@olsen

Quote:

Over the next few days, the weekend, both Hyperion and Cloanto are going to be busy containing the damage. Wouldn't you like rather like to spend New Year's eve and the next few days with your family? I certainly would. Hyperion and Cloanto won't be able to do that.

I don't think the people that started (and keep on) spreading it give the slightest piece of ***

It's their way of dealing with their pity problems by starting a kindergarden dance, pointing with their finger and chanting: "I made you cry..."

Sad pityful little trolls...

@olsen

No this isnt funny at all. Especially when two companies who are supposed to defend the 3.1 source code allows it to be leaked. Im seeing a pattern here and its not red and white.

_________________
http://www.pc-opensystems.com

@Raziel

Quote:

Sad pityful little trolls...

Exactly.

@pavlor

If you read my prior link the origination is quite clearly stated as CCC.

It's so easy to trace a 2 year old with google could do it.

imo, someone isn't really looking out for such things since in the embedded link within my last link it's also listed in 2013. In fact it is on a website where you can find posts by rather notable amiga personalities.

#6

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

@RobertJDohnert

Quote:

No this isnt funny at all. Especially when two companies who are supposed to defend the 3.1 source code allows it to be leaked. Im seeing a pattern here and its not red and white.

The leak actually took place years ago, I assume sometime in the 1990's. It was most likely a Commodore employee that leaked the code since olsen has said that it pre-dates what was received by Escom.

Obviously it has been sat on at least one persons hard drive, tape, CD, etc since then. Preventing it being uploaded again was something way beyond the control of any Hyperion and Cloanto.

Regardless of anything else, I bet this source code is fascinating from a historical perspective. I'd love to know how much assembly was used in 3.1. I know Exec was in asm, but what about the rest? Also, what things could be learned about what was going on at Commodore at the time, by looking at comments and things like that?

_________________
Blog

@Aslak3

Read the thread linked in post #1.

Olaf is writing a lot of history here and on EAB and many folks are saying THAT is the "good" thing that has resulted from this event.

#6

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

@OlafS25

Quote:

In case of Arix they create a minimalistic Linux core using features like the driver support but Aros is no longer started as application but they create a new linux hosted version that can use more of the linux parts and has more direct access. So it is a mixture between current Linux hosted and native.

Thanks for the explanation.

I have run AROS hosted for a while now, but I have never been able to get it to run native, in most cases due compatibility problems with the graphics hardware I was using. Are there any recent GPUs that work with AROS native?

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

@bison

X86 is not really my area so i cannot answer it in detail

I only know this page:
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Aros/Platforms/x86_support

Additionally you should post on aros-exec.org because there both users and developers look regularly

@olsen

Quote:

Both Hyperion and Cloanto are required to defend the AmigaOS 3.1 source code, ...

Best way of 'defending' the source code would be making it open source.

The source code is information and information is protected the best way when it is freely available.

I don't know who leaked it, I don't know why he did it, but now you can't close it away or destroy it in case of bankruptcy.

@OneTimer1

Quote:

Best way of 'defending' the source code would be making it open source.

If you want access to the source code you may sign NDA and help with OS developement.

Quote:

I don't know why he did it

Of course, it would have been totally out of the question for any person identifying themselves as female to have uploaded the source code.

_________________
That'll Put Marzipan In Your Pie Plate, Bingo
💻 Pro-Amiga, 🌍 Pro-Globalism, 🍅 Pro-Vegan & 🇪🇺 Pro-Joint EU Defense Intervention Initiative

@OneTimer1

Quote:

OneTimer1 wrote: @olsen Quote: Both Hyperion and Cloanto are required to defend the AmigaOS 3.1 source code, ... Best way of 'defending' the source code would be making it open source.

As far as I understand the legal background, this would not do.

The settlement with Amiga, Inc. sets the framework for what exactly both Cloanto and Hyperion are permitted to do with the AmigaOS 3.1 material, with the restriction that they have to defend it with respect to going after infringing use and stop it.

And that puts quite a burden on them, now that copies of the leaked archive have proliferated.

@olsen

Quote:

And that puts quite a burden on them, now that copies of the leaked archive have proliferated.

another reason not to depend on such fragile terms of agreements and as vulnerable entities..

@wawa

Quote:

another reason not to depend on such fragile terms of agreements and as vulnerable entities..

On the contrary, the Agreement is clever giving both parties what they want with mutual interest in defending their property. If someone wants open-source approach, there is AROS - without burden and heritage of original code. Mixing both AROS and AmigaOS source code is not only bad idea, it is legal nightmare.

@thread

Just a transfer for the record of 2 pertinent links, since the topics are inexorably tied together.

Moved here

#6

Last edited by number6 on 01-Jan-2016 at 06:12 PM.

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

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @wawa Quote: another reason not to depend on such fragile terms of agreements and as vulnerable entities.. On the contrary, the Agreement is clever giving both parties what they want with mutual interest in defending their property. If someone wants open-source approach, there is AROS - without burden and heritage of original code. Mixing both AROS and AmigaOS source code is not only bad idea, it is legal nightmare.

have you read the post i was referring to? and no, i wasnt suggesting mixing the sources as you are implying. dunno what others do, but i will certainly keep a mile away from anything contaminated by venomous ip claims like that. calm down.

@wawa

Quote:

i wasnt suggesting mixing the sources as you are implying.

No, of course not. No need for defensive stand. At you pointed only first part of my answer - terms of said Agreement aren´t that fragile as you think (in my point of view). Thread on EAB (and other forums) is full of dreams about use of "open-sourced" 3.1 code, second part of my post was (preventively) adressed to these people.

@pavlor

Quote:

terms of said Agreement aren´t that fragile as you think (in my point of view)

The agreement is based on the claim that the parties who licensed the OS to Hyperion do actually own the OS. That very assertion had been contested by Hyperion right until 'The Amiga parties' offered them a free license.

If that doesn't fit your definition of "fragile", you might want to look up the term in a dictionary.

@cgutjahr

Quote:

That very assertion had been contested by Hyperion right until 'The Amiga parties' offered them a free license.

My memory may fail me here, but Hyperion never contested 2001 Agreement as basis for its claims.

Arguments of Hyperion against Amiga parties were:

1. Breach of 2001 Agreement
2. Shady business practices (IP etc. from one company to another...)

Quite weak position...

Wasn´t Amiga.Inc without money, I bet Hyperion couldn´t get what it has now.