Consequences of the AmigaOS 3.1 source code "leak", one year after?

[Pat the Cat]

It is not at all legally safe for anyone who worked on any original AmigaOS to work with AROS.

It's totally safe. They just can't receive money for working on AROS. That would be unsafe.

You cannot legally stop somebody from doing voluntary work without breaching their civil rights ("freedom of expression"), and any contracts signed with CBM are long, long void.

A right cannot be forfeited. A privalege can be forfeited, but NEVER a right. They are non-removable. 1689, Bill of Rights. This goes back to even before America was born.

[Sparky]

As a matter of interest, who leaked the code ?

[LoadWB]

@Pat

You cannot legally stop somebody from doing voluntary work without breaching their civil rights ("freedom of expression")

I'm interested in this assertion. Do you have precedent for this in the US?

[guest11527]

It's totally safe. They just can't receive money for working on AROS. That would be unsafe.

I highly doubt this. Otherwise, I could take the AmigaOs sources and provide them for free using the same arguing. Whether AROS does or does not violate AmigaOs copyrights I do not know, but if it does, you cannot go around it by just making it available free of charge.

That AROS is provided free of charge just means that it is pretty unattractive to attack.

You cannot legally stop somebody from doing voluntary work without breaching their civil rights ("freedom of expression"), and any contracts signed with CBM are long, long void.

It's not a matter of a contract. If you take code from somebody else's work, you violate the right of this person.

A right cannot be forfeited. A privalege can be forfeited, but NEVER a right. They are non-removable. 1689, Bill of Rights. This goes back to even before America was born.

Which still doesn't give you the right to steal somebody else's work. Again, I'm not saying anything about whether this happened with AROS (probably not), but if it happened, then the Bill of Rights does not help there.

[kolla]

A right cannot be forfeited. A privalege can be forfeited, but NEVER a right. They are non-removable. 1689, Bill of Rights. This goes back to even before America was born.

The Bill of Rights was and is not universal, not even in England.

[vxm]

It's totally safe. They just can't receive money for working on AROS. That would be unsafe.

No need to receive money to harm the owner's rights.

[OlafS3]

@vxm  You amiga guys should do more productive things than discussing legal issues, expecially if noone really knows the situaton and is attorney. Clean-room implementations are legal, even big companies with certainly lots of good attorneys had to accept that.  If now over the years someone has contributed who looked at the leaked sources or had any access to it is pure speculation and it would be impossible to proof. At least Aros is the only chance to have something legal on 68k including the roms.  Even though I do not really believe that anyone would be sued, even when using original roms from a illegal source simply because the small market would not be worth the money needed.

[kolla]

How is development of CLI for AROS and MorphOS coordinated with what Thomas here is doing with OS3.x shell?

My guess - not at all

[olsen]

How is development of CLI for AROS and MorphOS coordinated with what Thomas here is doing with OS3.x shell?

My guess - not at all

Given that the shell functionality itself is founded on the weird and the wonderful of what the Tripos kernel could provide, I doubt that a coordination would be fruitful. The shell's architecture and its place in AmigaDOS impose constraints which do not (or at least should not) exist in AROS or MorphOS. Not exactly ball and chain, more like aircraft carrier and chain

Now, shell commands, that's a different story, as long as they use public dos.library APIs and data structures.

[guest11527]

Given that the shell functionality itself is founded on the weird and the wonderful of what the Tripos kernel could provide, I doubt that a coordination would be fruitful.

Unfortunately, yes. Would I ever had to implement a shell, I wouldn't do it this way. What I currently attempt is a minimally-invasive cleanup of the legacy structures, with any extension I make coming from POSIX whenever possible or feasible (such as "<<" and "*>" and "&").

The Tripos legacy adds at all levels of the shell, unfortunately. Should I start with the highly inconsistent (and up to recently mostly undefined) syntax? Or the interoperation between the Shell and script execution ("Execute" and all its wierdos)? Or the amounts of black magic in the Shell start-up? Which are, for good reasons, undocumented. It spares the reader a real headache.

[Pat the Cat]

Should I start with the highly inconsistent (and up to recently mostly undefined) syntax? Or the interoperation between the Shell and script execution ("Execute" and all its wierdos)? Or the amounts of black magic in the Shell start-up? Which are, for good reasons, undocumented. It spares the reader a real headache.

I know of maybe 10% of what you refer to. Personally I would miss such things, being one of those "Execute weirdo" types, but then again you are kind of in a no-win situation with that stuff. You can't please everybody even if you did nothing. You can't please everybody with what you release.

So at least you are doing something positive by trying something new that works better, even if some people miss the old black magic. They can still have it, but they have the old limitations too, and miss out on new features added.

The biggest kind of "black magic" I can think of was the official CBM line on the phrase "compatibility". It is the most nonsensical gibberish I have ever read in the English language, barring perhaps a Windows or MS-DOS EULA. :furious:

Do your best, Herr Richter, anybody and everybody involved in Amiga development work. No one can expect you to do more. They might moan and complain, but the real honour lies with the person who takes up challenges and meets them, as best they can.

[vxm]

@vxm  You amiga guys should [...]

It seems that you have misinterpreted my intervention.

I thought it was reasonable to report legal evidence.
So I put out of context a somewhat dangerous statement.

I have not reported any opinion regarding any initiative or on the legal situation of the Amiga.

NB: Business law was part of my studies.

[tone007]

AmigaOS 3.1 source code "leak"

Hey, can I get a copy?!

[nicholas]

Hey, can I get a copy?!

Those evil pirates at Google have it Tone.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=amiga+os+source+code+3.1.tar.bz2

[agami]

OS 3.1 source has such niche value that for all intents and purposes it is non-existent. Opportunities to commercialise are even fewer.
20 years ago it would've been awesome, 10 years ago there might have been some residual commercial interest.
Today? It is just a mere curiosity.
Even enterprising entities within the tiny Amiga marketplace have no plans to directly commercialise their licensed access to the 3.1 source.

Negative consequences? None.
Positive consequences? I've wanted access to the source for a very long time, and I have even approached Hyperion about licensing it. But there is very little I could have done in one year even if I had everything primed.
It's cool to see that some have been able to make improvements to their software by having access to the source.