@thread

Update:

http://sintonen.fi/amigaos-sdk-copyright-infringement/

@Pavlor & @Itix

Sorry to interrupt what is obviously a different conversation about a different topic. Feel free to start a seperate thread if you think one issue is going to take precedent over another unfairly in this thread.

#6

Last edited by number6 on 12-Sep-2015 at 01:06 PM.

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

@number6

Thank you and my apologies.

As I read Hyperion's message they dont consider copyright infringement ever happened. I take it as they grant everyone permission to use their header files and autodocs.

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

@itix

Absolutely no need for an apology. I guess I was not clear.

I just meant since we have 2 different topics here, if you and pavlor want to start a new thread about the last issue you were discussing (Commodore/Amiga Inc.), you are free to do so.

#6

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

@itix

Quote:

It is true that items are in identical order. However, I don't see problem with that.

You don't? The problem is that the odds of it happening by chance, when writing things from scratch, is pretty damn close to zero.

Quote:

But spacing in defines is different. [...] Editing those is so much work it is easier to write everything from scratch.

Seriously? You think it's more work to create a consistent spacing and consistent use of tabs vs spaces in an existing file, than it is to create such a consistent file from scratch?
You need to use a better editor. Really! Heck, a combination of GNU indent (to convert all tabs to spaces, and align things nicely) and a sed script (to convert leading start-of-line spaces back to tabs) should get pretty close.

Quote:

And when CISC says he write headers by hand I believe him.

"By hand" and "from scratch" are not the same thing.

In a "from scratch" rewrite, why would anyone put in that weird include guard around the #include of "exec/types.h"? Include guards belong in the included file, not the including one (and are, in fact, present there. So what's the point of guarding the #include? In the 21st century?).

@umisef

Sorry I am without computers this weekend so I keep my answer short (this should be moved to new thread).

All Amiga developers guard #include with #if/#end if, it is a standard. Doesn't matter makes it sense or not. Even btree headers are using this convention and they are definitely new work.

And by hand vs from scratch, they are not clean room rewrites. Never claimed that.

Last edited by itix on 12-Sep-2015 at 05:04 PM.
Last edited by itix on 12-Sep-2015 at 04:38 PM.
Last edited by itix on 12-Sep-2015 at 04:37 PM.

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

@umisef

Quote:

Considering the data structure was introduced by Rudolf Bayer in the proceedings for a 1971 workshop, any patent (which would have to precede the publication) would be well and truly expired by now.

I think this situation is a matter of copyright and not patent, isn't it?

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

@umisef

Quote:

All comments were removed, and the whitespace was layed out much more nicely but other than that (and some MorphOS-specific additions), they are identical.

Are constant, variable, and function names the same?

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

@thread

Seriously, you've now mixed up 2 topics that people obviously want to discuss.
This is fine for the folks involved, but the average reader is not going to know what posts refer to what issue.
Please consider making a thread for the Commodore/Amiga Inc. issue.
Copy relevant posts into that thread if you feel it necessary for continuity.

Thanks.

#6

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

@itix

Quote:

itix wrote: As I read Hyperion's message they dont consider copyright infringement ever happened. I take it as they grant everyone permission to use their header files and autodocs.

Exactly. Just removing the copyright and rephrase something seems to be enough.

Since the copyright law doesn't distinguish between an header and a compilation unit, it means that ANY source owned by Hyperion can be copied (applying the same kind of changes to the code, of course).

BTW, umisef is right. And coding style can be another factor of differentiation of a rewritten code. But for this it's better to discuss to another thread, as number6 suggested.

@bison

Quote:

bison wrote: @umisef Quote: Considering the data structure was introduced by Rudolf Bayer in the proceedings for a 1971 workshop, any patent (which would have to precede the publication) would be well and truly expired by now. I think this situation is a matter of copyright and not patent, isn't it?

Yes, it's.

@bison

Quote:

bison wrote: @umisef Quote: All comments were removed, and the whitespace was layed out much more nicely but other than that (and some MorphOS-specific additions), they are identical. Are constant, variable, and function names the same?

They has to be, because you're defining an API/interface.

However only function parameters names can be different with languages like C, because they haven't support for "keyword parameters" (like in Python, for example).

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: Technological nightmare. A1 (Eyetech) class hardware is able to emulate A500/1200 games, need for "real hardware" is so only emotional.

Seriously? So, why many people wants to speedup chipset emulation (AGA, in particular), if that old AmigaOnes are able to run Amiga 500 & 1200 games?
Quote:

Quote: Apart from that Amithlon would also be sane choice (with some custom parts of hardware to enable better compatibility) as it competed well in terms of speed of PC clones running WIndows at the time. Amithlon was great product - 1/3 of native performance in most published benchmarks. However, lack of MMU emulation wouldn´t be ideal for future OS developement.

Impressive. It's a pity that it isn't developed anymore...

@cdimauro

Quote:

Impressive. It's a pity that it isn't developed anymore

Bernie drew comparisons to ARIXOS, but only Bernie can confirm that, since the website on which this was discussed is currently not accessible re:content.

#6

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

@cdimauro

Quote:

However only function parameters names can be different with languages like C, because they haven't support for "keyword parameters" (like in Python, for example).

OK, so I guess it's just header files we are talking about. I was under the impression that there were .c source files involved.

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

Code ripping! BOOOOOOOOO!!!

Thumb DOWN!

It reflects their capabilities of programming when they steal code... Just saying.

@HL

Reflects bad on you that you joined this website just to post that comment.

Rude!

_________________
2017 Camaro 2SS

@Rudei

Quote:

Rudei wrote: @HL Reflects bad on you that you joined this website just to post that comment. Rude!

OR...he considered it important enough to that he had to join just to say it.

Its a matter of perspective.

@iggy

Quote:

iggy wrote: @Rudei Quote: Rudei wrote: @HL Reflects bad on you that you joined this website just to post that comment. Rude! OR...he considered it important enough to that he had to join just to say it. Its a matter of perspective.

OR I read the post after registration and both of you are wrong. You never know...



Why steal code really?

@HL

Nobody stole any code , they were just too lazy to rewrite the docs.

Last time I notice you were banned twice already ... hillybilly whatever you nick was.

_________________
BroadBlues On Blues BroadBlues On Amiga Walker Broad

@broadblues

Quote:

broadblues wrote: @HL Nobody stole any code , they were just too lazy to rewrite the docs. Last time I notice you were banned twice already ... hillybilly whatever you nick was.

Like i see it using someone else's code and removing info with a hex editor without permission is ripping code.


Hmmmmm... how shall I interpret this. Let me see...

You're a hostage and you have sympathy with the criminal hostage takers, in this case the code thieves?

You feel that your life is in the hostage taker's hands, and that you are under a certain protection from these people?

@itix

Quote:

itix wrote: @number6 Thank you and my apologies. As I read Hyperion's message they dont consider copyright infringement ever happened. I take it as they grant everyone permission to use their header files and autodocs.

If you read the document Ben linked to, well I assume it was Ben, considering the writing style ... at first glance, that appears to be correct indeed. Well at least for the header files. Documentation is a different situation.

He linked to the German version and here you find the English version.

You can actually select the language you read this in, including Finnish

It is in essence, in laymans' terms, one court asking help from a higher court, about the interpretation of a few articles pertaining to copyright of computer programs, and subsequently, the given advice.

The one issue most relevant here is where the first court seeks help in the interpretation of article 1(2) in this document:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31991L0250:EN:HTML

which reads:

Quote:

2. Protection in accordance with this Directive shall apply to the expression in any form of a computer program. Ideas and principles which underlie any element of a computer program, including those which underlie its interfaces, are not protected by copyright under this Directive.

The initial position, and interpretation of the first court appears to be that all actual files, which i took as including header files, are expression of an idea and hence "copyrightable". (interpretation is mine)

That's in accordance with what I thought, and many here too I assume. The API itself, the idea, is not "copyrightable", but the expression, eg in a header file, is.

It turns out that this article should be interpreted as follows, as stated in the document linked to by him (Ben ?) and as argued by him.

Quote:

Article 1(2) of Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs must be interpreted as meaning that neither the functionality of a computer program nor the programming language and the format of data files used in a computer program in order to exploit certain of its functions constitute a form of expression of that program and, as such, are not protected by copyright in computer programs for the purposes of that directive.

I can see his (Ben ?) argument: a header file would be a file needed to exploit certain of the functions of a computer program, hence, is not a form of expression, and as such ... is not protected.

I am however not sure he got it right:

This advice says the format of the file, in this case "a header file" is not protected, it doesn't say whether the file itself is protected.

/me scratches head

This does open some serious amount of cans of worms though.

Evert

Last edited by jorit2 on 12-Sep-2015 at 11:05 PM.
Last edited by jorit2 on 12-Sep-2015 at 10:45 PM.
Last edited by jorit2 on 12-Sep-2015 at 10:27 PM.
Last edited by jorit2 on 12-Sep-2015 at 10:26 PM.

_________________
-- Posting for charity -- Investing €10 in a charity related to education or civil rights for every message I post --