Image Map Image Map
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 49

Thread: DOS code in CP/M? Revisited...

  1. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck(G) View Post
    ...I thought the subject was "DOS code in CP/M", not "CP/M code in DOS"....

    Just saying...
    Yeah I (bleeped) that one. Sorry!!

  2. #12

    Default

    Court case had nothing to do with whether DOS has any stolen CP/M stuff in it.

  3. #13

    Default

    FreeDOS has _nothing_ to do with DR-DOS, Novell DOS, or OpenDOS beyond the fact that it's MS-DOS compatible.

    g.
    Proud owner of 80-0007
    http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.

  4. Default

    CPM-80 preceeded DOS by years. So you won't find DOS code in CPM, but you will find the Digital Research CPM-80 Copyright Notice and Code inside DOS 1.0 since whole sections of code were lifted from CPM-80 illegally when Seattle Computer ported CPM-80 without authorization into the 16-bit Operating System that Seattle licensed to Microsoft to sell to IBM for sale with 8088 based PCs. A friend of mine from back when I worked for Radio Shack showed me the Digital Research Copyright Notice inside of DOS 1.0 that he discovered while he was working inside of DOS. I think he was trying to find the location of the DOS serial number at the time.

    This was the basis of the lawsuit that Seattle filed against Microsoft. Seattle never licensed Microsoft to sell DOS on any other platform/processor besides the IBM PC with 8088 processor. Seattle had a mysterious fire that put them out of the active retail S-100 computer selling business, but the lawsuit lingered on for years, until Microsoft finally settled with Seattle (paying them off, I think it was a token 1 million or 5 million dollars).

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randy McLaughlin View Post
    It went to court, Microsoft was found guilty. There was a fine. There was a settlement.

    The scuttlebutt is it wasn't reversed engineered, it was taken from original sources that were covered in a non-disclosure agreement.

    IBM had contracted with both DRI and M$, DRI was to provide the DOS and M$ the basic.

    As usual in the early computer days DRI was way behind schedule, IBM asked M$ if they could write a DOS. M$ knew 86-DOS was a stolen product but DRI hadn't brought legal action yet. So M$ said they could do it all by buying 86-DOS and selling it as Microsoft DOS.

    IBM found themselves in a legal quagmire and paid the fine and agreed to sell CP/M-86.

    M$ never ported their Gee-Whiz basic (GWBasic) to CP/M-86 and IBM decided to complete their legal requirements by selling CP/M-86 for four times the cost of DOS and no basic to boot.


    Randy


    Microsoft is know for getting access to Code to this day by approaching software companies asking to see the code for software programs and applications, claiming that they are interested in licensing the intellectual property for inclusion in a future Microsoft product or revision. Microsoft signs a non-disclosure agreement in exchange for access for a specific amount of time. When the time period expires, they say "sorry we changed our minds about licensing your product" And go on their merry way. Some time later, when Microsoft unveils a new, the code from the programs or applications that they did not license after being allowed access to the Code shows up in their "new" product. Microsoft has been accused, and convicted of this strategy several times in the past. In many cases causing delay in marketing a product because the product ends up being rewritten, OR some product recalls. This is documented history.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    25,058
    Blog Entries
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MicrocomputerSolutions View Post
    CPM-80 preceeded DOS by years. So you won't find DOS code in CPM, but you will find the Digital Research CPM-80 Copyright Notice and Code inside DOS 1.0 since whole sections of code were lifted from CPM-80 illegally when Seattle Computer ported CPM-80 without authorization into the 16-bit Operating System that Seattle licensed to Microsoft to sell to IBM for sale with 8088 based PCs. A friend of mine from back when I worked for Radio Shack showed me the Digital Research Copyright Notice inside of DOS 1.0 that he discovered while he was working inside of DOS. I think he was trying to find the location of the DOS serial number at the time.

    This was the basis of the lawsuit that Seattle filed against Microsoft. Seattle never licensed Microsoft to sell DOS on any other platform/processor besides the IBM PC with 8088 processor. Seattle had a mysterious fire that put them out of the active retail S-100 computer selling business, but the lawsuit lingered on for years, until Microsoft finally settled with Seattle (paying them off, I think it was a token 1 million or 5 million dollars).
    Gotta call "shenanigans" on this one, sorry.

    You can find 86-DOS 1.0 here There is no mention of Digital Research in it. I've grepped the binaries for every pattern that might match and can't find a single instance. The same for my copy of PCDOS 1.1 and MS-DOS 1.26.

    Further, "reverse engineering" in 1980, as long as it did not plagiarize code directly or rely on trade secrets was completely legitimate in 1980. There was a whole pile of lawsuits during the 1980s as to what constituted software plagiarism, so there's plenty of case law on this. This was all before DMCA.
    Last edited by Chuck(G); July 14th, 2016 at 03:21 PM.

  7. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by geneb View Post
    FreeDOS has _nothing_ to do with DR-DOS, Novell DOS, or OpenDOS beyond the fact that it's MS-DOS compatible.
    ...except for DR-DOS 8.1, which got caught copying some of FreeDOS's utilities without giving it credit as required by the GPL, and was subsequently withdrawn.

    http://www.freedos.org/technotes/press/2005-drdos.txt

    And DR-DOS has always displayed a copyright dating back to 1976, implying that it contains some CP/M code.


  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    3,374
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    There's a whole host of early OSs on this page http://schorn.ch/altair_5.php
    Last edited by Caluser2000; July 14th, 2016 at 06:37 PM.
    Thomas Byers (DRI)- "You'll have a million people using the A> [MS-DOS prompt] forever. You'll have five million using [nongraphic] menu systems such as Topview, Concurrent PC-DOS, Desq, and those types. But there'll be 50 to 100 million using the iconic-based interfaces."

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    25,058
    Blog Entries
    20

    Default

    And, as I posted on cctalk, reverse-engineering CP/M 80 is no great feat--I've done it without resorting to disassembly or proprietary documentation. Heck, it's less than 16KB of code all told. Not even as difficult as reverse-engineering a PC BIOS.

  10. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck(G) View Post
    Gotta call "shenanigans" on this one, sorry.

    You can find 86-DOS 1.0 here There is no mention of Digital Research in it. I've grepped the binaries for every pattern that might match and can't find a single instance. The same for my copy of PCDOS 1.1 and MS-DOS 1.26.

    Further, "reverse engineering" in 1980, as long as it did not plagiarize code directly or rely on trade secrets was completely legitimate in 1980. There was a whole pile of lawsuits during the 1980s as to what constituted software plagiarism, so there's plenty of case law on this. This was all before DMCA.


    It's been over 30 years since I witnessed the display of the Digital Research Copyright Notice inside of DOS 1.0. But it was there. The Demonstration was repeatable at the time, I wrote the steps down and did it myself at home after I was shown how it was done. While I can't demonstrate the Digital Research Copyright Notices in PC DOS 1.0 any longer, I can show a copy of the Digital Research GUI/Windows type OS that was shown to me before Microsoft introduced Windows to the world back in around 1980. Microsoft did not invent GUIs and Windows, despite what they claim. Xerox SPARC created/invented/developed GUIs as used by Microsoft in Windows, and Digital Research had a working GUI in 1980 that they could have marketed (and should have had the right to copyright before Microsoft, if you think Microsoft had the right). It was demonstrated to me on a Compupro running a 68K processor back around 1980. I still have copies on 8" floppy disks.

    I've never used the Seattle 16-bit OS, nor seen anyone try to display the Digital Research Copyright Notice/s in a copy of Seattle's 16-bit (like was shown to me in PC DOS 1.0).

    I believe that Seattle Computer eventually settled with Digital Research, just as Microsoft eventually settled with Seattle Computer. The litigation went on for years past the demise of Gary, and Seattle Computer.

    The code used by Seattle Computer that came from CPM-80 was a direct copy going into Seattle's 16-bit OS. In later years the Principles from Seattle admitted that they simply ported CPM-80 to a 16-bit platform. It was done word for word, and contained mistakes carried from CPM-80.

    Have you tried looking in a copy of PC DOS 1.0 (which is where I was shown the Digital Research Copyright Notice). IBM worked rapidly to redo PC DOS after releasing it, and did eventually eliminate the Digital Research Copyright Notice/s from PC DOS. Why do you think you have version 1.1?
    Last edited by MicrocomputerSolutions; July 14th, 2016 at 05:22 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •