On Oct 7,  1:01am, Markus Baeurle wrote:
> Subject: Re: What happened to autobuild?
> Hi Mark,
>
> in message <Pine.NEB.3.96.971003171207.191B-100000@voyager.causality.com>
>           you <mark@causality.com> wrote:
>
> > Basically this was running on borrowed time once I left Kings. The machine
> > that did the builds was then switched off as without me at Kings no one
> > had any use for the machine. As yet I don't have a machine that I can use
> > to do the builds and put them online.
> > We are looking into getting an alternative machine to do the job.
>
> Well all I'd need atm is a current csc.o. Can we arrange some way to get
> hold of it?
>
> > > The background is that I've suped the latest sources and tried to build
> > > a kernel and it seems that a newer csc.o is needed. Btw, what was the
> > > latest state of the dreadful NDA from Cumana?
> >
> > No change and it is not likely to sadly.
>
> Well, the last time I mailed with Mark Gillman (January 97) his statement
> roughly read like this: Well, we're all so busy here at Cumana but as soon
> as I get a quiet five minutes, I'll think about the consequences of
> releasing the information. Please be patient until this happens.
>
> I think it would be a good idea if the kernel team asked them once again
> what the deal with the NDA is. You might want to mention that Duncan
> Ferguson didn't buy Cumana for use with RiscBSD because of the NDA.
>
> As for the alternatives being discussed:
> I remember you saying that csc.c itself isn't affected by the NDA, it's
> just the header file csc.h.
> Now I have a little BASIC programm called ecinfo which I think was posted
> uuencoded on this mailing list some months ago. This looks like it can find
> out pretty much of what is needed to put in this header file.
> You see what I'm getting at?

Do you know whether the output of ecinfo can be used without falling foul of
any anti-reverse-engineering legislation (in any country)?

Cheers

Rob