I run Debian unstable, wryly observing that I get nervous if any package on my machines is more than 6 months old.
While I appreciate that some of this code could possibly be re-purposed for embedded systems or micro-controllers with similar memory constraints, it seems these problems have been well solved several times over in the past 38 years. Yes, there's a surprising amount of 65xx development still going on, but again, is this going to fill any gaps that free software doesn't already cover? Note, I'm not saying this isn't interesting - it very much is.
But, at the risk of sounding churlish, is this hubris, or is there some justification for the constraint:
> ... we are pleased to make available the 1978 source
> code of Apple II DOS for non-commercial use.
Emulation and production of expansions & 3rd party replacement parts of older home computers often are in a legal grey area regarding permission to use, distribute, or modify the original IP.
Permission like this is very clarifying and welcome, and has nothing to do with what you run on your Debian box.
Thanks for the reply (I note lots of non-explained downvotes, which are always frustrating in response to an earnest question).
Debian reference was perhaps not useful -- more a comparison for vintage of code in use.
I appreciate that it's a grey area, and I grew up coding 6502 & 6510 assembly on C64, hence the interest in reading through the pdf's provided.
It's more the 'non-commercial usage is okay' caveat for the release. I genuinely don't know if there's a possibility of commercial use, or, beyond that question, why the restriction would be placed (it seems extremely unlikely it's for financial reasons).
While I appreciate that some of this code could possibly be re-purposed for embedded systems or micro-controllers with similar memory constraints, it seems these problems have been well solved several times over in the past 38 years. Yes, there's a surprising amount of 65xx development still going on, but again, is this going to fill any gaps that free software doesn't already cover? Note, I'm not saying this isn't interesting - it very much is.
But, at the risk of sounding churlish, is this hubris, or is there some justification for the constraint: