A-EON Technology Acquires Personal Paint

[Niding]

There is plenty of room for both. You should avoid mixing them up. Critique against trying to clean the freeware version off the internet is no the same as critique against the continued development of PPaint. In the same vein, praise for the continued development is not the same thing as praise for them asking for their files to be removed from Aminet.

So it is not very productive to think of A-EON/Cloanto as the worst thing that could happen to the Amiga, like some seem to do, and it is not very productive to tell the people who complain about the removal of the freeware version that they should shut up and stop complaining for reasons totally unrelated to the complaint.

+1

Pretty much my view too.

Personally I dont mind the removal, but I can see that its preferable to have availablity on that library.
But the logical leap people make between removal and malicious intent is not very productive. I see from other forums that those (like me) that support AOS development supposedly hates other platforms (like AROS and MorphOS). Nothing can be futher from the truth.
Every leap forward for any OS, be it AOS, AROS, MorphOS etc is a good one, and I bow to the efforts of the developers.

So I think the majority of posters here that can be seen defending AeonKit, doesnt do it over a fundamentalistic view of the OS's. 99% of the time I use Windows 7 anyhow, and the only Amiga related stuff I got is a pimped up A1200+various Workbench versions plus AOS 4 Classic in emulation.
I just get a bit baffled over the negativity when people try to develop something, be it hardware and software.

What YOU said and the tone you said it in is quite productive, like Matt H and biggun.
Reasonable and calm expression of the reservations you got without the "mandatory" indignation over the destruction of the community.

Its a bit like Pascal getting flak from some over his IndieGoGo shop. He works hard to CREATE, and ofcourse some are trying their best to drag his motivation thru the mud.

But I guess its easier to tear down than to create.

[Linde]

+1 for OS X version, though it might seem like an unlikely development.

@som99

As far as I know, 7.1c was the only version released for free on Aminet. I posted the license of that on page 6. It's very hard to read, since it mixes all-caps legal stuff with informal and vague descriptions of your liabilities, some of which can be disregarded completely (like the 10k euro fairy tale), but the way I read it you have no rights to distribute it without a "prior written license". I don't know whether that refers to the terms described in the license included with the archive itself or to some separate distribution contract, but supposedly the former, in which case it's all right to host it.

[amigakit]

@som99
No copyright software should ever be distributed without a valid licence.

PPaint has never been freeware, public domain at any point. The Aminet version was a special licence to Aminet only.

[som99]

+1 for OS X version, though it might seem like an unlikely development.

@som99

As far as I know, 7.1c was the only version released for free on Aminet. I posted the license of that on page 6. It's very hard to read, since it mixes all-caps legal stuff with informal and vague descriptions of your liabilities, some of which can be disregarded completely (like the 10k euro fairy tale), but the way I read it you have no rights to distribute it without a "prior written license". I don't know whether that refers to the terms described in the license included with the archive itself or to some separate distribution contract, but supposedly the former, in which case it's all right to host it.

@som99
No copyright software should ever be distributed without a valid licence.

PPaint has never been freeware, public domain at any point. The Aminet version was a special licence to Aminet only.

Then I have to keep it at lockdown I guess, thanks for the reply.

Distribution of dead no longer sold software is somewhat a gray area where I make the decision to share rather then make the software get lost over time, so then I do it to preserve the software, this is not exclusive to Amiga but all systems. But as always if any authors or copyright holders tell me to take it down I do.

[Thorham]

Some fine tuning to predetermine the display mode in some future version might help with this. (if there isn't already an option I missed)

Something that may be useful to add is a mode requester. Allow the user to click an additional button before the image is loaded.

BTW which version were you using?

7.1

[Linde]

No copyright software should ever be distributed without a valid licence.

The question here then is if the readme file included in the archive constitutes such a license, and if not, what license did "Aminet internet archives" (whatever organization or person that means) agree to? They should have had a lawyer write this thing.

PPaint has never been freeware

I beg to differ, at least by any common definition of freeware. The software was distributed free of charge. Freeware. That's not to say that this makes any difference legally when it comes to copyright.

[spaceman88]

They should have had a lawyer write this thing.

I beg to differ, at least by any common definition of freeware. The software was distributed free of charge. Freeware. That's not to say that this makes any difference legally when it comes to copyright.[/QUOTE]





No keep the lawyers out of it. Just download 7.1 from were they posted it and buy (or not) the new version when it becomes available. I have a hard time seeing this as a bad thing.

Edit- I messed up the formatting - the top posts are Linde's bottom is mine.

[som99]

So versions sub 7.1 will note be avaliable elsewhere? Why does it matter then if I host them, anyone gets hurt by it?
If so it seems this falls under the title "Abandonware" in my book.

[psxphill]

If so it seems this falls under the title "Abandonware" in my book.

Abandonware has no basis in law. It's stealing, like if you see anyone elses processions not being used (like for instance a car or a house) and decide to take it.

The question here then is if the readme file included in the archive constitutes such a license, and if not, what license did "Aminet internet archives" (whatever organization or person that means) agree to? They should have had a lawyer write this thing.

If it doesn't constitute a license then every single distribution of it was illegal.

I beg to differ, at least by any common definition of freeware. The software was distributed free of charge. Freeware. That's not to say that this makes any difference legally when it comes to copyright.

Freeware is just slang for distributing for $0.00, companies are allowed to vary the price at any time. The shop that gave you a free sample yesterday, doesn't have to give you a free sample today.

[som99]

Abandonware has no basis in law. It's stealing, like if you see anyone elses processions not being used (like for instance a car or a house) and decide to take it.

It's different.
First of you can't compare it to taking someone elses car/house since you are using a copy of it, it's not anyone taking your house/car it's just a clone of it, I wouldn't care if anymone made a replica of my unused car/house in the other side of the world.

No one is stealing original floppies from anyone so no one is loosing any physical object.

How then would anyone get hurt if the software is not beeing produced/sold anymore?

If I stop supporting my old software I would just be happy if someone spread it so people still can use it if they want to.
If somene thought it worth their time to spread my old software I would take that as a compliment and be happy that there still are people out there that would like to use my old software.

I don't understand all defensiveness against spreading old unobtainable software.

Damn if people would not make digital copies of software there are many Terabytes of data that would be lost to the world, I'm glad people takes their time doing this (including myself).

We do not have a single case in Sweden where anyone lost in court in the matter of spreading "abandonware".

Also as I said, IF the aurthor or copyright holder do not want me to share something I remove it without questions asked.

[cgutjahr]

They should have had a lawyer write this thing.

It's quite simple, actually - you only have the rights that the copyright holder explicitly grants you. These rights can be outlined in a readme file or the documentation or they can be implied by something the copyright holder does.

By uploading to Aminet, the copyright holder obviously agrees that the Aminet team distributes it to all of its mirrors and that other people download the software from these mirrors - after all, that's the only reason for Aminet's existence.

But unless the copyright holder states in the readme file that the software can also distributed by other entities, via other means, the software is not freely distributable. It's just available for download from Aminet.

what license did "Aminet internet archives" (whatever organization or person that means)

The license was "We distribute it as long as they let us" - it's the same deal Aminet has with every other uploader. It's not written down like that anywhere, but it's implied by (a) the author uploading his stuff to a distribution network and (b) the distribution network offering a way of having files removed.

[Yasu]

Has anyone tried the 68k version of 7.3 with AmigaOS 4 or MorphOS? I would like to buy a copy if it works well

[guest11527]

How then would anyone get hurt if the software is not beeing produced/sold anymore?

The question is not "whether anyone is hurt by it", but rather, wether it complies to the law. And, as strange as it may sound, just because the owner does no longer sells or markets a product does not mean that the product is for free.

It may mean that you can currently get away by copying the product, simply because nobody is right now interested in sueing you. But it includes the risk that the owner, should the interest raise again in the future, may approach you and may make you responsible for redistributing copies of the product without valid licences, and this may be a pretty expensive experience. Hence, one can hardly recommend this risk to anyone. If you want to take it, well, it's your life after all.

Note further that even in case the owner went bankrupt, the copyright doesn't go away. It is just transfered.

If I stop supporting my old software I would just be happy if someone spread it so people still can use it if they want to.

This is certainly a nice move of you, but then you should spell out this rule explicitly in your license, including a definition of how to identify "stop of support". You should include one when making your work available.  

If somene thought it worth their time to spread my old software I would take that as a compliment and be happy that there still are people out there that would like to use my old software.

Lawers, especially those that manage bankrupt companies, are not people that would be happy about such complients. Their responsibility is to evaluate the assets of the company, and software licenses are such assets. After all, if *you* would have invested money in such a company and it went bankrupt, you would also be very happy to receive at least a part of your investment back - and this implies fighting for copyright licenses and let people pay that use the software illegally.  

I don't understand all defensiveness against spreading old unobtainable software.

Look, it is your risk you take, but recommending this activity to other people without at least informing them on the risk is at least a bad advice. I wouldn't want to take it.  

Also as I said, IF the aurthor or copyright holder do not want me to share something I remove it without questions asked.

At that point, it may be already too late, actually. The damage has been done already if the owner starts to notice or care. *If* the owner has some interest in the software licenses, you would be of course made responsible for the missed income due to spreading software illegaly. Actually, this might turn out to be a very expensive experience.

[psxphill]

It's different.
First of you can't compare it to taking someone elses car/house since you are using a copy of it, it's not anyone taking your house/car it's just a clone of it, I wouldn't care if anymone made a replica of my unused car/house in the other side of the world.

You can compare it, because in both cases you're depriving someone. Copyright is an exclusive right to copy, they don't have to copy it but you that doesn't give you permission. You might refuse to sell something because you're trying to sell something different.

But I'd love to see you trying your pseudo law in court.

[som99]

@Thomas Richter - Thanks for your long and well written response.
Also to be clear I do not encourage anyone to share old software at all, that's up to the individual themself to decide if they want to do or not.

Also it's insane to think that someone would hunt after 20+ year old software that has not been sold in near that amount of time just to make some bucks, but sure it does happen but in all cases iv'e seen and one been a part of it was just a copyright watchdog and a cease and desist letter.

You can compare it, because in both cases you're depriving someone. Copyright is an exclusive right to copy, they don't have to copy it but you that doesn't give you permission. You might refuse to sell something because you're trying to sell something different.
But I'd love to see you trying your pseudo law in court.

I understand what you mean, but in many old Amiga software (and other systems) cases there are verry little to no chance of someone releasing the software again or any superior product and thus not wanting anyone to have the former software. There also is many cases where it's even hard to figure out (they don't know them selves) who owns the rights to something (and source long gone), many games are at that stage and it's just sad to see the software dissapere. I mean some people have put down a lot of work into something and then it's just a shame for that to be forgotten on old failing floppies.
That's just my opinion on it and my main reason why I archive and save a lot of old software and when saying software im talking about anything from games to productive suites etc.
I am surely not doing it to hurt anyone.

And in cases where a game is re-released on IOS/Android/Windows PC or something, who really thinks that the original Amiga version copies hurts those sales?, Amiga users buy it for the new system if they want it even if they have it for original hardware or not.

I think ive bought pretty much every single re-release of anything Amiga related on platforms that I own. I also buy every new Amiga release that comes even if not to common nowdays, I think the last thing I bought was tales of gorluth.

In short for me is preservation to hinder something from getting lost forever important.

PS: Sorry about my bad late night English.

Edit: Also some games and software are pretty much impossible to get your hands on these days on original media, myself are still looking for a boxed version of Moonstone but prices are 500$ and up which is hard to justify (still kicking myself for not buying it when I found it for 200$ two years ago), because some titles like that is hard to get hold and demand is higher then suply it's insane that people should not be able to play it anymore by using digital copies.

Edit: can anyone please suply some court cases involving private persons and distubution of 15+ year old software? Ive searched here in Sweden and can not find a single case, everything is just about new software and movies/music. Seems hard to find this anywhere from any place in the world.

[broadblues]

So versions sub 7.1 will note be avaliable elsewhere? Why does it matter then if I host them, anyone gets hurt by it?
If so it seems this falls under the title "Abandonware" in my book.

Certainly it does not. Ignoring the fact that abandonware is not a legal concept,  it refers to abandoned software, which PPaint is clearly not now, nor has it ever been, being always at least distributed by it's original copyright holders and now developed by the new ones.

And PPaint 7.1  will run on any age of machine, so older copies are redundant.