🚀 go-pugleaf

From elroy!ames!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnewsk!ech Mon Jun 12 12:05:40 PDT 1989
>       The file called "Rom Src (Stuffit)" contains the complete
> assembly language source to both Color QuickDraw and all
> the hardware Equate files for the various Macintoshes ROMs.

From elroy!ames!apple!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucdavis!iris!heberlei Mon Jun 12 11:58:32 PDT 1989
now Associated Press has picked up the story. 

From elroy!ames!lll-winken!arisia!fischer Mon Jun 12 12:04:07 PDT 1989
IMHO this will probably result in much more restricted access to
source code between groups inside the company, a kind of balkanization
if you will.

From elroy!ames!xanth!nic.MR.NET!shamash!nis!sialis!orbit!pnet51!granteri Mon Jun 12 12:04:43 PDT 1989
This kind of activity is quite annoying.  It is rather apparent the Mac and
its interface is popular, X Windows on UNIX, Windows/386 for IBMs,  Amiga
Emulators, Atari Magic Sac, etc.  And now this glut of Macintosh Clone makers.

From elroy!ames!mailrus!ncar!tank!ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu Mon Jun 12 12:05:27 PDT 1989
One thing I think is a bit odd: the pirates say they're doing this to help
people make "legal" copies of the Mac.  Although (as The Analysts are saying)
viewing Mac code might make it easier to clone, I would think that it would
make it immeasureably harder legally: anytime a clone comes along, the
CloneMakers will bear the additional burden of proving that they didn't use any
of the source.

From elroy!usc!bloom-beacon!apple!sun-barr!newstop!pitstop!neff Mon Jun 12 12:06:17 PDT 1989
  It is unlikely that
other companies will use this ROM code if it is stolen in their products for
fear of copyright infringement suits, etc.

From elroy!usc!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!dn5 Mon Jun 12 12:06:54 PDT 1989
I think that this may actually make cloning the Mac Roms and system harder.
Since part of making a legal clone is being able to claim not to have seen
the original source code (to protect in areas where the clone accidentally
duplicated the original), this may make it harder to prove that a given
programmer hasn't seen these sources.  I can't make cloning harder, but it
may make LEGAL cloning more difficult.

From elroy!usc!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!polyslo!dorourke Mon Jun 12 12:07:10 PDT 1989
  2) Why would a "legitimate" clone maker touch this stuff with a 10 foot
     pole.  It seems to me that rather than making it easier for clones,
     this rather public action has probably made it more difficult for clones
     because Apple can claim that their code was *illegally* distributed
     so any clone is now suspect.

From elroy!ames!apple!sun-barr!sun!vygr!mae Mon Jun 12 12:07:24 PDT 1989
I do not condone use of (allegedly) stolen material.

In article <89160.093417DN5@PSUVM> DN5@PSUVM.BITNET writes:
>Following up an article about an organization distributing sources to the
>Mac ROMs and System.
>
>I think that this may actually make cloning the Mac Roms and system harder.

I think a well accepted technique of legally reverse engineering technology
is to have two groups, working in isolation from each other. First group uses 
whatever(legally, of course {:-), it takes to figure out what the X does, 
laser slice the die, disassmble the ROM, etc. This first group then generates 
a *complete* spec, warts and all.

The second group then takes the spec. and generates the code, using only the
spec.

This technique was related to me by someone who had reverse engineered chips
for a living. Claims they found several bugs in some chips, but left them in
the spec. anyways to be compatable. 

Note under this technique, a complete, legally obtained  specification is more 
dangerous to the owner of the technology.

From elroy!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!n8emr!cmhgate!f563.n107.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Ed.Edell Mon Jun 12 12:10:22 PDT 1989
Following is the complete article that appeared in the 
6/9/89 edition of The Wall Street Journal, page B 3 .
_______________________________________________________________________
   
       Mysterious Group Is Pirating Apple's Super-Secret Code
     
              By Roger Lowenstein and G.Pascal Zachary
    
[...]

   John C.Maxwell, a Dillon Read analyst, says he has obtained a copy
of the disk, adding "at this juncture it doesn't seem to be anything
that is threatening to Apple's proprietary secrets. It's more of a
psychological issue. How did someone get to copy this and why are they
doing it?"
_______________________________________________________________________

(End of Excerpts)(End of Excerpts)(End of Excerpts)(End of Excerpts)


Now, let me switch into suspicious mode, put on my deduction cap and
try to give a "What if?" theory that sprang to my mind after reading 
these excerpts from postings from the past few days.
  Let's say that Apple, after hearing many rumors of reverse enginneering
attempts on their ROMs, got their anxiety level way into overdrive and
came up with the following brilliant scheme.  They "leak" an insignificant
part of their ROM source code to chosen targets, with promise of more to
come.  They then alert the medias, (anybody else surprised about how fast
the press got onto this story, and how extensively they've covered such
a benign story with regard to the chinese crisis?).  They have thus
established a sturdy litigation basis for any clones to appear on the
market for the next N years, and reinforced security awareness and
inforcement without any possible recrimination.  (Do I sound paranoid 
enough, yet?)
Now, let me ask a question a la Sherlock Holmes. To whom does the crime
profit?
I predict that the "culprits" (i.e. scapegoats) will either be caught or 
never heard of again, and that that is going to be the last we hear from 
of any source code.

Disclaimer:  This is just a deductive fantasy.  I have no substantive
facts to prove this theory.  I do not endorse stealing of other people's
hard work. (What else can I add here?)

-/{[(<.>)]}\--/{[(<.>)]}\--/{[(<.>)]}\-+-/{[(<.>)]}\--/{[(<.>)]}\--/{[(<.>)]}\-
Remy Sanouillet                        |    E-mail: remy@caltech.BITNET
256-80 Caltech                         |            remy@csvax.caltech.edu
Pasadena, CA 91125                     |            ...seismo!cit-vax!remy