@hth313

Quote:

But this as you mention has nothing to do with any NDA of Hyperion.

Yes it does, the NDAs specify what you are allowed to share and what you are not to share.

Quote:

If you make a cleanroom reimplementation you cannot risk having people on the project that have seen the original source, or worse, worked on it. This is the whole meaning of doing it cleanroom.

Yes, if you can really prove cleanroom reimplementation, then you can win the case in court - but it in itself does not prevent someone from making legal claims.

Quote:

It is the other way around, AROS and MorphOS do not want these people. It is not that Hyperion forbids them from working there, because if it did, I would be shocked.

AROS and MorphOS do not want these people because the risk of Hyperion (or whoever) going after them, if they contribute.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

@tonyw

Quote:

Yes, the suggestion is absurd. As an experienced hardware/firmware/software designer, I can work on any project I please. My NDA with Hyperion won't stop me from working on other projects, only sharing private code from OS4.

Have you asked Hyperion if it is OK for you to contribute to AROS?

Maybe you should.

People seem to misunderstand what I wrote...
I am not saying that Hyperion would be rightful in bringing such a claim to court, but if someone who clearly have access to the OS sources, also do work on AROS - then Hyperion would be much more likely to make such a claim. And since such a person is tied to Hyperion with an NDA, it can also easily have legal implications for that person.

The fact that AROS is open source and AmigaOS is not, just means that no-one but people who are also tied to (through NDAs) Hyperion would be able to verify whether Hyperion's claim would be rightful or not.

The entire point here is that it puts Hyperion in a position to legally wrestle parties who have no interest nor resources to oppose them.

Last edited by kolla on 17-Aug-2018 at 12:13 PM.
Last edited by kolla on 17-Aug-2018 at 11:58 AM.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

Personally, I would prefer a much more "BSD like" approach to all the so called NG OSes, so that they could borrow and improve on each others code base, forking and merging back and forth, and hence improve compatibility and interoperability. In time one could work out some Amiga "NG" variant of POSIX that software developers could relate to.

Last edited by kolla on 17-Aug-2018 at 12:18 PM.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

@kolla

Write once, run everywhere, or compile everywhere,

writing something for OS4, and then having to strip out new stuff to make it work on OS3, is wast of time. We need some dummy functions and some macros, that will make easy to just compile stuff without too many changes.

OS3 might not have the features, but it might allow developers to pick API's that are 64bit compatible, instead of API's that is stuck at 32bit. (even if its just 64bit to 32bit api wrappers.)

I'm not taking about back porting Reaction or anything like that, but some minimizing the work of porting things between platforms, might help independent developers. Expanding markets.

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 17-Aug-2018 at 04:43 PM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 17-Aug-2018 at 04:42 PM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 17-Aug-2018 at 01:38 PM.

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

@kolla

An example of Hyperion threatening AROS:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AROS_Research_Operating_System

In that article see Reference #3 at bottom. The "AROS is probably illegal" claim, due exactly to what you have been posting about.

Consider also why Hyperion betatesters do not post any progress or even their own impression of progress to the OS.

@AmeegaGuy

*cough*

Ben & Evert

Additional insight perhaps:

2010
and
2014

#6

Last edited by number6 on 17-Aug-2018 at 03:43 PM.

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

@Nonefornow

Quote:

Does anyone who has seen original AROS source code risk compromising Amiga OS code with their "inside knowledge" and hence put Amiga OS at risk of being legally attacked by AROS?

You need to read about this thing called the GPL.

AROS can actually attack Hyperion, if they prove that Hyperion used AROS source code in violation of the GPL. The only way Hyperion can do that, however, is to use the source code without acknowledging they used it, providing a link so someone can obtain the source code, and sharing freely any changes they made to the code.

That said, proving Hyperion did that would be pretty tough: you'd have to have access to the source or something to that effect. But it's happened before; if I recall correctly, back in the 90s Microsoft's "Windows for Workgroups" used open-source network software produced by BSD Unix (I think) and they were dumb enough not to (a) acknowledge it, and (b) allow it to print its usual messages, which included a copyright notice. I don't remember much more than that, and the details themselves may be wrong.

Otherwise, Hyperion is free to use whatever they want from AROS, and for all we know they do.

_________________
I've decided to follow an awful lot of people I respect and leave AmigaWorld. If for some reason you want to talk to me, it shouldn't take much effort to find me.

@simplex

Quote:

You need to read about this thing called the GPL.

No he doesn't, because AROS is not using the GPL.

Quote:

Otherwise, Hyperion is free to use whatever they want from AROS, and for all we know they do.

"Hyperion" didn't write - or borrow - a single line of code. They hired developers to do that. And said developers should get the benefit of the doubt, no?

In other words: for all we know, you're beating your wife.

@cgutjahr

Quote:

"Hyperion" didn't write - or borrow - a single line of code. They hired developers to do that. And said developers should get the benefit of the doubt, no? In other words: for all we know, you're beating your wife.

True Amigan's write a article how they did it . http://wiki.amigaos.net/wiki/Anatomy_of_a_SATA_Device_Driver . "
Last time I checked sata_fsl.c and other files in Linux kernel source are GPL v2.

@Nonefornow

Quote:

AROS is free and open source.

The root directory of the SVN source tree contains copies of both the APL 1.1 (derived from the MPL) and the LGPL 2.1. So I'm wondering.... which one is it?

_________________
"Unix is supposed to fix that." -- Jay Miner

@Rose

Wow, they even state that they steal code from Linux.

@hth313

Quote:

Wow, they even state that they steal code from Linux.

Hardly. The article merely states, "All you have to do then is figure out how libata works." There's absolutely nothing wrong with using open source as documentation. In fact, it's normative.

If open source code is used without conforming with the license requirements, of course there is an issue. Discovering how something works, however, via open source and then writing your own code based upon that knowledge is not only not illegal, it is not immoral, either. In fact, it would be immoral to prevent it.

Casually (and callously) hurling accusations of theft borders on slander.

Last edited by Snorg on 17-Aug-2018 at 10:56 PM.
Last edited by Snorg on 17-Aug-2018 at 10:10 PM.

@Snorg

So first we talk about Linux.. then..

"So now you have your device driver skeleton and you have libata and you are ready to steal some code."

[..]

"Copy the libata source code from the Linux source tree and paste into the AmigaOS source tree."

Well I obviously jump to conclusions, so I apologize.

@hth313

Fair enough; the text you've quoted certainly suggests code has been lifted verbatim. Whether or not it has been compiled and linked into a binary distribution is unclear, but certainly suggested.

I stopped reading at, "So having the source code to scan while you are going through the docs is essential to understanding."

Still, one must be careful with accusations, and I'll be careful about reading the whole text next time.

Edit: To be clear, I was simply interjecting in the interests of keeping the peace in light of the (apparent?) suggestion of wrongdoing.

Last edited by Snorg on 18-Aug-2018 at 03:09 AM.
Last edited by Snorg on 18-Aug-2018 at 02:02 AM.

@simplex

Quote:

You need to read about this thing called the GPL.

AROS is not GPL.

Quote:

if I recall correctly, back in the 90s Microsoft's "Windows for Workgroups" used open-source network software produced by BSD Unix (I think) and they were dumb enough not to (a) acknowledge it, and (b) allow it to print its usual messages, which included a copyright notice.

You need to read about this thing called the BSD license.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

@Snorg

Anyway its not problem to use Open Source Code, like GPL, if just keep it Open Source, as selling something with Open Source code, Linux distributions does that all the time.

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

@bison

Quote:

Quote: AROS is free and open source. The root directory of the SVN source tree contains copies of both the APL 1.1 (derived from the MPL) and the LGPL 2.1. So I'm wondering.... which one is it?

Code that is borrowed or included from other projects, keep their license.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

@NutsAboutAmiga

Implied in all of this is following the requirements of the license in question, sure. By speaking as an observer I'm doing so in the abstract and trying to be a gentleman in the process.

@kolla, @cgutjahr

Quote:

AROS is not GPL.

Yes, I pulled "GPL" out as a stand-in for open-source licenses and didn't have time to check the details (nearly late for a meeting). Of course, section 3 of the APL more or less states what I was wrote, to wit:
Quote:

(my words) The only way Hyperion can [violate the license], however, is to use the source code without acknowledging they used it, providing a link so someone can obtain the source code, and sharing freely any changes they made to the code. (APL)Any Modification which You create or to which You contribute must be made available in Source Code form... You may distribute Covered Code in Executable form only if the requirements of Section 3.1-3.5 have been met for that Covered Code, and if You include a notice stating that the Source Code version of the Covered Code is available under the terms of this License, including a description of how and where You have fulfilled the obligations of Section 3.2. The notice must be conspicuously included in any notice in an Executable version, related documentation or collateral in which You describe recipients' rights relating to the Covered Code.

But, sure, let's miss the forest for the trees here.

Quote:

"Hyperion" didn't write - or borrow - a single line of code. They hired developers to do that. And said developers should get the benefit of the doubt, no?

Oh, come on! Hyperion commissioned the code, so my use of their name clearly stands in for the developers. Nor did I imply that the latter stole AROS code. I was posing a hypothetical scenario in order to address a hypothetical scenario posed by someone else.

Quote:

In other words: for all we know, you're beating your wife.

Since I don't keep my wife hidden in the house (really, I don't!), you actually have pretty easy ways of figuring it out: look her up any day she's out and about in town; pay for her to visit a doctor, etc. By contrast, closed-source code [I]is[/I] kept hidden in the house, (really, that's why it's called closed!) you would have no way of verifying that it isn't copied!

So in fact your example proves my point, not the other way around.

Quote:

You need to read about this thing called the BSD license.

Where did I say the copying was forbidden? or that there was a lawsuit? I merely explained how it was discovered. It was a bit of egg on Microsoft's face, though, since they were heavily invested in denigrating open source code, and here their premiere software for office networking was caught using open source. At the time I worked with a bunch of coders who were pretty favorable to GPL, GNU, and Linux, and they were getting a good laugh out of it at the time.

Last edited by simplex on 18-Aug-2018 at 04:16 AM.

_________________
I've decided to follow an awful lot of people I respect and leave AmigaWorld. If for some reason you want to talk to me, it shouldn't take much effort to find me.

Yes.