@jahc

Quote:

The source code wasnt provided by Amiga Inc.

So what?

If I were to contract ImageFX to do a documentary on Fermat's Last Theorem, using my studios and cameras to do so, the contract might very well say that I shall supply them with a printout of the long-sought-for proof.

Now, ImageFX, in trying to work out whether this can be done and whether key players would be interested in taking part, phones up Andrew Wiles, and during the conversation, is offered a facsimile copy of the original proof, complete with margin notes as well as author's commentary. They delightedly jump at the chance, even before signing the contract with me.

As part of the post-contract-signing celebrations, they then proudly announce that they have at their disposal not just *any* printout of the proof, but a facsimile copy of *the* *original* *document*, authenticated and explained by The Man Himself, and that thus they are in a great position to do the work and provide a stellar result.

They then produce the documentary, running massively over schedule, blocking my space and equipment for 1000% of the agreed time (because instead of the contracted for 1 hour special on FLT, they decide that really, making the 13 part series "A History Of Maths Over The Last Half Millenium" is much more satisfying). And instead of being apologetic about it, they keep my money yet refuse to hand over the resulting films.

"You didn't send us the printout of the proof" is NOT going to cut it in that situation.

@jahc

Quote:

jahc wrote: @samface Quote: Logic dictates that if they would be missing *anything* necessary for completing AmigaOS4, AmigaOS4 couldn't possibly be complete. If knowledge of how to acquire the source code themselves was enough, that just renders the source code that Amiga didn't supply as not necessary. What the hell kind of logic is that? The source code was still neccesary, they just couldnt get it from Amiga Inc.

It's the kind of logic that is logical. If A was completed without B, B was obviously not necessary for completing A.

If are still not getting it; fact is that Hyperion could just as well have written AmigaOS4 from scratch using no source code from any previous version of the AmigaOS at all. That means NO source code was actually *necessary* for Hyperion to complete AmigaOS4. In short, Ben Hermans screwed up when he drafted the contract. It should have been more specific about what was "necessary source code". Considering Hyperions whining about the clerical error of 1% missing in the payment for the buyback clause, tell me why Amiga Inc. shouldn't be as literal in their interpretation?

Besides, the next thing Hyperion screwed up on was to take it up on themselves to acquire the source code instead of letting Amiga Inc. do it. Any damages from acquiring the source code on their own initiative and without any obligation to do so are, like I've stated several times now, self-inflicted.

_________________
Sammy Nordström, A.K.A. "Samface"

MINDRELEASE.net - The Non-Commercial Network of Digital Arts.

Samworks D & C - Professional Web Development (in Swedish)

@samface

Quote:

Besides, the next thing Hyperion screwed up on was to take it up on themselves to acquire the source code instead of letting Amiga Inc. do it. Any damages from acquiring the source code on their own initiative and without any obligation to do so are, like I've stated several times now, self-inflicted.

It's also pretty meaningless in this court case(s). Evert/Ben could have cncelled on this contract using the source code issue, but they didn't. Sort of too late for crocadile tears at this stage of the game.

_________________
Dammy

@samface

Quote:

It's the kind of logic that is logical. If A was completed without B, B was obviously not necessary for completing A.

It was completed with B, and B was provided by someone else.

I've never seen someone twist facts around like that. At first I thought it was comical, but now I find it quite scary. You dont sound well.

@umisef

Quote:

So what?

I'm not arguing that anyone is right or wrong, I'm just saying "neccessary source code" is still neccessary even if another party provides it.

Quote:

"Again, the contract doesn't say Amiga Inc. had to provide the AmigaOS3.1/3.5/3.9 source code. It says Amiga Inc. had to provide "the neccessary source code". The existence of AmigaOS4 proves Hyperion got the sources they needed to complete AmigaOS4." If I were to contract ImageFX to do a documentary on Fermat's Last Theorem, using my studios and cameras to do so, the contract might very well say that I shall supply them with a printout of the long-sought-for proof. Now, ImageFX, in trying to work out whether this can be done and whether key players would be interested in taking part, phones up Andrew Wiles, and during the conversation, is offered a facsimile copy of the original proof, complete with margin notes as well as author's commentary. They delightedly jump at the chance, even before signing the contract with me. As part of the post-contract-signing celebrations, they then proudly announce that they have at their disposal not just *any* printout of the proof, but a facsimile copy of *the* *original* *document*, authenticated and explained by The Man Himself, and that thus they are in a great position to do the work and provide a stellar result. They then produce the documentary, running massively over schedule, blocking my space and equipment for 1000% of the agreed time (because instead of the contracted for 1 hour special on FLT, they decide that really, making the 13 part series "A History Of Maths Over The Last Half Millenium" is much more satisfying). And instead of being apologetic about it, they keep my money yet refuse to hand over the resulting films. "You didn't send us the printout of the proof" is NOT going to cut it in that situation.

Ok, thanks for that.

@jahc

Quote:

jahc wrote: @samface Quote: It's the kind of logic that is logical. If A was completed without B, B was obviously not necessary for completing A. It was completed with B, and B was provided by someone else.

1. To have been used for accomplishing something is not what defines something as necessary. Again, Hyperion might as well have written AmigaOS4 from scratch, using NO source code at all.

2. If B was "necessary source code from Amiga Inc." and A was "AmigaOS4", then A was NOT completed with B.

3. Hyperion "only" managed to acquired the rights to the AmigaOS3.1 sources, changes from AmigaOS3.1 to AmigaOS3.9 was reproduced without the original source code. So, yes, they actually did manage without "the necessary source code" if you define it as all the way up to version AmigaOS3.9. In this case, once again A was not completed with B, rendering B a not necessary component for completing A.

4. I'm not "twisting facts", none of my statements changes any facts as such, it's about mere logic about how they fit into the parties legal responsibilities. Either dispute the logic or accept the logic as logical. Throwing about unfounded accusations isn't helping anyone.

Last edited by samface on 28-Feb-2008 at 09:59 AM.

_________________
Sammy Nordström, A.K.A. "Samface"

MINDRELEASE.net - The Non-Commercial Network of Digital Arts.

Samworks D & C - Professional Web Development (in Swedish)

@samface

Quote:

It's the kind of logic that is logical. If A was completed without B, B was obviously not necessary for completing A.

So MorphOS IS AmigaOS... cool!

_________________
Indigo 3D Lounge, my second home.
The Illusion of Choice | Am*ga

@samface

Quote:

Logic dictates that if they would be missing *anything* necessary for completing AmigaOS4, AmigaOS4 couldn't possibly be complete. If knowledge of how to acquire the source code themselves was enough, that just renders the source code that Amiga didn't supply as not necessary.

Logic dictates that if it was required from A part to deliver B part and B part was achieved not by A it had to be achieved elsewhere, it doesn't magically pops out of thin air. Such things usually require extra time and extra knowledge and both costs (extra) money, so if in the original contract costs were considered with B into account and it fails to appear it has to be compensated in any other way, unless it is proven that it was hyperion fault that Amiga didn't handled the needed code. Amiga gave none, you can't get much further from needed code than that, it might be 3.0, it might be 2.0 it might be 3.1, or 3.5 or 3.9, all could be argued if Amiga handled any of those, there's no arguing when none was handled, they just failed to provide their dues.


Quote:

Hyperion had no obligation and was not hired by Amiga Inc. to do it but did it anyway completely on their own initiative. That's like if you'd come home to me and wash my car and then expect me to pay you. I'd just say thank you for washing my car but I never asked you to do it for me, now did I? And then, if it would so happen to be that I had just made a deal with my wife to wash the car, I would be a very happy man and claim the reward for having the car washed. I'd still owe you nothing, sucker.

But as it's not physical and it's their IP, they happen to be able to remove the wash from your car and you'll get just what you expected to pay.. who's the sucker? I don't really mind if they are or aren't able to sell their IP, but it's not attached, your car would again be just as dirty as it was supposed to be.

_________________
Indigo 3D Lounge, my second home.
The Illusion of Choice | Am*ga

@pixie

Quote:

pixie wrote: @samface Quote: It's the kind of logic that is logical. If A was completed without B, B was obviously not necessary for completing A. So MorphOS IS AmigaOS... cool!

Inflammatory, non-sensical... I don' know what. The logic didn't say "if A was completed without B, Y is X". It's such a giant leap in logic... I mean, wow, this must be the most obvious case of trolling, ever!

Last edited by samface on 28-Feb-2008 at 10:18 AM.

_________________
Sammy Nordström, A.K.A. "Samface"

MINDRELEASE.net - The Non-Commercial Network of Digital Arts.

Samworks D & C - Professional Web Development (in Swedish)

@pixie

1. Hyperion didn't have to acquire "the necessary source code" no matter if their lives depended on it. The contract said it was Amiga Inc.'s obligation to get it, not Hyperion's, meaning that Hyperion did it on their own initiative with no obligation of doing so, rendering any damages that resultet from it self-inflicted. I don't know why this fact is conviniently disregarded in this matter.

2. Read 1 again.

3. I still don't think you got it, read 1 again.

4. If Hyperion wasn't prepared to accept any damages resulting from fulfilling Amiga Inc.'s obligations, they simply shouldn't have done it. They should have said to Amiga Inc. "get us the source code or we won't do squat". You cannot impose liabilities on a party for things you were not asked, obligated nor forced to do, it's as simple as that, really.

5. Read 4 again.

6. I still don't think you got it, read 4 again.

7. Nah, you don't get it still. Go back and start over from 1 again.

Last edited by samface on 28-Feb-2008 at 10:19 AM.

_________________
Sammy Nordström, A.K.A. "Samface"

MINDRELEASE.net - The Non-Commercial Network of Digital Arts.

Samworks D & C - Professional Web Development (in Swedish)

@wolfe

Quote:

wolfe wrote: @Dandy ... Sarcasm . . . .

This would explain it...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@samface

Quote:

Inflammatory, non-sensical... I don' know what. The logic didn't say "if A was completed without B, Y is X". It's such a giant leap in logic... I mean, wow, this must be the most obvious case of trolling, ever!

So your logic made any sense..

_________________
Indigo 3D Lounge, my second home.
The Illusion of Choice | Am*ga

@samface

Who's talking on what Hyperion had done?Quote:

The contract said it was Amiga Inc.'s obligation to get it, not Hyperion's,

Which they didn't, and as such failed to comply with their dues... They fail to comply, that's an evidence, nothing more nothing less.

Quote:

If Hyperion wasn't prepared to accept any damages resulting from fulfilling Amiga Inc.'s obligations, they simply shouldn't have done it. They should have said to Amiga Inc. "get us the source code or we won't do squat". You cannot impose liabilities on a party for things you were not asked, obligated nor forced to do, it's as simple as that, really.

In your opinion... I wonder how much inside knowledge you possess...

_________________
Indigo 3D Lounge, my second home.
The Illusion of Choice | Am*ga

@pixie

What I can see :

1. Hyperion got 3.1 sources from Olaf
2. Hyperion and Amiga sign a contract where they state the necessary source code which seems to be 3.1 sources shall be provided by Amiga
3. Hyperion having OS 3.1 sources at home means that it is not necessary that Amiga provides the OS 3.1 sources. So, the necessary source code Amiga shall provide is nothing.
4. It was strange to add such a clause to the contract, considering the Olaf Deal had already happened, before.

A+
Woon

@samface

Quote:

samface wrote: @Lou Quote: Lou wrote: The discussion is pointless because you fail to see that sources for 3.5 and 3/9 were not provided and the original developers had to be hired to redo what was done before but for a different platform. Again, the contract doesn't say Amiga Inc. had to provide the AmigaOS3.1/3.5/3.9 source code. It says Amiga Inc. had to provide "the neccessary source code". The existence of AmigaOS4 proves Hyperion got the sources they needed to complete AmigaOS4. Furthermore, whom secured the AmigaOS3.x source code is irrelevant because any costs or damages as a result of Hyperion's initiative to take upon themselves to fulfill Amiga Inc.'s obligation to obtain neccessary source code would be self-inflicted. Not once were they prevented from stopping and saying "no, we won't do anything until you hand over the source code you promised us". Amiga Inc. is by no means obligated to compensate Hyperion for doing what Hyperion should've just let Amiga Inc. do in the first place.

You keep proving your lack of programming knowledge.
I don't need any source code to make any type of software, I can write it all from scratch, however, if I am trying to re-implement another system, in order to do it properly and efficiently, I would need to see the source and/or and well-defined outline of the overall design. So indeed 3.5 & 3.9 was necessary, otherwise all we have is a 3.1 port and Hyperion's own enhancements/implementation of 3.5 & 3.9 upgrades which would not at all be considered IP of Amiga since it was done without those original sources. At this point, Hyperion would own those enhancements lock stock and barrel, yet KMOS think this it's included in the $25,000.00 price tag.

Quote:

Quote: You speak of KMOS attempts to damage Hyperion, you speak of ridiculous demands, you say KMOS can only bleed for so long and "Penti finally got frustrated", you speak of Penti as not "having intimate knowledge of all of Amino/KMOS's dealings, otherwise he probably would have resolved this with cold, hard cash a long time ago", you speak of the lawsuit as a "reality slap" for Penti. This is far from facts and "a plain language interpretation of Hyperion's claims", IMO. [/qutoe] Quote: [quote] That just shows your failure in reading comprehension. Where I stated such things, the phrases similar to "the way I see it" and such preceded it. If you can't figure I where I am stating facts from the case and where I am stating my personal opinion then any future conversation with you is pointless especially when you are a self-described "nitpicker". As I've said, you argue for argument's sake. Speaking of reading comprehensions... where did I say those statements of yours would be claims of facts? When I say that something would be far from a fact, I mean exactly that. The question was wether you were refraining from speculations and insisting on "a plain language interpretation of Hyperion's claims" or not. From what I can tell by your response, you agree that those statements were just your opinion and speculations rather than "a plain language interpretation of Hyperion's claims". And no, I'm not a self-described nitpicker. It's been suggested to me that this is what certain people think of me and it happens that I occasionally am self-ironic.

No, it just shows your lack of reading comprehension and desire to argue when someone integrates facts with personal opinion. You simply like to insist your opinions upon everyone else as if yours is the only one that matters. Do you know what else everyone else has besides opinions?

Quote:

Quote: It's not my place to determine the argument's strength, only the judge's. Once again, the $24,750 is a fact, regardless of your opinion of it. Your convinient reference to strictly the facts whenever it suits you has become rather apparent now... It is also a fact that the interest on $24,750 over the years from when the payments was made to when AmigaOS4 was finally released for all the target hardware platforms on 30th of November last year was more than enough to compensate for the missing $250. It is also a fact that Hyperion issued an invoice to Amiga Inc. for invoking the buyback-clause that was also not the correct amount, making the clerical error just as much Hyperion's. It is also a fact that Hyperion acknowledged the payment and kept the money just to not say anything about the missing money until now when Amiga Inc. sued. These facts are not unrelated, you know.

No, you keep twisting everything. It's pointless. You don't get it. If they both made the same clerical error, why do you insist only Hyperion should suffer from it? Perhaps Amino should have paid their bookkeeper. If I miss my very last mortgage payment, the bank can still foreclose.

Quote:

False. The contract says Amiga Inc. has to give them "neccessary source code". The mere existence of AmigaOS4 proves that they obvoiusly got the source codes they needed. Besides, even if this would be a valid argument, isn't this the very same argument Hyperion is using for why they are not able to provide Amiga Inc. with anything but object code for AmigaOS4, ie not having obtained the neccessary rights to it from third party contractors?

Quote:

Quote: Have you ever developed anything? I assume that you haven't, otherwise you would see the err in your logic. Anything can be developed from scratch. The issue is TIME and COST. Your assumptions are wrong and to apply programming logic to legal matters is also wrong. You can't make legal claims on what programming logic dictates. It may not have been what was intended, but it was after all Hyperions own managing partner who drafted the contract, saying that Amiga Inc. only needed to provide "neccessary code" without specifying what source codes was neccessary.

I wasn't applying programming logic to legal logic. Again you show your lack of reading comprehension. Hyperion's costs went up because of lack of source-code, etc..., there is nothing legal about development costs. Those costs are what are dictating Hyperion's damage claims.

Quote:

And once again, Hyperion had every opportunity to say "no, we won't do anything until you give us the source code you promised". Any TIME and COST that Hyperion spent on fulfilling Amiga Inc.'s obligations would be self-inflicted. The contract doesn't impose any obligation on Hyperion to do any such thing, Hyperion just did it any way out of their own free will.

Unlike Amino, Hyperion was contracted to excercise best efforts. I believe they have shown just that. Where as the hardware supplier changed the hardware and supplied it bugged and the provider of the source code never even did that.

Quote:

Quote: 1) can you reprint Hyperion's financials for us all since you obviously seem privy to them I don't need to know Hyperions financials to know that Hyperion have been selling AmigaOS4 free from royalties to Amiga Inc. and that is the extent of my claim, no more.

The term you used was "profitting". Once again, are you privy to knowledge we are not? You are speculating. Re-read your own post.

Quote:

Quote: 2) they didn't pay for the sources Please stop repeating this argument as if it hasn't been debunked several times already. Repeating it isn't going to make it of any more bearing. Take a good look at Filing 72 > Attachment 2 > Exhibit C where Hyperion's issued an invoice to Itec pursuant to article 3.01 of the November 3, 2001 agreement. Look at the amount, still think it was a clerical error solely on Amiga Inc.'s behalf? A payment was made and *both* parties acknowledged it as payment pursuant to article 3.01 of the November 3, 2001. That is a fact.

Why don't YOU stop repeating your argument when the court documents say otherwise? Again, who speculates?

Quote:

Quote: 3) the following is my opinion: in early 2004, I believe Hyperion became privy to the shell game and started disputing ownership OR they informed KMOS of the actual costs of the sources that they secured via contracts and KMOS was unwilling to foot the bill..............or both..... The judge can figure it out. Early 2004? They were as aware of the dealings between Amino, Itec and KMOS as Bill McEwan himself. In *every* ownership transfer, Hyperion was not only notified but even renewed the contract with the new owners. This has become clear from the documents of the ongoing litigation. There is not even the slightest room for speculation wether Hyperion knew about the ownership transfers or not. Have you even bothered with reading the court documents?

Court documents that state "press releases" that the judge will probably throw out as speculatory. Again, if you don't like my opinion - newflash: who cares?

Quote:

Quote: Well, the thing is, I don't think Hyperion, like Evert Carton himself said, is in a position to give Amiga Inc. any source code at all. It doesn't matter if Amiga Inc. would give them millions and millions of dollars. So, it isn't about Amiga Inc.'s inability to pay or not to begin with. THAT is a theory which does actually support both sides in the ongoing litigation. Not currently no, but I believe he would pay them based on past experiences. For instance, how many years have the Friedens been doing business with Hyperion now? Atleast we somewhat agree on something.

Ironicly enough, the reason Hyperion isn't able to give Amiga Inc. the source code is most likely to be because they can't afford buying it from their contractors. So, if Amiga Inc. want to take a shot at paying them, why not let them? It surely couldn't hurt them to try, right?[/quote]
Since source-code to 3.1, 3.5 & 3.9 was never provided by Amino. If $25,000.00 only gets you so much when none of the source code you received game from Amino's hands. As they say: you get what you pay for...oh any they didn't pay in full anyway.

@jahc

Quote:

jahc wrote: @samface Quote: Logic dictates that if they would be missing *anything* necessary for completing AmigaOS4, AmigaOS4 couldn't possibly be complete. If knowledge of how to acquire the source code themselves was enough, that just renders the source code that Amiga didn't supply as not necessary. What the hell kind of logic is that? The source code was still neccesary, they just couldnt get it from Amiga Inc.

There was no logic in that statement. He is too full of hubris to see the flaws in his own logic.

@samface

Quote:

Inflammatory, non-sensical... I don' know what. The logic didn't say "if A was completed without B, Y is X". It's such a giant leap in logic... I mean, wow, this must be the most obvious case of trolling, ever!

It's your logic that have big hole here, noone is speaking about A, B, X and Y, and of course noone from a predicate between A and B induct a predicate between X and Y. In fact everybody else is examining a predicate between A and B and induct another (corrolary) predicate between A and B... Launch any prolog interpreter and see that if A exists but not B then you can say that B is not required to prove A (but does not oppose either), in fact the only predicate you can say when you have A and !B is that !B -> !A is false (in plain english not having B does not prevent to have A, or express differently "B is not required for A").

Quote:

1. To have been used for accomplishing something is not what defines something as necessary. Again, Hyperion might as well have written AmigaOS4 from scratch, using NO source code at all. 2. If B was "necessary source code from Amiga Inc." and A was "AmigaOS4", then A was NOT completed with B. 3. Hyperion "only" managed to acquired the rights to the AmigaOS3.1 sources, changes from AmigaOS3.1 to AmigaOS3.9 was reproduced without the original source code. So, yes, they actually did manage without "the necessary source code" if you define it as all the way up to version AmigaOS3.9. In this case, once again A was not completed with B, rendering B a not necessary component for completing A.

1. let's alone this point for now
2. the problem here is that B is not "necessary source code from Amiga Inc." but "necessary source code about AmigaOS 3.1 and following updates", or if you insist let's say we have B' being "necessary source code about AmigaOS 3.1 and following updates from Amiga Inc.", B" being "necessary source code about AmigaOS 3.1 and following updates from someone else." now you are right A was not completed with B', instead A was completed with B"
3. that's not totally true, they also managed to secure some parts of 3.5/3.9 directly with the respective authors (or if you prefer B''' but again having B'''->A does not induct anything between A and B...

Now lets review the whole thing (especially the 1.) you are right that AOS4 could have been written from scratch without sources about AmigaOS 3.1 and following updates, however this not a technical contest to know if technically sources was really required or not, instead this is a legal court that will judge regarding the contracted terms and contracted terms say they were required, hence legally speaking they were end of discussion.

_________________
AOS 4.1 : I dream it, Hyperion did it !
Now dreaming AOS 4.2...
Thank you to all devs involved for this great job !

@samface

Quote:

samface wrote: @Lou Quote: Lou wrote: The discussion is pointless because you fail to see that sources for 3.5 and 3/9 were not provided and the original developers had to be hired to redo what was done before but for a different platform. Again, the contract doesn't say Amiga Inc. had to provide the AmigaOS3.1/3.5/3.9 source code.

The contract doesn't say so directly - but indirectly:

Quote:

2001 Contract: ... RECITALS ... WHEREAS Amiga has decided to contract with Hyperion for the development of Amiga OS 4.0; ... Article II. OBLIGATIONS OF THE AMIGA ONE PARTNERS; APPOINTMENT 2.01 Appointment Amiga hereby grants the Amiga One Partners a right and license to use and modify the Software and an exclusive right and license to market and distribute OS4 as a standalone version for the Target Hardware and as an OEM version shipped with the Amiga One. ... ... Article III, Obligations of Amiga. ... 3.02 Amiga shall provide Hyperion with all necessary Source Code and documentation to allow Hyperion to carry out its contractual obligations under this Agreement.

What "Source Code" means is defined in the "Definitions"-section:

Quote:

2001 Contract: Article I. DEFINITIONS ... "Amiga OS Source Code" meansthe Source Code of the Classic Amiga OS including but not limited to the Source Code of Amiga OS 3.1, 3.5 and 3.9; "Classic Amiga OS" means the operating system owned and developed by Amiga Inc. and largely based on the operating system shipped with the Commodore Amiga line of computers sold in the 1980's and early 90's; ... "Software" or "the Software" means the Source Code of Amiga OS 3.1 and the upgrades of Amiga OS 3.1 including but not limited to OS 3.5 and 3.9 and associated "Boing Bags"; "Source Code" means software when written in a form or language understanable to humans, generally in a higher level computer language; and further including embedded comments in the English language. ...

I understand it the way that they very well were oblieged "to provide the AmigaOS3.1/3.5/3.9 source code"...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@samface

Quote:

samface wrote: @Lou ... The existence of AmigaOS4 proves Hyperion got the sources they needed to complete AmigaOS4. ...

Just that they didn't get it from AInc, as contractually required.
So lets keep in mind that AInc was in breach of the contract since the day they signed it.

If that helps Hyperions case or not - lets wait and see...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@jahc

Quote:

I'm just saying "neccessary source code" is still neccessary even if another party provides it.

And others are saying that the provision of "necessary source code" is no longer required after someone else has provided it.

Source code, unlike monitors and donuts (to name just a couple of examples :), does not benefit from being supplied in multiple instances of the same thing. Having two copies of source code is no better than having one copy.