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

[Joel Ewy]

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