@tboeckel
Quote:

I am no lawyer and I cannot tell exactly how many changes to a public documentation and/or a header file must be done to consider it to be a distinct thing.

The amount of changes are irrelevant, it will always be a derived work. If you want them to be your own, you have to redo them from scratch. (This is called "Clean Room Implementation" for a reason and it's absolutely important when you're creating a competing but compatible product...) Otherwise MorphOS or AROS could have just copied AmigaOS SDK headers, instead of creating an SDK on their own...

(Of course an SDK's license, like any other software's license might permit header reuse in other products, but that permission has to be made explicitly.)

Edit: additionally, depending on the request of the original author, the offending files might have to be removed from muidev.de... Because if we're really into the legal mumbo-jumbo, until the files are still on there, the infringement still stands.

Quote:

Finally the MUI for AmigaOS team is not making any money of the development. Everything is done is spare time and as a hobby project.

That's absolutely not an excuse. It's still copyrighted work you redistributed without permission. Edit: and changed/removed the copyright header, to make it worse.

Last edited by Chain-Q on 12-Dec-2014 at 02:50 PM.

_________________
MorphOS, classic Amiga, demoscene, and stuff
"When a bridge is not enough, build a Viaduct!"
"Strip the Amiga community of speculation and we can fit every forum on a 720k floppy" (by resle)

@Spirantho

+1

Tygre

_________________
Tygre
Scientific Progress Goes Boing!

@tboeckel

Thank you for clearing this up. I agree the example copyright was just that, an example (the bit quoted in the first page of this thread) and there was nothing wrong with what you did there at all. The text that was changed was not a Copyright notice, it was an example snippet of code in the autodoc.

The other bits, though, should have kept the copyright notice - i.e. the copyright notice at the top of the header files. The Copyright notice should have been changed to "derived from original work by Christian Rostentreter" or whatever, and definitely not just deleted.

However, I can't help but feel that all of this could have been avoided with a simple email to ask why these changes were made and could Christian's name please be put back where they belong. There was no need for this thread at all.

@Spirantho

Quote:

Spirantho wrote: I agree the example copyright was just that, an example (the bit quoted in the first page of this thread) and there was nothing wrong with what you did there at all. The text that was changed was not a Copyright notice, it was an example snippet of code in the autodoc.

Your understanding of the situation is very funny.

Maybe a different example will help: you can NOT just take "The Lord of the Rings", replace "Frodo" with "Einstein" in its text, and then release it as new work to the public. At least not with the author's permission.

What you're saying is basically that it is OK to f*ck up any kind of work as long you keep the copyright notice unchanged? What strange logic is that?


Quote:

There was no need for this thread at all.

Considering your kind of understanding this one single thread will not be enough sadly. Just saying... :)

_________________
tokai.binaryriot.org binaryriot.de

@tokai

tboeckel responded and apologized in this thread and you're talking to Spirantho instead? Sort it out in private. This thread doesn't help anyone and I agree there was no need for it at all.

Last edited by AmiKit on 13-Dec-2014 at 01:58 AM.

_________________
Modern Retro Experience

Amigakit should start selling some red and blue chill pills.
Or maybe purple onces for both camps...

Last edited by ExiE on 12-Dec-2014 at 09:08 PM.

@OlafS25

Is that really true, that Classic Amiga name doesn't exist?

the name Classic Amiga has been official for many years. Please do read those two page from 1998 CU Amiga magazine.

_________________
nox's in the house!

@AmiKit

My post was clearly pointed forward to Spirantho (and not to tboeckel) as he seems to have some fundamental problem understanding things. If this is how legal rights are understood in general in the Amiga community then much more than this thread is needed to teach users like Spirantho how things are supposed to work in the proper way, IMHO. :)



I can first reply/ comment on tboeckel's post after I could verify things in the updated archives he mentioned. Those archives seem not to be available for download yet. I think this should be understandable, don't you think? :)

BTW, the old archives with the copyright infringements should be removed then too, to stop further distributing them.

Last edited by tokai on 12-Dec-2014 at 09:41 PM.

_________________
tokai.binaryriot.org binaryriot.de

@tboeckel

Quote:

BTW: Jens Maus is a real name, no joke or whatsoever.

I stand corrected.

It is rather unusual for a male person of adult age to change his last name here in Germany, so I really thought this is some kind of alias thing.

_________________
tokai.binaryriot.org binaryriot.de

@tokai

My point was just that the fault lay in the taking of the autodocs and removal of the copyright notice, not in the change. Changes are made to autodocs all the time, but the original source (in this case you) should always be credited.

The original post referred to a paragraph quoting yourself as coder, but it was not clear from the context of this post that that paragraph was in a snippet of demonstration code, it was not in the copyright notice. This led to people erroneously believing that for some reason MUIdevs had assigned credit to Albert Einstein. If people look at the source code in question they will see clearly that your name is still at the top, the only change is in the snippet of code which could have said anything at all.

The error was in the taking of your autodocs without permission, not in the change.

I'm not sure why you're attacking me when I'm actually agreeing that the MUIdevs did a bad thing by taking your work without permission, and made a meaningless change without mentioning in the credits that it was they who had made the change?

They made a mistake. They came here and apologised. The problem can now be rectified in the manner it should have been done originally - privately. I really don't see a need for attacks against anyone here.

Sort this out in private, gentlemen.

Last edited by AmiKit on 13-Dec-2014 at 01:59 AM.

_________________
Modern Retro Experience

@AmiKit

Sure, some of this may/should be handled by private communication. But I think it is pretty useful to discuss this in public foar as well. Not to discredit ppl, but to keep the importance of the issue publically aware.

_________________
My programs: via.bckrs.de
MorphOS user since V0.4 (2001)

@noXLar

thanx I found it in the text. But nevertheless I am on amiga-meetings nearby where people show their "amigas" and not the "classic", when I bought my last Amiga (A4000/30 with graphic card) I bought "Amiga" and not a "classic" and if you ask anyone if he knows "Amiga" he will propably talk about A500 or A1200 so for me Amiga is and will forever be 68k. You can of course define it different

@Zylesea

sorry is it really so important? We are a small not really booming retro community and here we are discussing about such "important issues". The one responsible for it has explained why he did it and what he thought, he will certainly correct the mistake he did and that is it. This thread with calling each other "stealing" (a word that was used several times by both sides) is not appropriate. This endless war (that is visible there again) is really nerving. People should not waste time and energy in such nonsense, if the muidev team did something wrong it should be told to them and then they should correct it. End of story. People should invest in development of better software and OS and work together in common interest. Something that seems to be impossible in this community

@Spirantho

I'm not attacking, just trying to make sure to void out any misunderstandings in regards to copyright issues. This was/ is generally speaking (not limited to the case of this "MUI4" incident).

Quote:

Spirantho wrote: The error was in the taking of your autodocs without permission, not in the change.

This is *both* an error. Both covered by the "Copyright". The additional modification of the work actually made the first error ("(re)distribution without permission") worse. :)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

In my case actually the German/ EU law has legal binding, so reading the German version probably will be more accurate:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urheberrecht

_________________
tokai.binaryriot.org binaryriot.de

@OlafS25

Quote:

OlafS25 wrote: @Zylesea sorry is it really so important? We are a small not really booming retro community and here we are discussing about such "important issues".

The attitude to belittle these issues leads to more (mentally) poor ppl like our "glorious" minister for defense Karl Theodor zu Guttenberg.

For the non Germans: a recent minister for defense, praised as the new shooting star of the conservatives over here stumbled over a "copy and paste" phd thesis. What a swankpot!

Quote:

People should invest in development of better software and OS and work together in common interest. Something that seems to be impossible in this community

Cooperation is only possible between ppl who provide some respect and who are able to warrant compliance of a certain set of rules.

_________________
My programs: via.bckrs.de
MorphOS user since V0.4 (2001)

@noXLar

your "amiga classic" in that article (who bothers to read the kind of stuff anyway) is as much an undisputed fact as your "os5" with which it gets named in the same breath. so whoever bases his nomenclature on pr stunts by proven con men and insist on it for the years to come, i dont know how to help him.

Last edited by wawa on 13-Dec-2014 at 01:09 AM.

@Mods,

Lock this flame fest! :(

@Zylesea

Quote:

Zylesea wrote: Cooperation is only possible between ppl who provide some respect and who are able to warrant compliance of a certain set of rules.

+1

@QuikSanz

Get some pop corn!