@SHADES

Quote:

Still, why are Hyperion suddenly interested in an old OS3.xx series now??

Because of the Vampire.

they also sold many OS4 to emulation users, those users would also buy new 68k OS. they mostly need new revenue stream seeing how slow OS4 development pace is.

@kolla

Feel free to explain that agreement. I had a look and got the feeling that Amiga#? owns the source of 3.1, but essentially can not do a thing with it. Well, they can all agree to stop Hyperon from selling its license (and only within reason), but that seems to be it.

Seems like a super lousy deal for Amiga#? to me, why would they even consider signing that?

Amiga#? may do what they want with os up to 3.1 as long as GUI is not exposed to end user.
Amiga#? has games!!!
This is really big piece of cake, and Amiga#? may earn a lot of money.
But Amiga#? instead of find some investors to invest into "Amiga in a Joystick",
try to sell os to some morons who try to cheat Hyperion.

Quote:

SHADES wrote: Still, why are Hyperion suddenly interested in an old OS3.xx series now??

After all the troubles with Cloanto, they have realised the how they could make more money with AOS3 instead of AOS4. WinUAE is better suited for AOS3 than AOS4.

@SHADES

Quote:

SHADES wrote: @simplex Ok, this makes much more sense. Still, why are Hyperion suddenly interested in an old OS3.xx series now?? They should be interested in getting OS4.xx out. This seems a very starnge moe, stranger when you put it in context that they don't have the rights, although they clearly think they do. What happened to 3.9 anyway. They arn't intrested in that.

The truth is much more simpler then that..
We like AmigaOS, and with the right people stepping up to the tas,k committed to deliver an improved AmigaOS 3.1 experience why would we say no? The 'uprising' of the Classic scene ofcourse helped in that decision but the 'excellent' motivation to improve upon the AmigaOS3.1 foundation by Thomas Richter and Olaf Barthel (and later on other developers also jumped on board was the real game-changer.

About the rights: we not only THINK we do, anybody who reads the Settlement Agreement objectively and doesn't pull paragraphs out of context should come to the same conclusion.

Wrg to Apollo: I met the developers and team at Neuss and i actually got a glass of 'bubbles', that does mean something doesn't it ? :)

@SimplePPC

Quote:

About the rights: we not only THINK we do, anybody who reads the Settlement Agreement objectively and doesn't pull paragraphs out of context should come to the same conclusion.

At first glance your claims seem legit, but someone has been screwed royally here. I guess you know who. (hint: he was not a party in this agreement, nor was he part of the negotiations in those days)

Funny however that you rely so heavily on the Settlement Agreement to assert your rights on 3.1. What's the basis of your claims to the rights to Kickstart 1.x ?

Quote:

I met the developers and team at Neuss and i actually got a glass of 'bubbles', that does mean something doesn't it ? :)

A hint that Hyperion behaves as living in a bubble ?

Evert

Last edited by jorit2 on 01-Jun-2018 at 05:32 PM.

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

@jorit2

Quote:

What's the basis of your claims to the rights to Kickstart 1.x ?

Perhaps I could add...

Quote:

Cloanto confirms that it has not granted any rights for making use of CBM/Amiga copyrights in recently announced smartphones.

and to be clear this includes said ROMs...
Quote:

For the avoidance of doubt, Cloanto hereby confirms that it has not granted any rights to said UK company for bundling or otherwise distributing the original, copyrighted ROM and OS software code used by the PET, C64 and Amiga systems and their emulations.

Source

So my additional question is "why would Cloanto be defender of these rights publically, if someone else held such a right"?

For completeness, the above was August 2015 and was preceeded by the following in February of the same year:
Cloanto confirms transfers of Commodore/Amiga copyrights

#6

Last edited by number6 on 01-Jun-2018 at 07:29 PM.
Last edited by number6 on 01-Jun-2018 at 07:17 PM.

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

@SimplePPC

Quote:

About the rights: we not only THINK we do, anybody who reads the Settlement Agreement objectively and doesn't pull paragraphs out of context should come to the same conclusion.

I did read it, the whole thing, and no, I did not come to that conclusion.

Also, the boingball, what does section.. was it e) or f) say about using the boingball?

EDIT: Actually, it is section c)

Last edited by kolla on 01-Jun-2018 at 08:47 PM.
Last edited by kolla on 01-Jun-2018 at 07:38 PM.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

@number6

So if I get this right, Cloanto owns AmigaOS 3.0 for all models and AmigaOS 3.1 for CD32, but not for other Amiga models as that was released in 1994.

Source

It puts 3.1 in a little bit of a fit between the two?

Does it mean that Cloanto can continue development of AmigaOS based on 3.0 (or perhaps even 3.1) and even open source it?

@hth313

I can't predict how the legal preceedings will turn out. Let's just say everything is in dispute until proven otherwise by the court either thru trial or settlement.

But if you wish to express a desire, it seems input is still being accepted here:
http://cloanto.org/

#6

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

@number6

What I understood is that Cloanto said they own the rights to the object code not the source code up to 3.0

Last edited by kamelit0 on 01-Jun-2018 at 11:23 PM.

Has anyone noted that Workbench 3.1 and Kickstart 3.1 were the last Commodore AmigaOS title to ship without an End-User License Agreement? Hyperion will likely not do that in their 3.1 bugfix release so no new features can appear in AROS from it.

Last edited by Samurai_Crow on 03-Jun-2018 at 07:41 PM.

@Samurai_Crow

Last? You mean first?

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

@jorit2

Good point regarding 1.3, but we can say the same for Cloanto version 3.X.
Version 3.1 is containing more or less all OS versions since the first version of the OS. They did not started frim scratch for every release.

Update: Since Cloanto were selling AmigaOS 4.x which contains the 1.3 kickstart, it means that they knew about it and was ok with it no?
If not how can they prove not being aware?

Last edited by kamelit0 on 04-Jun-2018 at 12:19 PM.
Last edited by kamelit0 on 04-Jun-2018 at 12:18 PM.

@kamelit0

A lot of things in 1.x was rewritten from scratch for the later releases in an attempts to move away from BCPL.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

@kolla

isn't the BCPL just remove under AmigaOS 4.x? with the new vector based DOS Library?

@kamelit0

Quote:

Update: Since Cloanto were selling AmigaOS 4.x which contains the 1.3 kickstart, it means that they knew about it and was ok with it no? If not how can they prove not being aware?

That's all connected to the DMCA takedown discussed and ensuing reactions by different parties:
Source

Again, since none of the parties are posting about their rights here except Hyperion, I don't think you'll be able to digest everything until such time as the discovery phase of the trial begins.
Then again, you might be in the camp that firmly believes this will never reach the discovery phase, since the risk to all parties is too great.

#6

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

@kolla

Quote:

kolla wrote: @Samurai_Crow Last? You mean first?

No. The first to ship with an EULA was 3.5 by Haage and Partner. The last version without was 3.1 and that's why AROS was based on it. The EULA forbids reverse engineering in several powerful countries.

@Samurai_Crow

Reverse engineering is about looking into the actual object code to reveal how it works internally. Programming based on an API, which I believe is what AROS does, is not reverse engineering.