@paolone

Quote:

It's a pity these very old plans can't be publicly disclosed as well. They would be interesting from a mere hystorical point of view. Do they include any information that could possibly harm the owner (Amiga Inc) and its current licensees?

*cough*

http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=801638&postcount=55

-- eliyahu

_________________
"Physical reality is consistent with universal laws. When the laws do not operate, there is no reality. All of this is unreal."

@olsen

Quote:

I wish it had taken up less time. Some context: the leaked archive does not just contain AmigaOS 3.1 source code, there is more material included which belongs to several different collections of material which were part of the archive data that was provided to Amiga Technologies GmbH in 1995. That historic archive data is significantly larger than what was leaked in the archive. How much of that data leaked? This is important, too, because it allows to you place the source which leaked it. Could it have been somebody with access to the Amiga Technologies GmbH material? Would this be material which was only accessible to Commodore engineers? What about that rumour of Amiga International sharing confidential source code, could that have been in the archive? There was also the question to answer what exactly is missing from the archive, and what is in the archive that should not be there. More to the point, had AmigaOS4 source code been leaked? All of this took more time to clear up than expected.

Good points. However, I can't still realize how much this leakage actually hit Amiga Inc, Hyperion, Cloanto and anyone else in this community. Providing that NO AmigaOS 4.x sources have been published in this archive, what does remain there? Very old, un-polished code that already needed a huge clean up, adaption and rewrite effort just to become compilable again with a "current" (now old) toolchain. Even wondering someone else would follow your steps and will succeed modifying and compiling them again... what will be the use?

FPGA reimplementations (sorry, 68K ppl, I don't share your optimistim about these projects), little fixes for emulated systems, maybe some little, untested enhancement over the old 3.1 releases that will likely break something else somewhere... In a nutshell, binary warez that will just make a very few people happy. Maybe a few hundreds in total. This, while both Hyperion and Cloanto will continue happily selling their products.

I really don't see any point in keeping all this aura of secrecy on that old code. I can understand take down requests and lawsuit threats from Amiga Inc's licensees (after all, they have to protect the IP they invested on), but I can't really figure out how this leakage can hurt them anyway. Unless the world got populated by coders only that can easily interpretate, modify and compile that old code by themselves, and I didn't notice.

@eliyahu

Wow! Thanks! I thought (and hoped) leaked code contains Commodore´s vision for OS4.0 and future in general. Reading now!

@eliyahu

Quote:

eliyahu wrote: @paolone Quote: It's a pity these very old plans can't be publicly disclosed as well. They would be interesting from a mere hystorical point of view. Do they include any information that could possibly harm the owner (Amiga Inc) and its current licensees? *cough* http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=801638&postcount=55 -- eliyahu

Thanks a lot. That's the real value of this archive, IMO!

Is it possible to ask Hyperion to release all other non-source code documents? I mean, the AAA specs & hardware description, and something like that.

All for historical & preservation reasons.

Thanks in advance.

@cdimauro

Quote:

I mean, the AAA specs & hardware description, and something like that.

Isn´t this on site of Dave Haynie?

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @cdimauro Quote: I mean, the AAA specs & hardware description, and something like that. Isn´t this on site of Dave Haynie?

I already got something from there, but there could be more documents, like the new one which wasn't known before this leak.

@cdimauro

I agree, Cloanto and Hyperion could release all such historical material, where possible.

deleted: nevermind

Last edited by jorit2 on 08-Jan-2016 at 02:59 AM.
Last edited by jorit2 on 08-Jan-2016 at 02:56 AM.

_________________
-- Posting for charity -- Investing €10 in a charity related to education or civil rights for every message I post --

@cgutjahr

Quote:

Rumours have it that the take down notices are from Cloanto, not Hyperion. No idea if that's true though.

Couple of things..

a denial of what Olaf said

But you might want to read this and connect the statements:

https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2016-01-05-AmigaROM.md

#6

Last edited by number6 on 08-Jan-2016 at 03:39 AM.

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

@eliyahu

It seems to have been removed again.

Which doesn't actually surprise me, since I couldn't see how Hyperion would be in a position to decide if you're entitled to host this.

Are you willing to tell us which Hyperion director you talked to? Just curious.

@number6

Quote:

But you might want to read this and connect the statements:

It's Cloanto then, unsurprisingly ("our trademark 3946885" - that's their "Workbench" mark).

Quote:

a denial of what Olaf said

Well, Olaf did say he was asked to verify the contents, but I doubt Olaf was involved in writing DMCA takedown notices. He probably reported to his superiors, who immediately.... started writing a press release.

@number6

Quote:

number6 wrote: @cgutjahr Quote: Rumours have it that the take down notices are from Cloanto, not Hyperion. No idea if that's true though. Couple of things.. a denial of what Olaf said

The story is, unfortunately, more complex. The GitHub takedown notice was handled poorly, but not for lack of trying: the timing was the problem. As I originally mentioned, it took its time for the repository to be taken down.

Hyperion did submit the takedown notice on Thursday, December 31st 2015. The notice was not processed until Monday, January 4th 2016, when it was promptly returned with a request to resubmit it.

When the repository eventually was disabled I fully expected that the resubmitted takedown notice had been executed (it had taken almost a week), but then I learned that Cloanto had succeeded instead. Which I think is a good thing: there is more than on interested party involved in this, and should one fail, the other might succeed.

Until the repository had been disabled it was frustrating to see that nothing was happening, except perhaps that by Monday the repository had been forked three times. Because GitHub offered so much more bandwidth than the other leaks, I take it that the leaked archive contents spread much more easily and faster, too, in those 4-6 days.

Last edited by olsen on 08-Jan-2016 at 08:00 AM.
Last edited by olsen on 08-Jan-2016 at 08:00 AM.

@olsen

Quote:

, when it was promptly returned with a request to resubmit it.

strange. on what reason? have they not been presented with enough evidence that hyperion is in a position to claim ownership of the material in question?

@wawa

Quote:

wawa wrote: @olsen Quote: , when it was promptly returned with a request to resubmit it. strange. on what reason? have they not been presented with enough evidence that hyperion is in a position to claim ownership of the material in question?

I do not know the details.

I suspect that even had the takedown request been honoured, another would have had to be submitted because in the time since the request was filed, three forks of the repository which the takedown request was aimed at had popped up. These would have had to be taken down, too. Could be that the takedown request was returned so that it could be updated to reflect the current status (that is speculation on my part).

Last edited by olsen on 08-Jan-2016 at 12:11 PM.

@cgutjahr

FYI - CCC is well known outside Germany.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

@morpa

Quote:

morpa wrote: It would actually be cooler if they did put that time into getting AROS better IMHO.

Yes, however, AROS is not of their interest.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

@olsen

Quote:

olsen wrote: I suspect that even had the takedown request been honoured, another would have had to be submitted because in the time since the request was filed, three forks of the repository which the takedown request was aimed at had popped up. These would have had to be taken down, too. Could be that the takedown request was returned so that it could be updated to reflect the current status (that is speculation on my part).

however this didnt stop github to honour cloantos request. may be some other coincidence, but its rather remarkable.

Last edited by wawa on 08-Jan-2016 at 12:27 PM.

Is it possible that the ones uploading this to Github did this knowing that it would take time for it to be removed thanks to the holidays?

_________________
Amiga Forum - Sweden's best Amiga Magazine

My MorphOS Blog

"Free speech includes other peoples right to offend you."

@wawa

Quote:

wawa wrote: @olsen Quote: olsen wrote: I suspect that even had the takedown request been honoured, another would have had to be submitted because in the time since the request was filed, three forks of the repository which the takedown request was aimed at had popped up. These would have had to be taken down, too. Could be that the takedown request was returned so that it could be updated to reflect the current status (that is speculation on my part). however this didnt stop github to honour cloantos request. may be some other coincidence, but its rather remarkable.

I do not consider it remarkable. This kind of thing (two or three unremarkable errors taken together have bigger consequences) happens, happens too often.

Cloanto's takedown request specifically mentions all four repositories whose contents were infringing (the page that appears when you access the disabled repositories contains a link to a slightly edited version of the DMCA takedown request, which in this case lists all four URLs). That must have made a difference.

@bison

Quote:

It's interesting to read the comments posted at the above link -- it's a good example of the sort of idiots that infest the Linux "community".

Are you calling me an idiot? I should report you.

Quote:

The real value of Amiga is the community, not the hardware or software.

That much is obvious, the users are the product.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC