Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
5759 members 
Amiga Q&A /  Free for All /  Emulation /  Gaming / (Latest Posts)
Login

Nickname

Password

Lost Password?

Don't have an account yet?
Register now!

Support Amigaworld.net
Your support is needed and is appreciated as Amigaworld.net is primarily dependent upon the support of its users.
Donate

Menu
Main sections
Home
Features
News
Forums
Classifieds
Links
Downloads
Extras
OS4 Zone
IRC Network
AmigaWorld Radio
Newsfeed
Top Members
Amiga Dealers
Information
About Us
FAQs
Advertise
Polls
Terms of Service
Search

IRC Channel
Server: irc.amigaworld.net
Ports: 1024,5555, 6665-6669
SSL port: 6697
Channel: #Amigaworld
Channel Policy and Guidelines

Who's Online
31 crawler(s) on-line.
 12 guest(s) on-line.
 1 member(s) on-line.


 Bezzen

You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 Bezzen:  4 mins ago
 Derfs:  10 mins ago
 MEGA_RJ_MICAL:  13 mins ago
 Rob:  24 mins ago
 Vidar:  38 mins ago
 Marcian:  46 mins ago
 DiscreetFX:  49 mins ago
 Musashi5150:  55 mins ago
 Argo:  1 hr 10 mins ago
 evilFrog:  1 hr 33 mins ago

/  Forum Index
   /  Amiga OS4.x \ Workbench 4.x
      /  Copyright Infringement in OS4 SDK
Register To Post

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 Next Page )
PosterThread
blizz1220 
Re: Copyright Infringement in OS4 SDK
Posted on 14-Sep-2015 14:46:01
#201 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 12-Jun-2013
Posts: 437
From: Unknown

@eder

Not really , it would be up to other side to prove that I indeed
committed "theft".It could prove to be difficult and if the other
side failed then maybe other side would think twice before
making public site with accusation (same as public notice).

As was point of this thread "rub their nose in it" so they think
twice ? That apology was nice enough in my opinion and maybe
not even LEGALLY needed.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
damocles 
Re: Copyright Infringement in OS4 SDK
Posted on 14-Sep-2015 14:46:52
#202 ]
Super Member
Joined: 22-Dec-2007
Posts: 1719
From: Unknown

@eder

Quote:

eder wrote:
@damocles

Yes, but it could also backfire...


Question is for whom.

_________________
Dammy

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
michalsc 
Re: Copyright Infringement in OS4 SDK
Posted on 14-Sep-2015 14:53:19
#203 ]
AROS Core Developer
Joined: 14-Jun-2005
Posts: 265
From: Germany

@blizz1220

Quote:
Not really , it would be up to other side to prove that I indeed
committed "theft"


Piru did that already:
header file diff
autodoc file diff

Either were both files copied without asking Piru for permission, or it was just an awfully huge coincidence that not only comments in the header file, but also entire autodoc file are nearly the same.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
blizz1220 
Re: Copyright Infringement in OS4 SDK
Posted on 14-Sep-2015 14:57:38
#204 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 12-Jun-2013
Posts: 437
From: Unknown

@michalsc

That would be up to court to verify right ?

If you find a lawyer that can say that this is 100 % won case
you found a really bad lawyer because :

1.No lawyer is allowed to say "I'll win this case"
2.I can think at least 5 ways to dispute that evidence

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
umisef 
Re: Copyright Infringement in OS4 SDK
Posted on 14-Sep-2015 16:11:23
#205 ]
Super Member
Joined: 19-Jun-2005
Posts: 1675
From: Melbourne, Australia

@blizz1220

Quote:
That would be up to court to verify right ?


Let's be sensible for a second, shall we?

You cannot possibly claim that there is any doubt that those files are extremely closely related. And as one set predates the other set by years, the nature of the relationship can hardly be in doubt, either. Especially once you realise that the whole "(sysv)" calling convention that's present in the OS4 version isn't actually what should be in an OS4 autodoc[1].

And if that isn't enough --- one of Hyperion's own directors has explicitly stated that an almost-verbatim copy accidentally made it into the OS4 SDK.

So that part is really beyond discussion. It's fact. Verifiable, as well as confirmed/admitted, fact.


Now, are those files (there are actually more --- the "protos" includes are there, too) covered by copyright? That could be argued by lawyers for hours[2]. But --- what would be the point? I mean, other than lawyers getting rich, and developers getting sick of it? Despite what some people like to project, all the NG OSs are hobbies, with no money to speak of involved, no users to speak of, no market to speak of. Which also explains how something like this could have happened --- there is also no project management or QA to speak of when it comes to the SDK. Which is expected --- that kind of stuff takes effort, and who wants to spend their hobby time doing menial crap like going over spare-time volunteer contributions and checking the IP cleanliness?

But regardless of how any legal bluster and posturing would turn out --- on a moral level, this copying was certainly a dick move. Even more so given previous events involving the contributor. Releasing SDK 53.29 as it is was something that shouldn't have happened. But it did. The release manager screwed up. The company who put it out in its name screwed up. They are understandable screwups, but they are screwups nonetheless.

So, once the screwup was noticed, the correct behaviour would have been along the lines of "Oops. Damn it, we screwed up! So sorry! Piru, we are sorry. How can we make it right? What would it take to get a retroactive license? How about we pay for the beer tab at the next MorphOS developer meeting?"

Costel at least did the first part, and more credit to him. He probably doesn't have the financial authority for the second part, what with being the technical guy.

Ben, on the other hand, denied that anything untowards had happened at all. And insisted that whatever untowards thing hadn't happened had been "fixed" by making minor edits to the not-copyrightable-anyway files. And stated that the complaint was about the copying of an API, which is a load of crap, because it was about the copying of the specific files which implement and document the API.

Which was another dick move. However, this dick move cannot be excused by the hobby nature of the project. It can at best be explained (and the now-removed post 159 explained it quite succinctly). And given Ben's history, particularly where MorphOS is concerned, Ben can hardly be surprised that his feet are being held to the fire in response.


Of course, I can't speak for Piru, but I would be very surprised if an actual, genuine apology, an admission of wrong-doing, and an offer to set things right through a symbolic license "payment" wouldn't be the immediate end of this sorry PR disaster.



[1]: The SDK 53.30 "fixed" version has these replaced with 68k register assignments for the arguments.
[2]: Lawyers being paid to argue regardless of what they believe, they will blissfully argue a position which to anyone with common sense is completely absurd.

Last edited by umisef on 14-Sep-2015 at 04:15 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
number6 
Re: Copyright Infringement in OS4 SDK
Posted on 14-Sep-2015 16:22:12
#206 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 25-Mar-2005
Posts: 10867
From: In the village

@umisef

I hope you know from my posts I'm not offering this in terms of a way to excuse behavior, but...

The multiple peaceful "co-existence agreements" with Amiga Inc. by multiple parties and the fact that in the case where Amiga Inc. can not or will not defend its IP, Ben is forced to, not to mention whatever unknowns lie within the settlement agreements (multiples of those), makes all of this "patterned behavior" somewhat less than black and white. Just sayin'.

This does bring up the question of how far one goes legally before they destroy themselves morally and ethically regardless.

#6

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
NutsAboutAmiga 
Re: Copyright Infringement in OS4 SDK
Posted on 14-Sep-2015 16:48:58
#207 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 9-Jun-2004
Posts: 11389
From: Norway

@umisef

Quote:
Piru created a library that provides AVL trees and red-black trees. The AVL tree paper was published in 1962, and the red-black tree one in 1972. Even if either of those structures had ever been patented (which, to the best of my knowledge, they haven't), those patents would have expired last century.


who care when it was invented, he should give credit even patents are no longer valid, that be nice thing to do, just saying.

Quote:
Piru independently implemented previously published data structures and algorithms.
Thore copied Piru's header files and autodocs.


We are now at page 11, on this topic, where etch comment contains about 5 to 10 lines of text, there is about 20 comment on etch page, the topic has generated about.

We have at least generated 2200 lines of text on this topic arguing about 20 to 30 lines text file. Is this not just storm in water glass?

It's more work arguing about files, then there is to implement AVL trees and red-black trees, again.

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
NutsAboutAmiga 
Re: Copyright Infringement in OS4 SDK
Posted on 14-Sep-2015 16:58:36
#208 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 9-Jun-2004
Posts: 11389
From: Norway

@Trixie

Quote:

Trixie wrote:
@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:
There is no need for AmigaOS to stay compatible with MorphOS

Please tell that to the people who start a "Let AOS, MOS and AROS cooperate!" thread every month


You cooperate with people who want to, not with people who do not.

I do not mind sharing files on open source projects with others that are willing to contribute. On the other hand if I am the one working on it, and some one else just use my work with out contribution, then cooperation is not fruitful, and it makes no sense doing it.

You cannot really force someone into cooperation, cooperation is something you do because its common interest to do so.

I have few half-done projects, I have uploaded, hoping there be few developers storming to help out, but that has not happened, in my option it's not match point in cooperation. If there is no one to cooperate with.

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 14-Sep-2015 at 05:12 PM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 14-Sep-2015 at 05:05 PM.

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Condor 
Re: Copyright Infringement in OS4 SDK
Posted on 14-Sep-2015 17:04:30
#209 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 28-Feb-2004
Posts: 190
From: Zagreb, Croatia

Well,

I found all this dramatic situation even as real video...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcSMaNlcDPs

Even mud have some point...

_________________
Amiga_Os3-Os4-Mos User!!!

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
cdimauro 
Re: Copyright Infringement in OS4 SDK
Posted on 14-Sep-2015 17:16:47
#210 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Oct-2012
Posts: 2096
From: Germany

@blizz1220

Quote:

blizz1220 wrote:
@michalsc

That would be up to court to verify right ?

If you find a lawyer that can say that this is 100 % won case
you found a really bad lawyer because :

1.No lawyer is allowed to say "I'll win this case"
2.I can think at least 5 ways to dispute that evidence

Then do the same thing with an Intel IP, and you'll see if the 100% is true or not.

Looking at the diffs, it's quite trivial to prove that the header and the autodoc were copied. Of course, I'm talking about peoples which have experience doing IP scan & analysis, which is clearly not the case of many people here, "lawyers" included.

BTW, as I already stated, there are tools to help such pre-release process, which are licensed and cost a lot of money. And there trainings too, for properly using that stuff.

Just to say that it's something which an hobby company/team can't afford.

That's why I agree with umisef last comment: it doesn't make sense a battle between poors, which can only enrich lawyers...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
cdimauro 
Re: Copyright Infringement in OS4 SDK
Posted on 14-Sep-2015 17:20:38
#211 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Oct-2012
Posts: 2096
From: Germany

@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:

NutsAboutAmiga wrote:
@umisef

Quote:
Piru created a library that provides AVL trees and red-black trees. The AVL tree paper was published in 1962, and the red-black tree one in 1972. Even if either of those structures had ever been patented (which, to the best of my knowledge, they haven't), those patents would have expired last century.


who care when it was invented, he should give credit even patents are no longer valid, that be nice thing to do, just saying.

I don't understand why you continue to talk about things which is clearly evident that you know nothing.

NO, absolutely NO: he does NOT have to give any credit if he doesn't want, because that's part of the computer science history / literature / recipes.
Quote:
Quote:
Piru independently implemented previously published data structures and algorithms.
Thore copied Piru's header files and autodocs.


We are now at page 11, on this topic, where etch comment contains about 5 to 10 lines of text, there is about 20 comment on etch page, the topic has generated about.

We have at least generated 2200 lines of text on this topic arguing about 20 to 30 lines text file. Is this not just storm in water glass?

Only for an hobby community, because in the real world you can be sued for much less lines.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
TRIPOS 
Re: Copyright Infringement in OS4 SDK
Posted on 14-Sep-2015 17:21:19
#212 ]
Super Member
Joined: 4-Apr-2014
Posts: 1041
From: Unknown

@blizz1220

Reading your posts where you are putting the blame on Piru instead of Hyperion (this late in the game, when there are no longer speculations but only established facts of the matter) makes me think of a rape victim being accused for the deed instead of the perpetrator. Or at least being haunted for "complaining" or "making a fuss" about it.


 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
umisef 
Re: Copyright Infringement in OS4 SDK
Posted on 14-Sep-2015 17:23:37
#213 ]
Super Member
Joined: 19-Jun-2005
Posts: 1675
From: Melbourne, Australia

@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:
who care when it was invented, he should give credit even patents are no longer valid, that be nice thing to do, just saying.


Do you also expect every paper clip packet to credit the original inventor of the paper clip? Do you expect each milk carton to credit Louis Pasteur? Each can of baked beans to credit Philippe de Girard?

How about linked lists? Does one need to credit RAND for those? Doubly linked lists? Circular doubly linked lists? You know there are plenty of those in AmigaOS, right?

Red-black trees and AVL trees are basic tools in a programmer's toolbox, just like hashes, linked lists, heaps and so on. No programmer would ever get the idea that Piru invented them; Even if for some bizarre reason some programmer was unaware of those data structures, reading the autodocs would make it perfectly clear that "red-black trees" and "AVL trees" are not something new that's part of the btree library, but rather some pre-existing and expected-to-be-known concept --- because otherwise, you would get a little more explanation than
Quote:

Currently btree.library provides AVL and red/black balanced binary trees
.
Yes, that's it. That's all the autodoc has to say on the matter.


Quote:
We have at least generated 2200 lines of text on this topic arguing about 20 to 30 lines text file. Is this not just storm in water glass?


btree autodocs are around 400 non-blank lines. And writing documentation is a real pain in the backside...

Quote:
It's more work arguing about files, then there is to implement AVL trees and red-black trees, again.


That isn't actually true, but it also isn't relevant (because nobody has questioned that the actual functionality was indeed implemented independently). However, are you suggesting that doing something wrong and then arguing about it until the wronged party's time is better spent somewhere else should be a viable strategy? And one which you, by arguing for the wronging side, not merely support, but participate in?

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
TRIPOS 
Re: Copyright Infringement in OS4 SDK
Posted on 14-Sep-2015 17:26:49
#214 ]
Super Member
Joined: 4-Apr-2014
Posts: 1041
From: Unknown

@umisef

Quote:

umisef wrote:

Which was another dick move. However, this dick move cannot be excused by the hobby nature of the project. It can at best be explained (and the now-removed post 159 explained it quite succinctly).


Post #159:

< removed for personal attack >

Last edited by Darrin on 13-Sep-2015 at 05:23 PM.


The entire thing is gone now!

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
umisef 
Re: Copyright Infringement in OS4 SDK
Posted on 14-Sep-2015 17:30:08
#215 ]
Super Member
Joined: 19-Jun-2005
Posts: 1675
From: Melbourne, Australia

@TRIPOS

Quote:
The entire thing is gone now


For a little while yet, Google's cache is your friend

In the long run, that post being gone is probably a good thing...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
OlafS25 
Re: Copyright Infringement in OS4 SDK
Posted on 14-Sep-2015 17:35:14
#216 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 12-May-2010
Posts: 5759
From: Unknown

@NutsAboutAmiga

this "community" is completely crazy...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
blizz1220 
Re: Copyright Infringement in OS4 SDK
Posted on 14-Sep-2015 22:32:29
#217 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 12-Jun-2013
Posts: 437
From: Unknown

@TRIPOS

Don't like that analogy.Code being stolen compared to
"rape victims" and rape being heavy criminal act hardly
seems fair in this case.Police handles those.

If you must insist on such ugly analogies I see it more of
a case where someone is accused of being serial rapist
by public notice.Not really nice to other side if it isn't true?

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
wawa 
Re: Copyright Infringement in OS4 SDK
Posted on 14-Sep-2015 22:52:59
#218 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 21-Jan-2008
Posts: 6259
From: Unknown

@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:
I have few half-done projects, I have uploaded, hoping there be few developers storming to help out, but that has not happened, in my option it's not match point in cooperation. If there is no one to cooperate with.


thats expectable. you cant take for granted that whatever project you try to push others will storm in to help you. especially if they are of limited interest to the general public and possibly also if you have been known for taking sides with questionable entities. due to past events there isnt many skilled people left anyway, most are good for little but fighting on forums. tahts sure.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
blizz1220 
Re: Copyright Infringement in OS4 SDK
Posted on 15-Sep-2015 0:16:52
#219 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 12-Jun-2013
Posts: 437
From: Unknown

@cdimauro

Off course I can't argue what I don't understand and have
no doubt that you and Umisef made correct conclusion.

What bothers me that it's already stated as "Copyright Infringement"
(that's going too far , if going that far is needed then go all the way)
and the way it was handled.Stating that against company damages it's
reputation and leaves it open for court case.The fact that SDK was
changed doesn't make thing any lighter because it was once available
for download.I'm not trying to take any side here but there was an
apology which was well worded.If there is something else that could be
done Piru can share what it is on his site.

If thread was "MOS code written by Piru part of Amiga OS 4 SDK" I
wouldn't see any problem with that.But does that code in that SDK
makes it Copyright Infringement is different.And what law should
one be reading in this case ? Which countries ? They are not the
same.

Last edited by blizz1220 on 15-Sep-2015 at 12:21 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
umisef 
Re: Copyright Infringement in OS4 SDK
Posted on 15-Sep-2015 1:18:53
#220 ]
Super Member
Joined: 19-Jun-2005
Posts: 1675
From: Melbourne, Australia

@blizz1220

Quote:
If thread was "MOS code written by Piru part of Amiga OS 4 SDK" I wouldn't see any problem with that.


Guess what copying other people's work without their permission is called....

Quote:
But does that code in that SDK makes it Copyright Infringement is different.


There might be an argument that the header files in question don't meet a certain threshold of creative endeavour which is required to be eligible for copyright protection.

However, outside of liars-for-hire circles, there can't be any argument about the autodocs. They are a creative work, and thus the author holds the copyright. It's called "copyright" because the author has the right to decide about copies being made. When someone else makes copies without the author's permission, that right is being infringed.

Quote:
And what law should one be reading in this case ? Which countries ? They are not the same.


They are, however, extremely similar, because just about all countries have signed up to the Berne Convention. Which might be a good first read if you are actually interested in educating yourself, rather than in throwing your hands up in the air and going "it's all too complicated! Let's just forget about it!". A good next step might be to look at the laws of the countries that the various parties are in --- i.e. Germany (Thore), Belgium (Hyperion) and wherever Piru lives (Finland?).

Quote:
there was an apology which was well worded.


There was also a flat out denial of anything wrong having happened.

The apology came from the technical guy. The denial presumably came from the Director Legal Affairs (judging by the language used).

Can you see the problem with that?

Last edited by umisef on 15-Sep-2015 at 01:19 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 Next Page )

[ home ][ about us ][ privacy ] [ forums ][ classifieds ] [ links ][ news archive ] [ link to us ][ user account ]
Copyright (C) 2000 - 2019 Amigaworld.net.
Amigaworld.net was originally founded by David Doyle