@pavlor

Quote:

Arguments of Hyperion against Amiga parties were:

One of Hyperion's key arguments was that Amiga Delaware was not in a position to sue Hyperion since the rights had never been properly transferred from Amiga Washington to Amiga Delaware, going as far as claiming that the whole thing was a "fraudulent transfer of Amiga Washington assets away from creditors" or something like that. They even stated that Hyperion had much older claims to the Amiga trademarks since they had been using them since 2001 - years before Amiga Delaware even existed.

Then they licensed the OS and the trademarks from Amiga Delaware.

Yeah, not fragile at all.

Quote:

My memory may fail me here

Happy reading

@cgutjahr

Quote:

One of Hyperion's key arguments was that Amiga Delaware

Which is exactly what I wrote...

2001 Agreement was never disputed and 2009 Agreement was (formally) signed by Amiga Delaware, Amino (Amiga Washington) and Itec.

@pavlor

Please, stop...

@TRIPOS

Quote:

Please, stop...

We all are waiting for your words of wisdom.

@olsen

I find this situation hilariously funny. If I was Hyperion or Cloanto I would not lift a finger to stop it, nothing about OS 3.1 source code leaking threatens their businesses _unless they chose to_. If they indeed chose to endulge into a legal whackamole that will put them out of business, then by all means. This is not a case of what is right or wrong, legal or illegal, it is a matter of economy and numbers.

The sources are now out there - live with it.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

Now is a good time to remind people what you are bickering over - the illusion of copyrights.

http://www.devili.iki.fi/pub/misc/books/cdne.pdf

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

Btw, through some contacts I have learned that various individuals have spent this xmas going through the sources with the intention of cleaning it up, update it to more modern toolchains etc, the goal is to make a better and more maintainable OS3.x that doesn't involve "socializing with obnoxious Germans" (yeah, what is the deal with all the German besserwissers in Amiga land?!). Of course these people will remain anonymous.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

@kolla

Muahaha. I expect a full new build on friday next week...Cosmos anywhere around?

Did you ever really read olsen's comments on his work regarding AmigaOS 3.x sources? Ah, wait, maybe he's one of your obnoxious Germans...

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

@cha05e90

perhaps these individuals are genies and the obnoxious Germans just have no clue

@OlafS25

Quote:

OlafS25 wrote: @cha05e90 perhaps these individuals are genies and the obnoxious Germans just have no clue

Um... I for one would like to see a new, proper AmigaOS 3.1 68k build which is not bound by the severe restrictions of the late 1980'ies/early 1990'ies tools available to the Commodore engineers. The code never saw a proper, concerted effort to improve its overall quality in the past 20 years. Just imagine what insights Clang could give you about the code.

When the Commodore engineers working on the operating system eventually switched from cross-compilation on Sun workstations to true native development on Amiga, the change affected both the engineering culture (quicker turnaround times for testing, "eating your own dogfood"), the tools also changed how the operating system evolved. The code quality improved immensely between the 1.3 and 2.04 releases, not just because QA tools such as "Enforcer" could be used, debugging became much more productive, too.

There are reasons why particular 'C' compilers are used for specific ROM components: space constraints, backwards compatibility, code quality. If you are free to ignore or selectively loosen these constraints you may be able to replace the old tools. It might just be possible to do that today with WinUAE as a major platform, but it's much more difficult with vintage hardware and (so I am told) FPGA-based Amiga machines. Stuff will break, question is how you deal with the aftermath. The old "deal with it!" will not do.

This is tough going, let me tell you. I envy nobody who would have to go through the same discovery as I did in the late 1990'ies, trying to make the old code build properly on an Amiga. On the other hand, if you care about the material and soldier on in spite of the subtle nastyness and barbs of the code, the platform, the build system, the tools, the architecture, the experience can be very rewarding. In so many words, knowing the AmigaOS 3.1 source code made me a humbler programmer. And, of course, obnoxious -- I already knew I was German to start with

@olsen

Yes are we not all a little obnoxious from time to time?

Regarding the old sources... it is certainly interesting to look inside just for interest. For Aros 68k it would theoretical have some value to improve compatibility and adapt certain parts to amiga hardware to make it running faster there. But that is only theoretical because of the legal situation. So better for everyone to stay away from it, it is only a question of time to be completely replaced finally.

A pity it was not the OS3.9 source code...oh well, one can always hope

@kolla

Quote:

This is not a case of what is right or wrong, legal or illegal, it is a matter of economy and numbers.

If you put statements like that in upper case, THEY LOOK EVEN MORE CONVINCING!

Quote:

Of course these people will remain anonymous.

LOL, nice try.

Let me get this straight: They're using stolen code as a base, Cosmos is working on 'improving' the code quality and you're responsible for public relations ("live with it", "obnoxious German Besserwissers")?

Did you guys already talk to Shawn the bus arch troll? He could handle developer relations. If you need a website with a countdown, I could put you in touch with Dammy.

@cgutjahr

*sigh*

no recommendation as to legal counsel?

#6

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

@cha05e90

No, as far as I know, Cosmos is not involved. These guys are people who left "the scene" 20 years ago, but who still pay a little attention to what goes on. Their interest is purely from a hobbyist point of view, to learn and improve their old time favourite "childhood" operating system.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

@cgutjahr

Thank you for confirming the stereotype.

@olsen

You are among the most pragmatic and all around great guys here, due to your nickname I suspect many will think you're Danish ;)

Last edited by kolla on 03-Jan-2016 at 06:52 PM.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

@kolla

Quote:

kolla wrote: I find this situation hilariously funny. If I was Hyperion or Cloanto I would not lift a finger to stop it, nothing about OS 3.1 source code leaking threatens their businesses _unless they chose to_.

While I do NOT condone spreading of "stolen" or "leaked" code, I can't stop myself from getting puzzled by this whole situation. People that scream about trolls. Other that got afraid of legal actions. Other again who are waiting for "the scene" producing enhanced warez out of them...

People, get real please. In the real world noone would care about a 20+ years old source code which should be hardly cleaned off, fixed and partly rewritten just to become buildable again, if not for pure, personal coding delight. Nor any 'enhanced' version produced by hobbysts would get more than a "fun to try" attention from people using UAE out there. There is no real Amiga market anymore, even though some company believe the opposite, unless you call a few hundreds of interested people a "market" (in which case, sorry, either you aren't serious, or you're just making fool of yourself). Nothing produced today with those sources would make anyone rich, being it legit or not.

@kolla

Quote:

kolla wrote: ... If I was Hyperion or Cloanto I would not lift a finger to stop it, nothing about OS 3.1 source code leaking threatens their businesses ...

Ack!

AOS3.x sources don't threatens their AOS4 business, and I don't know if Cloanto really had rights on the source code (even if they had all the rights on AOS3.x ROMs and ROM images.)


ps.:

Maybe I'm a German 'Besserwisser' I knew that a lot of things about Source code ownership are questionable, but as long no one with better evidences claims ownership on AOS3.x, everything will remain the same. And there is no real demand for the AOS3.x source code outside the Amiga retro scene.

@thread

A lot of talk about "value" affecting whether someone would be defending this "package", but that's not the point is it?

The requirement by settlement agreement to defend against what has transpired seems central in the postings of Ben, Costel, and Olaf if you put them all together, right?

#6

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

@paolone

Quote:

People, get real please. In the real world noone would care about a 20+ years old source code which should be hardly cleaned off, fixed and partly rewritten just to become buildable again, if not for pure, personal coding delight. Nor any 'enhanced' version produced by hobbysts would get more than a "fun to try" attention from people using UAE out there.

Exactly, I understood that is the entire point of the exercise for the people I mentioned.

Quote:

There is no real Amiga market anymore, even though some company believe the opposite, unless you call a few hundreds of interested people a "market" (in which case, sorry, either you aren't serious, or you're just making fool of yourself). Nothing produced today with those sources would make anyone rich, being it legit or not.

Indeed, very true.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC