@pixie

Quote:

It's an EULA thing, and as such moot

maybe where you live.
but here the EULA is the license unless the EULA violates law in which case only the violations are unenforceable. the rest of the EULA still stands.

_________________
Win•dows: n. A thirty-two bit extension and graphical shell to a sixteen-bit patch to an eight-bit operating system originally coded for a four-bit microprocessor which was written by a two-bit company that can't stand one bit of competition.

@Mark

Quote:

Mark wrote: @afxgroup Quote: this is not true since you can try to undestand how they initialize the chipset for example. you cannot use it's code but you can understand how the code works Ahh but then you get into shaky legal ground, just look at the MOS arguments that abounded a while back, in which it was argued that because the programmers had, had access to the source of OS3.x, that MOS was an illegal copy of OS3.x (Note to trolls or other interested parties Im not making any statements as to the accuracy of the comments, simply using the case as an example). Using this you could make the same arguments about using GPL'd code to understand how something works, would mean that you may have to make OS4 GPL. Im not saying it necessarily is true, however it would definately leave it on shakey legal grounds, which no professional company would want. Mark

follow the example of chip designers. have one person examine the code and make notes as to functions, usage (NOT code), & other necessary info. pass those notes to the programmer who does the work. shaky ground averted since the programmer did not have access to the code.

Last edited by jkirk on 03-Oct-2006 at 12:20 PM.

_________________
Win•dows: n. A thirty-two bit extension and graphical shell to a sixteen-bit patch to an eight-bit operating system originally coded for a four-bit microprocessor which was written by a two-bit company that can't stand one bit of competition.

@ian-uk

Quote:

Anyone know if Amiga os 4.0 will be made availble to run on mac ppc hardware?

I should imagine it would be possible, if issues about legality were sorted out, and it would be really cool if I could run both Mac OSX and Amiga OS4 here on my G5 iMac

I have read the rest of the thread and it don't look like it will ever happen but here's hoping

_________________
SAM 460 with 2GB or RAM, 1000GB HD, 4 port SATA, DVDRW drive and Radeon HD 4650 GFX card.

@sicky

Quote:

it would be really cool if I could run both Mac OSX and Amiga OS4 here on my G5 iMac

No, no , no! x86 Mac is the way to go - ppc Mac is so last month

@RedMelons

Quote:

No, no , no! x86 Mac is the way to go - ppc Mac is so last month

Hmm, let me think I wonder why you think that

Of course technically porting OS4 to a PPC based Mac would be so much harder than porting it to Intel based Mac wouldn't it

_________________
SAM 460 with 2GB or RAM, 1000GB HD, 4 port SATA, DVDRW drive and Radeon HD 4650 GFX card.

@estik

Quote:

How much would it cost to get such a license?

No idea.

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

@falemagn

Quote:

No, they are not, since if they were, you'd not have spent that much time in the past trying to counterargument them.

The point I was trying to make is that since there is the obstacle of not having a license, all other points are somewhat unimportant.

Quote:

And then, licenses can be obtained, hm?

No idea.

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

@jkirk

Quote:

i hate to get on your bad side rogue but i really have to say this. a license is no excuse.

I am sorry, but it is as good an excuse as anything else. Matter of fact it isn't even an excuse but a fact.

Quote:

if a project needed to be done and you wanted to do it you would either find a way around the license or (re)negotiate the license. hiding behind a current license makes no sense.

Whether it makes sense or not, it is a fact that you cannot deny - Hyperion does not have such a license.

And if you read up on the posts in this forum by numerous sources, you will find out that obtaining such a license might not be so easy as you would try to put it.

"Either find a way around the license"? What kind of honest way of doing business is that, really?

Quote:

now this discussion is to determine (in the communities eyes) if it is even possible. even though this and other topics have already been covered before, talking about these things does not hurt any company and actually shows the community is interested. i would be more worried if nobody discussed anything about os4.

Of course it is possible, from a technical point of view. It would take a bit longer than a normal port, and since Mac's OpenFirmware doesn't support RTAS you would need very specific chipset support, but that is not the point.

The point I was trying to make is that there are legal obstacles involved, and whether you like it or not Hyperion is certainly NOT going to just ignore that.

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

@Rogue
Quote:

I am sorry, but it is as good an excuse as anything else. Matter of fact it isn't even an excuse but a fact.

what is a fact is the license exists. what is not a fact is the license is set in stone. through negotiation all things are possible IF you reach on an agreement.

Quote:

"Either find a way around the license"? What kind of honest way of doing business is that, really?

well there are loopholes to everything no matter how well thought out they are. i am not judging how "honest" it would be just that things like this have been known to happen in the business world.


Quote:

The point I was trying to make is that there are legal obstacles involved, and whether you like it or not Hyperion is certainly NOT going to just ignore that.

i am not saying you should. i am only stating that if you wanted to do something bad enough you would find a way to accomplish it legally.

Last edited by jkirk on 03-Oct-2006 at 01:59 PM.
Last edited by jkirk on 03-Oct-2006 at 01:47 PM.

_________________
Win•dows: n. A thirty-two bit extension and graphical shell to a sixteen-bit patch to an eight-bit operating system originally coded for a four-bit microprocessor which was written by a two-bit company that can't stand one bit of competition.

@Rogue
Quote:

The point I was trying to make is that since there is the obstacle of not having a license, all other points are somewhat unimportant.

There is one more important point which makes the license issue itself rather moot:

Why would anyone want to see OS4 ported to discontinued, non-available (except for second hand on Ebay), under-performing hardware with no upgrade path (i.e. Mac PPC) to replace their, er, discontinued, non-available (except for second hand on Ebay), under-performing hardware with zero-upgrade-path hardware (i.e. A1).

Remember the lessons of the past, etc...

jkirk:
"well there are loopholes to everything no matter how well thought out they are."

Correct. An example here is the PowerVixxen that needs no
license* other than what the Amiga 1200 already has.

* This is not for stand-alone use.

@billt

Quote:

billt wrote: @Tomas Quote: To me it sounds all like a lousy excuse. If making OS4 work on PPC Macs is so trivial, then surely you'll have it done soon. I request an iBook port from you.

Kinda hard when i do not have access to the OS¤ source code
But why cant you explain why it is impossible? Why has BSD and Linux distros been ported just fine? If the lack of docs is the problem, then one could always look at the sources of BSD or linux and see how it was done there.

Like i said, it is just an excuse that was used instead of saying that they do not want to port it or that they want money for the port. As it is now i can understand why they do not port it as the platform is dead due to Mac moving onto Intel.

And i never EVER said it was an easy task. Porting something as complex as a OS is a big task and will probably take quite a bit of time.

Last edited by Tomas on 03-Oct-2006 at 02:43 PM.

@abalaban
Quote:

2) last but not the least (sorry for shouting) *LINUX SOURCE CODE IS GPL WHAT IS HIGHLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH SELLING THE RESULTING OS* !

But there is also BSD?

@sananaman

That pearpc you are saying is a fake. There is no hardfile hacked to work with pearpc, at least public.
Show me an screenshot.

_________________
Amiga 1200 desktop. Apollo 030/50 Mhz 8mb ram + ClassicWB + Wb 3.1
Amiga 500 + ACA500plus 8mb + 30gb CF
Raspberry Pi 3b+ and Amibian 1.4
Mac Mini G4 1GB Ram with the butterfly!!

@Crumb

Quote:

I would try to find info from Agere systems and Broadcom as they make the G4 and G5 northbridges.

Then hop to it! Remember, I didn't offer to do the search myself, I challenged the people who don't like the "no documentation" excuse to do it in support of their view. I'm willing to take any real results from this to someone who can do something with such documentation, but I'm really only offering to be the middle guy.

_________________
All glory to the Hypnotoad!

@Mark

Quote:

hh but then you get into shaky legal ground, just look at the MOS arguments that abounded a while back, in which it was argued that because the programmers had, had access to the source of OS3.x, that MOS was an illegal copy of OS3.x (Note to trolls or other interested parties Im not making any statements as to the accuracy of the comments, simply using the case as an example). Using this you could make the same arguments about using GPL'd code to understand how something works, would mean that you may have to make OS4 GPL. Im not saying it necessarily is true, however it would definately leave it on shakey legal grounds, which no professional company would want.

i don't know how the mos code is and i don't know if they have only seen how the api works internally, but yes if you take a look at the code and you reimplement it without copy any line, you are ok. nothing else.
you cannot see the os4 code since it isn't GPL and so u cannot se how it works internally, but if you write your own functions with same name and parameters you are not killing anyone..

_________________
http://www.amigasoft.net

@gnarly

Quote:

Um, one thing I haven't seen covered by the thread so far... who's going to pay for the development effort up front?

I was willing to be this guy a year ago, I'm willing to be that guy again, after we have enough real documentation for it to make sense. Porting fees, OS4 license negotiation, business model, etc. But before any of that can happen, you guys have to get us past the other hurdles first. After we can all prove that it's _practical_ to port to PPC Mac to those who currently don't want to, then we can start building a business plan around it.

_________________
All glory to the Hypnotoad!

@ironfist

You want to upgrade classic amigas with PPC macs.

_________________

@billt

And what models to port to ?, cant imagine one port would support all.

_________________

@Rogue

I think your hiding behind a license, too

If it would be a real issue, why is it possible to run Windows on the mac? and Linux?

Apple tried to stop other os to run on their machines, but this was some time ago. Now that they cannot stop that happen anymore, they are "permisive" about it