This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Macintosh, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
All of the information on the page is based on information from the SIMH official site, which was listed in external links. I fail to see how it's "not verified". TimP 18:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Reading the guidelines on verifiability (see link in the "not verified" box) I think the issue might be there under the heading "Self-published sources (online and paper)". The reviewer is probably considering the SIMH home page self-published by Bob Supnik. I've added a few selected links, perhaps that will help.Ferritecore 01:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I think if the guidelines object to "self-published sources", they are talking about if Mr. Supnik himself wrote the Wiki article on SIHM. Reference to the SIMH official site by another party should be allowable; otherwise, we'd never know anything! I agree with TimP, but FerriteCore's added references would not hurt. Cbmira01 01:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Any system with a standard-conforming C implementation should be suitable. The only intended OS dependence is found in optional support for Ethernet peripheral emulation. Phil Budne and I also have graphic device emulation, e.g. VT11, that requires X11 or Windows, but that's not yet part of the official SIMH distribution. Some people have implemented graphic interfaces for control panels with SIMH serving as a behind-the-scenes compute engine, but that's not part of the official SIMH distribution. — DAGwyn 126.96.36.199 (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I want you to pay some attention in the modified MIT License the project uses. It has a limitation of liability and prohibits to advertise only for/with the name of Robert M Supnik. That means that this is, legally speaking, not the same license for any other author. That violates the Open Source Definition in criterion 7 and I'm quite sure it makes it non-free software, as well. It reads like: I'm a contributor, come and sue me. I really wish people would stop to try to be smarter than they are. --Trac3R (talk) 09:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Uhm, how does this differ from, for example, the BSD license? "Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission." -- the same thing. Also, no distribution has any problems with this license, including purist ones like Debian. I'll remove this section.KiloByte (talk) 11:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)