[Coco] Mice and The CoCo, Public Domain Library and 6809 Assembly

[coco at yourdvd.net]

Joel, your suggestions are excellent. As soon as I get moved in I'll
start organizing everything (honestly, when I'm not working, I am at
the PC or one of the CoCo's - the CoCo is much more fun). I was sitting
here fooling with one of my PIC programmers and working on the idea - I
actually like your idea of having it roll over from 0 to 63 and vice
versa, but perhaps it could be switchable - exact emulation, or
rollover).

As for organizing the PD, I wouldn't want to include anything that
hadn't been officially released to the public for distribution, but I
am going to proceed with this - I'll have given something to the
community useful other than my sometimes senseless rants.

All of your suggestions are useful and have given me something to think
about. I'll definitely keep in touch. Also, I wonder, what did Allen do
with all of the Sub-Etha stuff (I would love to get ahold of the 80
column patch he did for the Hitch-Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy).

-robert

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Coco] Mice and The CoCo, Public Domain Library and 6809
> Assembly
> From: Joel Ewy <jcewy at swbell.net>
> Date: Wed, May 02, 2007 11:42 am
> To: CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts <coco at maltedmedia.com>
> 
> coco at yourdvd.net wrote:
> > ... Maybe a
> > PS/2 mouse interface could be devised using a PIC Microcontroller of
> > some sort, and some Digital Potentiometers. This should allow emulation
> > of the Two-Button Color Mouse and allow it to work natively with OS9
> and
> > DECB software. So, my question is, has anyone attempted such a device?
> > It would be nice...
> >
> >   
> Sounds like an interesting idea.  You know of course that the CoCo mouse
> actually has little pots inside that roll with the ball.  When they get
> to the end of the pot's range I guess they just slip until you roll them
> back the other way.  Would you emulate that behavior, having the
> microcontroller remember that it's at the end of its range and stop
> counting pulses until you go back the other way?  Or would you let it
> wrap around.  Would it be desirable to see the mouse pointer zip over to
> the opposite edge of the screen?
> > Second, I was thinking about putting together a CoCo public domain
> > library. I know it isn't necessary because anything you want can
> > probably be found in the half-a-zillion .dsk images across the net. 
> But I think it is valuable to do just what you suggest.  First,
> copyright does still mean something.  Technically, all those scattered
> .dsk images are illegal, unless the authors have given permission.  I
> know nobody's getting sued over CoCo games these days, but I would still
> rather know whether what I'm giving or receiving is legit or not, so I
> can destroy the evidence when the FBI comes knoc... er.  What I meant to
> say is that it is important to pay some heed to copyright concerns, and
> if nothing else, it would be a shame for files that are shared with
> permission, or are freeware or PD to be deleted by an overzealous file
> host who received a complaint and needed to clean up, but couldn't take
> the time to differentiate the legit from the warez.
> 
> And, as you mention, there are half-a-zillion .dsk images out there.
> > The
> > only motivation I would have for this is to have a SORTED & Documented
> > Library to save time in looking for specific files, etc.
> Yes.  Can't we make all these dang computers do something useful for us
> for a change?
> >  I thought of a
> > catalog numbering series such as CC1xxxx, CC2xxxx, CC3xxxx, where CC1
> > would indicate that the software on this disk is only compatible with
> > CoCo 1 & 2, CC2 indicates the software is compatible with CoCo 1,2 and
> > 3 and CC3 would indicate CoCo 3 only. The xxxx would be something like
> > gr00, ga02, etc. indicating graphics disk 00 or games disk 02, etc.
> > This would be a very time consuming task, but since my new residence is
> > almost complete and my current (run down residence - read that broken
> > down trailer) will become my coco lab, I am going to work on all the
> > ideas for the CoCo that have been stewing in my mind. Of course, the
> > library would be free .dsk image downloads. I am going to purchase some
> > bandwidth to set it all up on my servers. It'll be cool :-)
> >
> >   
> I love your idea.  A humble suggestion:  As you say, this could be a lot
> of work.  Make it into a Wiki so the rest of us can help on an "as we
> get the urge" basis.  Allen Huffman's Wiki at coco25.com is very nice
> for this kind of thing, and I'm sure he'd be positively enthusiastic
> about giving you an account.  I've already posted a list of files that
> were in the dearly departed Delphi file archive there, with the
> intention of eventually cross-referencing that with the extant archives
> at rtsi.com and maltedmedia.com so we can clearly and easily see what is
> still around and what has been lost to history, or is simply lurking on
> people's hard disks and floppies, waiting to see the light of day again
> and be made newly available to all. 
> 
> Perhaps in addition to a good naming scheme, you could devise a simple
> text file to be included, either on the .dsk image itself, or (perhaps
> preferably) alongside the image in an archive file.  This would give
> some basic license information, such as: 
> 
> 1. (PD) Public Domain -- The author disavows any copyright or control
> over how this work is used or distributed.  Period.  Free-for-all.
> 2. (OS) Open Source -- The author retains copyright, but includes source
> code, and a license allowing free redistribution and use that conforms
> to the Open Source definition @ opensource.org.  Probably not too common
> for CoCo stuff, but there are GPL programs ported to the MM/1, and I'd
> probably be inclined to release any new CoCo software I might do under
> an Open Source compliant license, so there may be some in the future.
> 3. (FS) Freeware + Source -- The author retains copyright, but expressly
> permits free distribution and use.  Source is included, and might
> possibly be usable in other projects, but a modern, Open
> Source-conforming license is not included.  (Most CoCo and OS-9 software
> was written before these concepts were really well established.  I've
> got a lot of MM/1 source code that is like this.  I assume the author
> wouldn't have included source if he or she didn't want it to be reused
> in some way by somebody, but I couldn't (e.g.) combine it with GPL
> source without getting permission from the original author to re-release
> it under the GPL.  This is the case with a project I'm working on right
> now, so it is a real issue.)
> 4. (FW) Freeware -- The author retains some rights, but expressly
> permits free distribution and use.  (This may include previous
> commercial software for which permission to redistribute has been
> granted.  It would be preferable if a copy of such permission could be
> included).
> 5. (SW) Shareware -- The author retains all copyright, but expressly
> permits free distribution for marketing purposes.  Limited free trial
> use is acceptable, but payment is expected for continued use.
> 6. (OW) Orphaned Shareware -- As above, but authors can no longer be
> reached, or are not accepting new orders, but refuse to change the
> licensing terms.
> 7. (CS) Commercial Software -- All rights reserved, and no permission
> given.  Maybe the original authors can't be located, and we presume that
> they won't mind.
> 9. (??) Unknown Licensing Status -- Back in the day, people weren't all
> that savvy when it came to understanding copyright law.  You get a lot
> of things like this:  "Copyright 1989 Me, Myself, & I Studios.  I hereby
> place this in the Public Domain, but you can't charge money for it, or
> disassemble it, or use it if you work for the Government or Microsoft. 
> And send me a bananna."  What???  If it's in the Public Domain, you
> disavow your copyright.  If you disavow your copyright you can't
> stipulate what the user can do with the program, or what they have to
> send you.  Period.  In instances such as this, we have to assume that
> the author actually wanted to retain his or her copyright and distribute
> the software as a kind of fruit-based shareware, with additional
> licensing restrictions.  Other examples of the (??) tag would be things
> that have no author, no license, but which have for the past 2-3
> decades, been distributed along with other things that are properly
> redistributable.  If something really is in the Public Domain, somebody
> should have expressly written something up saying so.  Copyright is by
> default.  But if you don't put your name on it, and you post it online,
> how are you going to convince us that you own it?  Maybe some of this
> stuff will just be assumed to be (PD), but in some instances, there
> might be some question.
> 
> So maybe these tags could be added to the file names.  Or they might
> just be directories in which to categorize disk images.  What do you
> think?
> 
> JCE
> 
> 
> --
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco