@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: IIRC, I believe you are including the payment for the Artic port. Interesting that that was done in 2004...you know when they claimed the OS was done...

Not at all, if you read the Arctic contract, you would realize that KMOS had to pay in advance for that work. So its not possible for the 7200 they paid in May 2006 or the 8850 they paid in Nov 2006 to be part of work done in 2004 that had to be paid for in advance. In addition, the letter from Nov, makes it very clear that the $8850 is for the buyback.

Quote:

Yes, yes, I'm sure that email to one of the Friedens where Bill "claimed" the have a $2,000,000 offer ready for Hyperion will be considered "a real offer". I think you need to get yourself pinched to make sure you are not dreaming...

Again Lou, you need to understand more. not only do we have Bill claiming they made a $2M offer, we have William Kinsel, lawyer for Hyperion claiming KMOS made a $2M offer in court, so unless more data comes out about it, its going to be considered a fact by the court, since both sides have claimed it happened.
-Tig

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

@Lou

Quote:

If points were only stated once in this thread, it would only be about 4 pages...

Unfortunately, the factual content wouldn't increase. Perhaps in years to come, the facts will surface (and may even be believed). Meantime, those who know parts of the truth are biting their tongues while reading the absurdities that are uttered here as "derived facts".

_________________
cheers
tony

Hyperion Support Forum: http://forum.hyperion-entertainment.biz/index.php

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: And you seem to be glossing over the fact that if they are a million dollars in debt, that $25,000 will not stave it. Why aren't they in bankruptcy now? If I recall correctly - that was McEwen's story of events. I could be wrong, but that is my recollection. If that's the case, I suppose he could predict tonight's lottery numbers for you and you'd play them, wouldn't you?

They owe the developers a million dollars or more, that doesnt mean they are going to be bankrupt, but Itec and Amino both have said they sold the OS early because they were going to go bankrupt, we know Alan had to lend them money later, to keep them from going under, and honestly Hyperion has never denied either occurred. If Hyperion wasnt going under at that point, they should throw that out in the case in Washington or the case in New York, it might help them.

Quote:

I've already state my theory about the ITEC situation

That would be the super tricky Itec fooled poor old Hyperion to sell the OS, so thats why they arent giving it to them theory? Do you know how silly that sounds to virtually everyone?
-Tig

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

@Swoop

Quote:

As far as I am aware, every batch of A1's and micro A1's sold out very quickly.

No "very quickly" about it.

[problems getting CPUs at agreed price]
Quote:

because of the extended time it was taking him to call-off the contract.

And why would that time be so extended? Possibly because boxes weren't shifting as fast as he was hoping, which was probably due to the lack of anything sensible to run on them.

"Whereas the successful roll-out of the AmigaOne hardware hinges in part on the availability of AmigaOS 4.0" --- and that's true even more for the Teron-AmigaOne than it was for the Escena-AmigaOne.

Last edited by umisef on 01-Mar-2008 at 01:54 AM.

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: @syrtran Quote: multiple people telling him that his logic is just fine. Sounds like a web forum to me. Here's where his logic bites: If Hyperion didn't need the 3.5 & 3.9 sources to make OS4, then why does KMOS? Why can't they pay Olaf for his 3.1 CVS code and create their own OS4 successor?

Because unlike Hyperion, they are not going to waive their rights to the sources that they are owed by the contract. Hyperion had the chance to do the same before they got themselves into this mess, there is no reason why Amiga Inc. should make the same mistake. It makes perfect sence.

Quote:

Surely by HIS logic, KMOS can simply take 3.1, study the functionality of OS4 and then reproduce OS4 and enhance it, correct?

Sure, they could, but why should they?

Quote:

What would be KMOS' excuse to not partake in such an endeavor? Could it be TIME and MONEY? ... Now who would have thought that? I mean, seriously now - who would have thought that producing an upgrade to an OS without all the proper documentations would cost additional time and money?

What part of "at the sole expense of Hyperion" is so hard to understand? It was Hyperion's choice wether to undertake this project or not, nobody forced them. If any contractual obligation of Amiga Inc. was obstructing them of fulfilling their part of the deal, they should have done something about it then rather than just keep accumulating undertakings beyond their obligations of the contract.

It seems that I cannot repeat this often enough; any damages as a result of Hyperion's undertakings beyond their obligations of the contract was self-inflicted. Hence there is no reason for Hyperion to expect that Amiga Inc. to pay for those damages.

Quote:

I'm sure their first problem would be paying Olaf. It seems they can pay lawyers (though Reed & Smith may raise an eyebrow), but when it comes to paying employees & developers, that's where the problems begin for that bunch.

Any issues between Amiga Inc. and Olaf has nothing to do with the lawsuit between Amiga Inc. and Hyperion.

Quote:

So I expect KMOS to release OS4.5(or 5.0) in late May of this year, or else, Hyperions can continue to develop the OS4.X line...

No, since Amiga Inc. are not waiving their rights to the sources of AmigaOS4, Hyperion will have to honor their obligations first.

Last edited by samface on 01-Mar-2008 at 02:16 PM.

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

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

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

@Lou

Quote:

I'm sure their first problem would be paying Olaf.

Much as I'd like Olaf to come out of this with as positive an experience as possible, I find it hard to imagine what Amiga could pay Olaf for. Certainly not the work done on cleaning up the 3.1 sources, because that work was sold to someone else.... Who, unfortunately, also seems to have been less than perfect in fulfilling their obligations of payment --- but I am absolutely positive Lou would scream bloody murder if Olaf came out and said "well, guys --- you didn't pay me according to contract anymore than Amiga did, so I hereby cancel the contract for cause. You no longer have a right to distribute anything derived from those cleaned up sources, as they are mine, and you don't have a license. Also, as you have publicly stated OS4.0 was completed in 2004, the OS4.0 project is now over, and I have thus removed all CVS access in accordance with the contract terms. As you will undoubtedly recall, you may request a CD with the CVS contents upon complete payment of the fees for my CVS hosting, and not a minute before then. Have a nice day. BTW, I sincerely hope you have local copies of the sources which match the GPL'ed binaries you have distributed, because otherwise, you might currently find it difficult to make good on your three year obligation, and may consequently lose any rights to distribute things like your system compiler and debugger, too."

I really wonder whether Hyperion understands how lucky they are that Olaf is such a nice guy....

Last edited by umisef on 01-Mar-2008 at 02:35 PM.

@umisef

Bold statements from someone who knows so little. Time to check up the facts before making those statements perhaps?

@Yabba

Your statement seems to intimate that you know much more than umisef, would you please elaborate on this? He generally does have his facts in order, so would you please enumerate the facts that you feel are dubious?

@stew

why dont you take a guess at who Yabba really is

_________________

@Derfs

The point is not who yabba is but all those the posts we have had to endure that say "I am privy to some secret info but I can not share". I am just asking for him to share with us so we all know. I am not trying to insult him or impune his integrety in the least, I am sorry if it came off that way.

I am assuming that yabba is Stefan Burstrom but I could be wrong. If I am right he would be a developer of, some of OS4, as well as Ibrowse. That would make him privy to info pertaing to the subject, as well as able to tell us where umisef is/was wrong. To say "you are wrong" without clarification is insufficent.


BTW I have been lurking around long before there was an Amigaworld.net and before the 3000 was available. I was alittle upset at having to "hack" the back of the case to fit my toaster in it. So I have read a lot of posts over the years. My memory nor thinking prowess is what it once was, so a little clarification on statements goes along way.


My spelling and grammer is.... well not good

Last edited by stew on 01-Mar-2008 at 08:19 PM.
Last edited by stew on 01-Mar-2008 at 08:17 PM.

@Derfs

Quote:

Derfs wrote: @stew why dont you take a guess at who Yabba really is

Unless Yabba is Olaf it probably doesnt matter, because umisef is talking about them not paying Olaf and Olafs rights under the contract until he is paid. As for Yabba being one of the OS 4 developers, why does that even matter. Not one of them knew Hyperion had signed the contract with Itec until we did. So why on earth should we believe that they have any more knowledge about the case then us. Rogue is currently trying to spin the court case against Hyperion and Amiga Inc by he, his brother and Moana's developer as business as usual. Thats funny I dont ever seem to have had to sue my employer, especially when we didnt have a disagreement.
-Tig

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

@Yabba

Quote:

Bold statements from someone who knows so little. Time to check up the facts before making those statements perhaps?

OK, here are facts:

(a) Olaf's contract signs over ownership of "The Work" to Hyperion.

(b) Olaf's contract states that "The Work" was done as a contractor for Amiga, and that Amiga has failed to pay for it. Thus, the idea of "You don't pay, you don't own, and the guy who did the work is free to sel to someone else" is a premise of that very contract.

(c) Hyperion claim that OS4 was completed at the end of 2004.

(d) Olaf was not paid 5000 Euro by the end of June 2005, as set out in the contract

(e) Olaf is obliged to provide CVS access "for the duration of the AmigaOS 4.0 project". Three years after the completion of AmigaOS 4.0, that duration (anticipated to be 4 months) has surely expired.

(f) Hyperion may request the CVS content once they have paid *all* of Olaf's agreed fee of 25,000 EURO.


Now, which of those facts do you think requires additional checking? All of them are a matter of court record....

Now, as for the non-checked facts:

(g) Olaf is a nice guy

Do you really want to argue that?

@umisef

Last time I needed to, I pointed my computer to http://sourceforge.net/projects/adtools/ to grab all the sources for the gpl-ed code you are talking about.

@Yabba

Quote:

Yabba wrote: @umisef Last time I needed to, I pointed my computer to http://sourceforge.net/projects/adtools/ to grab all the sources for the gpl-ed code you are talking about.

If thats the best you got, you should have saved your entrance fee.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Not sure what your point is? Unisef made statements on the gpl based components such as the compiler and the debugger used for AOS4 without any facts and I corrected him.

@Yabba

Quote:

Yabba wrote: @Tigger Not sure what your point is? Unisef made statements on the gpl based components such as the compiler and the debugger used for AOS4 without any facts and I corrected him.

Actually no you didnt. Umisef (note correct spelling) made several points, instead of leaving a message saying actually the code for the GPL stuff is available here, which would have been helpful, you posted a rather silly statement on 707 implying that Bernd doesnt know what he's talking about, thats led to a whole line of questions about why did you think Bernd wrong, instead of your first message actually answering the question, which is how most of us would have answered, you decided to go with the now classic vague OS 4 programmer answers, I guess the question that comes up is did Evert teach you that or was it Ben? Because surely even you realize the crux of Umisefs post wasnt about a possible GPL issue.
-Tig

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

@Tigger

Quote:

Umisef (note correct spelling)

(note that n is next to m key and as such a natural mistake)

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

@Yabba

Quote:

Not sure what your point is? Unisef made statements on the gpl based components such as the compiler and the debugger used for AOS4 without any facts and I corrected him.

Actually, you made a cryptic comment about "bold statements"...Not particularly specific. Especially given that the "statements" you *were* referring to were along the lines of "I sincerely hope you have local copies" (i.e. copies other than those in the CVS), there wasn't even much of a "correction" when you provided details, just confirmation that yes, indeed, such copies do exist.

Anyway, it's good to see that the compiler is now maintained in a public place.

It's even better to see that although the SDK's included documentation points to your Sourceforge link for sources for the included GPL'ed software, which merely provides gcc/gdb and binutils (leaving out such things as mak, gzip, tar and distcc), most of those sources are actually included in the "contrib" version of the SDK, available right alongside the "nocontrib" one and thus actually in compliance.

A suggestion for future SDK updates, though --- I don't think the sources to "tar" or "gzip" are included anywhere. Those are two rather essential tools, especially when some of the other source archives are included as .tar.gz files... I believe the fileutils sources have accidentally been left off.

(May I further suggest that it might be a reasonable idea to make the damn thing a tad easier to find --- right now, it ranks right up there with Intel Gigabit Ethernet cards with Bypass Functionality; Findable if you know what you are looking for and are willing to follow obscure Google searches, but non-existent as far as obvious places to look are concerned; Here, that would be os4.hyperion-entertainment.biz or, OS4Depot, or even Hyperion's main website).

Last edited by umisef on 03-Mar-2008 at 02:45 AM.
Last edited by umisef on 03-Mar-2008 at 02:39 AM.

@Yabba

I see now you point. Should have made it to strat with. Umisef's point that you disputed was not the main one and was added as a btw, which I did not pay attention to. Your post sounded like you disputed most of Umisef's post and knew something that would disprove it. I guess it was a misunderstanding but a cleare post on your part would have been helpful. BTW am I right as to who you are?

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Lou Quote: [quote] I've already state my theory about the ITEC situation That would be the super tricky Itec fooled poor old Hyperion to sell the OS, so thats why they arent giving it to them theory? Do you know how silly that sounds to virtually everyone? -Tig

Nope. It's the only thing that does make sense for that behavior. Infact, we have ITEC claiming that they told Hyperion they were intending to buy all of Amino's assets and later on that they changed their minds.

Last edited by Lou on 03-Mar-2008 at 12:41 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 03-Mar-2008 at 12:40 PM.