[Coco] Microware OS-9 for x86

[Aaron Wolfe]

On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Michael Kerpan <mjkerpan at kerpan.com> wrote:
>
> Given that OS-9 and Nitros-9 are written almost entirely in 6809/6309
> assembler, I think the chances any code reuse are pretty minimal. Any
> free x86 version would have to be a rewrite/clone from the ground up.
> Thus, "Nitros-9 x86" would be in the same boat as Linux or something:
> perfectly legal.
>

Potential issues go beyond the 6809 asm.  Consider the contents of the
help files, the text seen in included programs, even the basic09
language itself.  Then you have the syscalls that form the foundation
of the OS, the module format, etc ,etc  Didn't Gary Kildall sue IBM or
MS over the way DOS used the same system calls as CP/M?

I don't think it's impossible to legally implement "something" that
works a lot like OS9, but you must also consider that modern companies
sue first and ask questions later.  If Radisys was to take issue with
something, even incorrectly, who is going to pay to defend the work?
SCO's case against Linux had no merit, but it surely cost IBM, Novell,
etc a few bucks to prove that.

I would proceed with caution.

> Mike
>
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Aaron Wolfe <aawolfe at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Frank Swygert <farna at att.net> wrote:
> >> I wonder if the Radisys lawyers would have a field day if Nitros-9 was
> >> ported to a PC, with a few enhancements to take advantage of the more
> >> powerful hardware? Would be really nice if it could be made in such a way as
> >> to run CoCo OS-9 code too...
> >>
> >
> > I think Radisys has little interest in what happens on the 6809
> > platform, but they might not like an implementation that runs on x86
> > very much.  Any x86 implementation would have to be very careful not
> > to use any source from the original OS-9, and even then there might be
> > patent issues.
> >
>
> --
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco