@blizz1220

Quote:

If Cloanto gets his rights from Amiga Inc. then they can use it only for emulation not making use on REAL computer

Cloanto doesn´t agree with you...
http://www.amigaforever.com/news-events/classic-support-3-1/

Quote:

Only one that "owns" all AmigaOSes (the old REAL!!!111) ones is Hyperion

Again, no. Hyperion owns only 4.x, prior version is licenced.

@pavlor

Quote:

I meant: they can legaly use OS sources, or not?

There's a loophole - Cloanto could be lying about owning the rights while in fact they only have a license to distribute any binaries created until (say) 2003. How likely is that, given that Hyperion did not challenge Cloanto's public claims, given that Cloanto can mix'n match OS parts any way they want and name it whatever they want, and given that information in the US Copyright Database supports the majority of Mike Battilana's claims?

Like I said, I think there's plenty of evidence to support Mike's claims.

@pavlor

"Bare ownership" is ownership but stripped of all it's rights
except to sell it someone else as "bare ownership".

HyperionMP used this video to prove that Amiga Inc. consortium
of Bill's companies had original source codes and US Court ordered
all those shell companies to GIVE that sources to Hyperion.

Excuse was that "they are lost" , video is used as proof they are not.

Hyperion had to get them "other way" but it wasn't illegal for them to
do so as US Law allows it.

And most important Pavlor , what computer did Cloanto produce and
bundled with Kickstarts and Workbench ? My post was very clear ...

ONLY emulation unless something changed.They can distribute it on
any media including Amiga DD floppies so people who make the hardware
can legally buy it from them shifting responsobllity.

Last edited by blizz1220 on 03-May-2015 at 06:32 PM.

@cgutjahr

Quote:

Can they distribute 3.1? Check. Can they modify the scope of the distribution? Check. Can they modify actual 3.1 modules? Check. If I can distribute a modified C:version command that means I have the sources, I have the right to modify them and I have the right to distribute the modification. What kind of "control" are you missing in this context?

I am not so sure. You can modify binaries with patching and distributing 3.1 with updated components is not proof they have the sources.

But I dont see not having the sources would be an issue. If they don't have the sources they could use AROS code to replace AmigaOS components one by one. Or put it in other words, morph (!) AmigaOS to AROS code base.

Either way Cloanto appears to have enough powers to control the future of AmigaOS.

Edit: Oops! I did not read entire thread before replying. Sorry.

Last edited by itix on 03-May-2015 at 06:41 PM.
Last edited by itix on 03-May-2015 at 06:40 PM.
Last edited by itix on 03-May-2015 at 06:37 PM.

_________________
Amiga Developer
Amiga 500, Efika, Mac Mini and PowerBook

@cgutjahr

Quote:

Cloanto can mix'n match OS parts any way they want

They did that even before 2014 announcement.

Quote:

that Hyperion did not challenge Cloanto's public claims

Cloanto never claimed ownership of 3.1 source code.

Quote:

Like I said, I think there's plenty of evidence to support Mike's claims.

I´m still waiting for evidence in support of your claim - Cloanto ownership of 3.1 source code.

@blizz1220

Quote:

HyperionMP used this video to prove that Amiga Inc. consortium of Bill's companies had original source codes and US Court ordered all those shell companies to GIVE that sources to Hyperion.

Quote:

My post was very clear ...

Of course...

Binary patching is always possible, but it's too much expensive. Only for small changes it makes sense.

Looking at the Cloanto's changes, they seem too much for thinking about some people which reverses the binaries and then provides a proper patch for fixing something or introduce some feature.

What is worth to mention is the change at the FastFileSystem to remove the (well known) 4GB limit. It requires non-trivial work, and we're talking about one of the most important component for an o.s. (yes, I continue to use abbreviations ). Working with a binary patch without taking a look at all implications of such change is "a bit" hazardous, since there can be data corruption, which is the most dangerous thing for a such system component.

So, my idea is that such changes came thanks to the availability of sources.

Another thing that has to be clarified is that the Amiga Inc Hyperion deal does NOT change the existing contracts of the former, and in particular the ones with Cloanto. Since Cloanto claimed ownership/copyright rights over ALL Commodore products up to 1993, it means that she is also allowed to sell computers with such products. Read: the domain is NOT restricted to the emulation.

@cdimauro

If they bought it from Amiga Inc. it is ...

Which they said they did and what about all those
pretty patents , I guess that's not work of Commodore ? :)

@cdimauro

Quote:

What is worth to mention is the change at the FastFileSystem to remove the (well known) 4GB limit.

Do you realise this one is taken from 3.9?

@cdimauro

Quote:

Since Cloanto claimed ownership/copyright rights over ALL Commodore products up to 1993

and yesterday Hyperionmp account posted:

Quote:

It is based on the original source-code, some of which even predates Commodore's involvement.

erm...predating even Commodore.

Source

Next we'll have someone claim they own it all because the idea came to them in 1967. Maybe Al Gore. (evil grin)

#6

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

@blizz1220: what counts is the partnerships that were stipulated before the Amiga Inc / Hyperion agreement. It seems that Cloanto has collected several of such deals with different parties (not only Commodore and successors), and well before such agreement.

Patents aren't forever, and on 2015 they are for sure expired. Consider that 2 years ago have expired (or about to expire) all Intel's Pentium patents, for example.

@pavlor

Quote:

Cloanto never claimed ownership of 3.1 source code.

They're claiming they own the copyrights, you really need to look up what that means.

Quote:

I´m still waiting for evidence in support of your claim

It's not my claim, it's Cloanto's claim. And, please repeat after me: The claim is that the copyrights have been assigned to them. Yes, that also means legal access to source code. It's completely unneccessary to even mention it, because owning the copyright means it's totally your baby.

As for evidence that this claim might be true, I listed it. You choose not to believe it? Fine. But for the love of god, please don't reply "source code" again.

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @cdimauro Quote: What is worth to mention is the change at the FastFileSystem to remove the (well known) 4GB limit. Do you realise this one is taken from 3.9?

No. Where have you read it?

@number6

Quote:

number6 wrote: @cdimauro Quote: Since Cloanto claimed ownership/copyright rights over ALL Commodore products up to 1993 and yesterday Hyperionmp account posted: Quote: It is based on the original source-code, some of which even predates Commodore's involvement. erm...predating even Commodore. Source Next we'll have someone claim they own it all because the idea came to them in 1967. Maybe Al Gore. (evil grin) #6

ROFL. I haven't realized it before. In Italian the term "predare" (a verb) has a completely different meaning (it's similar to "plunder") of the English term "predate", so I was completely faked by this "false friend".

With "pre-dates" the sentence assumes a fairly grotesque meaning.

In the beginning was Hyperion...

EDIT: better clarified regarding the predare/predates words.

Last edited by cdimauro on 03-May-2015 at 08:00 PM.
Last edited by cdimauro on 03-May-2015 at 07:49 PM.
Last edited by cdimauro on 03-May-2015 at 07:48 PM.

@AmigaBlitter

Quote:

AmigaBlitter wrote: Don't want to start a flame thread with this. Just curious about how much Amiga worth today. It's buyable, btw?

I use AmigaOS 4.1.

_________________
--
-=#Val#=-
Valiant@Camelot


Amiga 1000; Amiga 2000; Amiga 3000T; CD-TV; CD32;
AmigaOne-XE 800Mhz G4;Sam400ep 666Mhz;
AmigaOne X-1000 1.8Ghz PA6T-1682M

@cdimauro


Quote:

@blizz1220: what counts is the partnerships that were stipulated before the Amiga Inc / Hyperion agreement. It seems that Cloanto has collected several of such deals with different parties (not only Commodore and successors), and well before such agreement.

That may be but they got license to use them with emulation
package (Amiga Forever) but in recent times they claimed they
bought ownership (unless they have time machine it's from
Amiga Inc. probably , which they mentioned in the statement).

No third party's right can be affected by court settlement of
other two parties (with some minor exceptions) but from what
I can read Hyperion owns AmigaOS while Amiga Inc. own trademark
and AmigaDE and AmigaEverywhere but those are by court's view
emulation packages not OSes you can install on naked hardware.

Said that AROS fall into another category by Civil Codex as it's made
from 0 legally (no idea how would US courts stand on the issue).

@TRIPOS

Quote:

Commodore did never (in its life time) release "Amiga OS", that happened after the Commodore bankruptcy.

Wrong. F. ex. see package scan here - I could post a photo from my original package for my Amiga 2000 here as well.

_________________
X1000|II/G4|440ep|2000/060|2000/040|1000

@cha05e90

Quote:

Wrong. F. ex. see package scan here - I could post a photo from my original package for my Amiga 2000 here as well.

it says quite clearly "AMIGA (R)" - which obviously is the name of the product and the registered trademark, as indicated with the (r) sign which is inline with it.

and then in a different type below it says "OS 3.1" which provides more detailed description of the content of the package. namely the operating system for the above computer, the package contains software update for.

not sure, what you guys want so much to prove or argue about.

@cha05e90

Quote:

Quote: Commodore did never (in its life time) release "Amiga OS", that happened after the Commodore bankruptcy. Wrong.

No.

Quote:

F. ex. see package scan here

Again, that's the Village Tronic/Commodore release that happened a month after the Commodore liquidation. There was no longer any "Commodore" at that point, all operations had been terminated, company management dissolved, all assets in the hands of trustees who was in the process of selling them off. I'll quote myself here since it seems you didn't read the thread before posting, here is post #154

Quote:

Commodore died before any AmigaOS 3.1 was sold as a stand-alone product (a custom version for CD32 aside). It's as simple as that. They had the product in the pipe line though and the publisher Village Tronic had manufactured stock that went for sale AFTER Commodore's bankruptcy. That's why you see Commodore's logo. They were considered "Pirate Copies" by some officials, since they generated money that AFAIK never reached the IP owners. Bankruptcies can mean a lot of money lost for some people/companies, and I suppose Village Tronic had spent money for production that they simply tried to recover. I don't judge anyone, it's two decades ago.

And here is more:

http://www.amigahistory.co.uk say:
"AmigaOS 3.1. The first version of the Amiga operating system to be officially dubbed AmigaOS. The move follow Apple renaming their propriety OS from "System" to "MacOS". The package was first released in a cut down form at the heart of the CD32. The following year (mid-1994) it was released as an upgrade a month after Commodore International went into liquidation. Escom introduced the version as standard when they began to manufacture the A1200 and A4000T again."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AmigaOS_versions say:
"Version 3.1 of the Amiga operating system was the first version to be officially referred to as "Amiga OS" (with a space between "Amiga" and "OS")[3][4] by Commodore, possibly inspired by Apple renaming the Mac operating system from "System" to "Mac OS"
---
"What many consider the first versions of AmigaOS (Workbench 1.0 up to 3.0) are here indicated with the Workbench name of their original disks."

THIS!

And simply the fact that no "Amiga OS" products existed on market until after Commodores demise.





Edit: It will be interesting to see whether certain "historical revisionists" will sneek into the Wikipedia at night and make alterations now...


Edit 2: The section "AmigaOS history before AmigaOS 4.x" in the amigaos.net/content/10/history-amigaos page needs to be corrected,

"1994 Workbench 3.1 released. This is the last AmigaOS released by Commodore" should better read:
"1994 Amiga OS 3.1 released. The last release made by Commodore but released by Village Tronic after Commodores liquidation.

And:

"4 December 2000 Workbench 3.9 released by Haage & Partner"
"18 October 1999 Workbench 3.5 released by Haage & Partner"

should of course be changed to

"4 December 2000 Amiga OS 3.9 released by Haage & Partner"
"18 October 1999 Amiga OS 3.5 released by Haage & Partner"

And at the top of this section, the following addition:

"30 October 2014 Workbench 3.1 update released by Cloanto"

Last edited by TRIPOS on 04-May-2015 at 09:34 AM.
Last edited by TRIPOS on 04-May-2015 at 09:17 AM.

@cgutjahr


Quote:

t's not my claim, it's Cloanto's claim. And, please repeat after me: The claim is that the copyrights have been assigned to them. Yes, that also means legal access to source code. It's completely unneccessary to even mention it, because owning the copyright means it's totally your baby.

They have license to use source code and modify them for the
purpose of developing Amiga Forever.

Copyright gives them the right to sell / license / give away the products
of that to their Amiga Forever customers.

If agreed in contract one side can keep sources and develop another
product while other side gets copyright (distribution rights) to existing
material.They can even both keep copyright of sources "co-holders"
and make their own products based on them.No action can be seen as
legal proof of anything until courts are involved.

And saying that anyone is forthcoming in his/hers public statement is
just a bit too much of a compliment I'd say for all companies up above.

Last edited by blizz1220 on 04-May-2015 at 09:45 AM.