@Samwel

Quote:

Some parts of OS4 is of course part of the buy back clause.. But I have read posts by Rogue here on AW that states that all parts made by members of the team is their own code and not owned by Hyperion or Amig Inc.

Okay, I know I said I'm through with this subject, but just a couple of more questions and statements. If that code belongs to the coders and cannot be bought back, then from where I sit, that code is no more Amiga OS4 than MorphOS.


Quote:

But don't hold your breath for a release anytime soon. The kernel wasn't started on two months ago so it's safe to assume it still has atleast a year before any commercial release can be made.

I'm not holding my breath for any of it. In fact, OS4 looks just as far away from where I'm sitting.

@Rogue

Quote:

If by "same sources" you mean AmigaOS 4.0 source code, then no you are mistaken. Amiga does not have access to that, meaning that anything that AmigaOS 5.0 could be is a continuation of 3.1, but certainly not 4.0.

No, I mean 3.1, since that is the code that someone was saying Hyperion had.

Quote:

Well if you would like to see an AmigaOS (N+1) as a continuation of AmigaOS N, then no, OS 5 is not AmigaOS, since at most it can be based around AmigaOS 3.1 but not 4.0. Amiga does not have access to OS 4 sources, they cannot have legal access to e.g. ExecSG since that is never covered by any buyback option since it doesn't belong to Hyperion.

I don't understand that logic, because that is what Hyperion did, and they didn't have sources for 3.5 or 3.9, yet we call their product Amiga OS4.0. Don't get me wrong, my thoughts of looking at the future of OS5 is in the capacity of Hyperion and Amiga coming to a settlement on OS4, and moving forward with a common framework for OS5. But I don't see how they can do that if we have a group of coders who wrote code for Hyperion for OS4, but are now refusing to give up the sources.

I would presume that is because they were not paid for their work yet. I hope that all involved in the process get it sorted soon, because this could be the biggest holdup yet to keep OS4 from it's official release. Many of us are not going to sit around here another year or two waiting through yet another legal battle.

Quote:

Besides, and that is to the best of my knowledge (meaning I do not know for certain because I don't know much about legal affairs), the buyback option has not been triggered. Take this with a grain of salt, though, I do not speak for Hyperion and usually don't have a clue about legal stuff.

Thanks, and noted with a pinch of salt.

@polka.

Quote:

Comparing this with the statement that Bill gave, I think it's not too far fetched to assume that one subject of the current dispute between Amiga Inc. and Hyperion is the question wether the buyback option has been triggered or not.

My reading of it would be that Amiga Inc would like to invoke buyback but can't come to terms with Hyperion over price. (Also issues over stuff like ExecSG may be a part of the problem)

It sounded like the cash that has already changed hands was for specific things (such as porting to new hardware) and not intended to trigger buyback. (Although perhaps there was some ambiguity which may also be part of the disputes?)

I think that Amiga Inc must realise that throwing out the progress made as part of OS4 and that this is why they want to buy back the OS and secure the services of the Friedens to work on the kernel.

Judging by how long it's taken to get OS4 done though, I do hope that some sort of continuation to OS4 will be possible whilst OS5 is being worked on, because I think it is going to take longer than they think it will.

@madtrekker

Quote:

It sounded like the cash that has already changed hands was for specific things (such as porting to new hardware) and not intended to trigger buyback. (Although perhaps there was some ambiguity which may also be part of the disputes?)

To me, Bill's statement sounded pretty clear:

Quote:

With regard to the "buyback" that everyone seems to know about, that money was paid and a contract signed by Ben Hermans on April 24th, 2003.

So from the Amiga Inc. standpoint "the money that changed hands" was not for "specific things"such as porting to new hardware, but was intended for the "buyback" of AmigaOS.

Also note that Hyperion have repeatedly stated that porting costs would have to be paid by the hardware company that is interested to have OS4 running on their platform.

Last edited by polka. on 18-Sep-2006 at 12:45 PM.

_________________
This signature is in the middle of a much needed facelift!

@polka.

Oops, you're quite right, I forgot about that bit. However Amiga Inc definitely paid for the port to the IBM hardware, Bill says as much in the next paragraph :

Quote:

We then went further and paid tens of thousands of more dollars to have OS 4 ported to the IBM PowerPC 405 embedded processor and had OS 4 running on the Arctic reference platform.

This was the bit I was remembering.

In that case I guess the dispute is likely over the details of the contract signed back in 2003. Since Hyperion have now been working on the OS for three more years, without being able to sell it in particularly large quantities I imagine their costs are much greater than they could have imagined when they signed the deal back in '03. I'm guessing that the contract said a bit more than you give us the money, we'll give you the OS, or there wouldn't be much to argue about!

@CodeSmith

Quote:

Well, Bill said in the Q&A that OS5 is not going to be Intent-based, and you seem to be implying that it's not going to be Exec/TripOS based either.

Correct, and that's why calling it Amiga OS5, which implies it would be an advancement of AmigaOS 1.x, 2.x, 3.x (and maybe AmigaOS 4.x too, but it doesn't change much if you leave OS4 out), or at least something AmigaOS related at all, is wrong and missleading.
But of course Amiga Inc. owns the name, they can call AmigaDE/Anywhere AmigaOS if they want (which they even did in several press releases) or call something else, but completely unrelated to AmigaOS as well, Amiga OS5, but that doesn't make any of both an AmigaOS.

Read GregS's post, I just don't agree that OS5 is "Amigan" at all. If you make a list of the top 10 most important points what AmigaOS is for you and compare them with another OS like Windows, MacOS, Unix or Amiga Inc.'s OS5 and that other OS doesn't satisfy the majority of your top 10 AmigaOS points, or even none at all, it's not an AmigaOS for me.

There may be nothing wrong with "OS5" itself, just calling it AmigaOS5 is because it's not an AmigaOS.

@Herewegoagain

Quote:

I don't understand that logic, because that is what Hyperion did, and they didn't have sources for 3.5 or 3.9, yet we call their product Amiga OS4.0

Er, wrong.

Hyperion had the sources of OS 3.5, and most of 3.9 by contracting the developers that did it. The only code from 3.9 that was missing was what Haage & Partner did themselves. Everything else is there.

So I think it makes sense.

Quote:

But I don't see how they can do that if we have a group of coders who wrote code for Hyperion for OS4, but are now refusing to give up the sources.

Beg your pardon? Who said that these coders are refusing to give up the sources? I just said that some sources are owned by the respective owners. How do you get to "refuse to give up" from that?

[edit] I removed this sentence since it has been misinterpreted.

Quote:

I would presume that is because they were not paid for their work yet.

And I would presume that presuming doesn't mean anything. Better stick to the facts.

Last edited by Rogue on 19-Sep-2006 at 01:34 PM.

_________________
Seriously, if you want to contact me do not bother sending me a PM here. Write me a mail

@polka.

Quote:

Comparing this with the statement that Bill gave, I think it's not too far fetched to assume that one subject of the current dispute between Amiga Inc. and Hyperion is the question wether the buyback option has been triggered or not.

Whether it is or not shouldn't be debated on a public forum. I am surprised though how eager people are to go for one side or the other without ANY knowledge of facts, all based on assumptions.

_________________
Seriously, if you want to contact me do not bother sending me a PM here. Write me a mail

@Rogue
Quote:

Rogue wrote: I am surprised though how eager people are to go for one side or the other without ANY knowledge of facts, all based on assumptions.

I fully agree with you and I hope that you didn't get the impression that I was taking "sides". I just watch it from the outside with some popcorn and might drop a stupid comment now and then.
The only thing that I heard about OS5 is the idea of a "multiplatform AmigaOS" - and that's what I like (you remember, I am one of those annoying "Please port OS4 to x86"-guys ) - Well, I like it even if McEwen's talk might be nothing but BS...

_________________
This signature is in the middle of a much needed facelift!

@Herewegoagain

Quote:

I would presume that is because they were not paid for their work yet. I hope that all involved in the process get it sorted soon, because this could be the biggest holdup yet to keep OS4 from it's official release.

There no such problems with Hyperion that I'm aware of, but there is no reason why for example I should give unrelated companies like MicroSoft, Apple or Amiga Inc. any permission to use my AmigaOS4 software either, especially not for free

If Amiga Inc. would want it as well they'd have to get a licence too (where possible, for some things it's not), just like Hyperion did. Until now they didn't even ask, but they don't have any OS on which it could be used without rewriting major parts from scratch anyway.

@Rogue

Quote:

Beg your pardon? Who said that these coders are refusing to give up the sources? I just said that some sources are owned by the respective owners. How do you get to "refuse to give up" from that?

ExecSG:

You were contracted to do that for Hyperion, right?

What does Hyperion get out of that deal if it will not own ExecSG at the end?

Will Hyperion basically get something like a license for it?

Or is ExecSG "just" a contribution from your side to AOS4?

You owning ExecSG, does that mean, that you could sell it to anybody you want without any problem, without having to ask anyone?

And you could do that even after your contract work for Hyperion is done and/or AOS4 final is released.

"own":

Does that work even if it's a port + enhancement of corresponding OS component sources belonging to others (AInc, Hyperion) and/or using original sources as documentation/basis for rewrite?

@Rogue

Quote:

Amiga does not have access to OS 4 sources, they cannot have legal access to e.g. ExecSG since that is never covered by any buyback option since it doesn't belong to Hyperion.

Forgive my ignorance on the subject, but who actually owns ExecSG?

Assuming that they don't own it, what would preclude them from buying it or licensing it from the owner?

Thanks in advance for any info on this.

Last edited by elatour on 18-Sep-2006 at 07:41 PM.

_________________
When swimming with sharks, make sure to bring lots of band-aids...

@Rogue
Quote:

Amiga does not have access to OS 4 sources, they cannot have legal access to e.g. ExecSG since that is never covered by any buyback option since it doesn't belong to Hyperion.

This is the part that made no sense when you said it a couple of months ago, and makes even less sense now after McEwen says he has bought back the OS. If Hyperion has updated the OS per the contract with AI and doesnt own the rights to portions of the OS (and ExecSG is obviously part of the OS), they might as well close shop now. If someone pays you to do an OS and you buy it back according to the contract (which specifically says source), and you say sorry it doesnt include the kernal, etc, which seems to be what we are getting from several of the OS 4 developers this is an open and shut case, Hyperion has no chance of winning. Basically the upgrade has 40 owners, each claiming to own a piece of the OS 4 pie which Hyperion has sold back to McEwen per the contract. So Hyperion will lose a court case, be bankrupted and OS4 will never see the light of day or they will settle with AI and McEwen will have OS 4, nothing I've heard from the OS4 developers gives me any belief that there will be another scenario.
-Tig

_________________
We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world.

@everybody wondering whose ExecSG is

Rogue could not have worded it more clearly (after a whole talk about owning *sources*):
Quote:

Rogue wrote: Beg your pardon? Who said that these coders are refusing to give up the sources? I just said that some sources are owned by the respective owners. How do you get to "refuse to give up" from that? FYI, the source code of ExecSG is up for sale.

So, he's saying that Hyperion does not own the sources. It has some sort of access to just the binaries, but does not own the sources (and probably any IP).

edit: forgot to add: of course, AInc cannot buy from Hyperion what Hyperion does not own.

saimo

Last edited by saimo on 19-Sep-2006 at 12:19 AM.
Last edited by saimo on 18-Sep-2006 at 11:27 PM.

_________________
RETREAM - retro dreams for Amiga, Commodore 64 and PC

@joerg

Quote:

But of course Amiga Inc. owns the name, they can call AmigaDE/Anywhere AmigaOS if they want (which they even did in several press releases) or call something else, but completely unrelated to AmigaOS as well, Amiga OS5, but that doesn't make any of both an AmigaOS.

You say that OS5 is AmigaAnywhere, but Bill clearly stated that it is in no way built on Intent:

Quote:

Wayne Hunt -- Bill, there is a lot of concern that "OS5" is "just another add-on to Intent. Bill McEwen : Amiga OS 5 is NOT built on top of Intent and it is not related to Tao. This is 100% Amiga and yes there is a path from OS 4 to OS 5.

Of course, I guess that path from OS4 to OS5 would depend upon the "legal problem" being solved.

@Rogue

Quote:

Hyperion had the sources of OS 3.5, and most of 3.9 by contracting the developers that did it. The only code from 3.9 that was missing was what Haage & Partner did themselves. Everything else is there..

Okay, thanks. I didn't know you had the OS3.5 and 3.9 sources, because it was said repeatedly that H&P had them locked up and refused to hand them over...All this time we've been hearing that OS4 had to be based off of 3.1 sources, so thanks for setting that straight.

Quote:

And I would presume that presuming doesn't mean anything. Better stick to the facts.

Well the facts are that I don't know, that's why I said presume as that indicates that what I am stating is without any facts. I made that presumption because Joerg said the OS4 developers owns their code and not Hyperion. If Hyperion contracted them and they were paid for the work, then the code would belong to Hyperion. You even say that ExecSG doesn't belong to Hyperion.

So if everyone who programmed some part of OS4 is holding their bit of code because "it don't belong to Hyperion" I sure as heck ain't buying a copy of it from Hyperion, because there is no way they can guarantee me continued updates if someone decides to pull out their part of the code and go home. This is all starting to sound familiar, I just hope it don't end like MorphOS did.

@Rogue

Quote:

I am surprised though how eager people are to go for one side or the other without ANY knowledge of facts, all based on assumptions.

I assume you are just using that phrase rhetorically. Surely you aren't really surprised.

-- gary_c

_________________
zukakakina.com - themes.tikiwiki.org

@Herewegoagain

When I replied to Joerg that Bill McEwen had said that OS5 was not Intent based and Joerg himself said that it was not Exec-based either, he agreed with me. Which means that AmigaOS5 is probably going to be Unix-based (it could also be something proprietary, but I refuse to believe that Amiga Inc could be that dumb)

@CodeSmith

I don't think so either, but you never know. I was not assumming it would be Exec based, unless, of course the Friedens accepted the challenge to write the kernel, and then, I assumed that they would follow the heritage of ExecSG. If they wanted to use Linux or something like that, they wouldn't need someone to write a kernel would they?

Oh... my head hurts from trying to think about all of this. Best thing to do is wait til the end of the year and see what shakes out. If it's a shiney penny and a ball of lint, then I'll be looking at calling it a day and just buy a Peg 3, or whatever.

@saimo

Quote:

edit: forgot to add: of course, AInc cannot buy from Hyperion what Hyperion does not own.

..... And even after this silly crap, everyone still wonders WHY Amiga Inc would want to just forget OS4 and write their own to circumvent the nightmare situation cooked up by the apparent -- or I should say alleged -- mis-management done by Hyperion? Hell, if I were in AI's shoes, I'd have done the exact same thing LONG before they did, which would tend to support that AI did try to work things out.

It's very simple. You contract for someone. They own your output. That is -- in absolute non-negotiable fact -- what they are paying you for.

Let me be very clear about something here though before everyone has a stroke or whatever. When I say "Hyperion", the Friedens are excluded from that statement. I'm only talking about Ben, since he's the only name I've ever even heard of in association with Hyperion. That being said, I can't imagine Ben the lawyer contracting for anything without expecting code in return. If he did, then Amiga Inc is, and was absolutely right to "write around them".

Wayne

Last edited by Wayne on 19-Sep-2006 at 06:24 AM.
Last edited by Wayne on 19-Sep-2006 at 06:20 AM.
Last edited by Wayne on 19-Sep-2006 at 06:19 AM.
Last edited by Wayne on 19-Sep-2006 at 06:16 AM.

_________________
//*
Whyzzat.com
The new social network for Amiga Community Refugees
*//