They have several types with current limiting resistors but their data sheet provides that information for ordering - so yes they have one that is a drop-in replacement.

I have used a variety of sources for the 6502, 6522 and 6532 USED in this project, as can be seen in the photo.
What is not immediately apparent though, is the 6522 for IC U25 at the top of the board, which is actually a WDC W65C22S6TPG-14.

6532's are indeed getting hard to souce. I relied on Ebay for mine. It appears to work ok, though I am a bit suspicious of the date code and whether this is a genuine Rockwell device.

So, my progress so far...

A SYM running Supermon 1.1, RAE and BASIC.
Address decoding using a 22V10 PLD.
USB interface based around a FTDI FT232BL
Minimalistic file system using a 4D Systems "uDRIVE" SD card module (the small red board mounted just below the DB15 connector)

In regards to making the PCB available, I dont know what the legalities would be in doing this.

Great job! I'm interested in that SD interface for the AIM-65. Glad you got a 6532...did you get it from China? Also, legally IMHO, you designed this so you own it...if you're worried about an infringement suit. On the other hand, disclaim "for your own use only" but put a copyright symbol on it via screening or sticker or scratched on and you should be good to sell them with all your rights reserved. This is not something that is going to raise a big ruckus by any owner's of the SYM-1's rights unless they want to buy it from you and distribute it. The SuperMONITOR code is way past its copyright period IMHO. Good luck!

_________________
x86?  We ain't got no x86.  We don't NEED no stinking x86!

_________________
x86?  We ain't got no x86.  We don't NEED no stinking x86!

Ask Ray Holt directly?
If the board's copyright is actually not his, having his approval would also be a good 'artistic' obligation to seek, and would be assuring if the real copyright can't be resolved.

cjb wrote:

Quote:

In regards to making the PCB available, I dont know what the legalities would be in doing this.

Ask Ray Holt directly?
If the board's copyright is actually not his, having his approval would also be a good 'artistic' obligation to seek, and would be assuring if the real copyright can't be resolved.

You must not have read the preceding posts.

Synertek Systems Corporation and its successors (primarily Honeywell) are the owners of any intellectual rights related to the SYM-1, as stated on the PCB's artwork. Ray Holt was an employee at Synertek when the SYM-1 was developed and would not have had any legal rights to the design.

In both Australia and the USA, a corporation (party limited) is a separate legal entity from any one individual. Back when I owned a steel fabricating shop, I was aware of this distinction, as the business was incorporated. Anything the business produced, patented, trademarked or copyrighted belonged to the business, not its owners. This arrangement is meant to protect future owners and officers of a business from nuisance legal actions by former owners and officers.

As near as anyone can determine, Synertek was acquired by Honeywell sometime in the latter 1980s and its assets were sold off. While it is highly doubtful that Honeywell is going to start infringement action over a piece of 25 year old computer hardware, lawyers can be an obtuse breed.

_________________
x86?  We ain't got no x86.  We don't NEED no stinking x86!

I can read Wikipedia articles too.
However, asking Holt may reveal circumstances that were unknown-- for example, the VIM/SYM designed may have been licenced to Synertek (not uncommon-- Woz attempted to licence the Apple1 to HP), and the clauses of the contract (if he can remember..) could be favorable.
A wild suggestion-- acquiring the rights for the SYM-1 from Honeywell...
(or licensing...)

_________________
x86?  We ain't got no x86.  We don't NEED no stinking x86!

I saw a bumper sticker once (actually, at an electronics swap meet) that said, "Strike a blow for justice. Punch an attorney!"

Q: Why are lawyers burried 20 feet down? A: Because deep down, they're really good. A lawyer told me that one. He also said, "Why do just 98% of the lawyers have to make all the other 2% look bad?"

However, if you don't have any assets to go after, they'll probably leave you alone. You're not worth their time. Still, I'd make the little changes.

_________________
http://WilsonMinesCo.com/ lots of 6502 resources
The "second front page" is http://wilsonminesco.com/links.html .
What's an additional VIA among friends, anyhow?

The Altair kit is an almost exact reproduction of the original Altair, with MITS printed on the boards, and it even uses the original Optima enclosure. I don't know if Grant Stockly has obtained some kind of permission to use the design, he may have but I can't find it on the website. He's been making them since 2007 or so (there was a new batch just some months ago, although that's not mentioned on the site). http://altairkit.com/diffcompare.html
So (nearly) exact reproductions has been done before. There's also an Apple I replica out there somewhere too, and again I don't know the background - although in that latter case it's a fair guess that if Woz gave it thumbs up it would be OK. But IANAL.

-Tor

There's also Mike Willegal's clone of the Apple II rev 0 http://willegal.net/appleii/appleii-first_page.htm... this is even closer to the original than this SYM clone is.

Technically, a derived work will infringe copyright - practically, you care about whether anyone cares or what the consequence might be if someone does. Whatever you make, if it is a derived work then you can't effectively open source it, and others can't derive from it without making the same judgement of risk/benefit.
Cheers
Ed

This is brilliant Andy, will this allow plugging in the NVram devices needed for my DOS to run? That should eliminate instabilities introduced with the wired memory expansions. I'm going to want one of these when they are ready to distribute.