[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Fuzzball27

Thankfully, I have found a place where I can get these source files, but I'm not sure if it is a legal for me to acquire them?

Be sure this is actually the right version for your needs. You don't want to be in a situation where you're mixing files not intended to work together (for example, the declarations might not match the latest FRC version). DLL Hell is an example of this in practice.

Originally Posted by Fuzzball27

The main reason for my concern is the copyright declaration: "Copyright 1984-1994 Wind River Systems, Inc." At the top of these source files.

Does anyone know wether it is legal for me to get these files?

Are these files open to the public? Is the copyright expired or even relevant in my case since I am a member of FIRST?

In the U.S., essentially every creative work is copyrighted immediately upon creation, irrespective of registration. The term of copyright in the U.S. is damned near forever, for human purposes—the youngest creator's life + 70 years. (Or the lesser of 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, for works of corporate authorship.)

However, the fact that something is copyrighted is no bar to there also being a licence or other right that permits you to use it. (Fair use and fair dealing, for example. Other examples include the FIRST BSD license cited by Jon.)

Originally Posted by runneals

Well copyright is for 10 years... Beyond that, I'm not much help... Sorry.

It is not. Check Wikipedia for an extensive list of copyright terms.

Aside:

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and offer no legal advice.

It's kind of a fiction that you need to include this kind of statement.

Lawyers (like engineers) are professionals who you might reasonably rely upon to give expert advice. And courts in some jurisdictions have held that you don't necessarily need a contractual relationship with those professionals to create an obligation to provide correct advice. But in all likelihood, you have to know (or possibly believe) that they're such a professional, and that they're providing you professional services, before that obligation kicks in.¹

Non-professionals have no such duty of care: they're just random people on the Internet. And they're not illegally practicing law by stating their opinions, because they're not creating the impression that they are professionals.

¹ I suppose there could be a jurisdiction where lawyers have an absolute mandate to only provide correct advice, even when there's no substantial evidence that they are a lawyer (rather than some guy who plays one on TV). That would be stupid.