not. I'm just pointing out that you MAY wish to use that term and it MAY (or may not) be technically correct). I'm just doing it to keep away from the original IBM source code, and focus on the object code/machine code. But I don't want IBM to accuse me of stealing 2000 bytes or whatever of their IP, and jeopardize 30+ years of effort writing PDOS/PDPCLIB (see pdos.org), which is tens of thousands of lines of C source code (mostly). Could you please tell me what your position is on this code that is being linked in to presumably almost all DOS/VS executables since the 1970s? Presumably you're not going to claim copyright over other people's executables for the last 50+ years. Or perhaps 21st Century Software who distribute VSEn would be the ones who would attempt to assert copyright? But I'd rather not be the one that is singled out, to test some obscure theory of the law, to which I have no answer to, and some judge won't have any clue whatsoever about it, and will presumably rule in IBM's favor because IBM lawyers sound professional, while I don't. Plus the fact that it is undisputed that IBM wrote the actual (freeware back then) code. So I'd like to know where I (and technically thousands upon thousands of other DOS/VS to VSEn executables written by non-IBM people) stand. Thanks. Paul. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
