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

[Iggy]

Not true. I haven't touched the OS for a long time, and a USER of an OS would not care.

A DEVELOPER might care. Indeed, seems to be a little flame war building over the issue, and I hope I've stated some points that might make people THINK a little bit more before ranting.

So we are all hackers, users/developers... that all kind of blurs after a few decades.

[Pat the Cat]

So we are all hackers, users/developers... that all kind of blurs after a few decades.

You used the term. If your usage of the word "user", short for "end user", was imprecise, not my problem.

In the days when this code was written, CBM developers had a contract with CBM. There was a very big difference indeed, and it cost a lot of cash. Not that CBM gave much in return - they certainly didn't hand out source code to developers just for registering.

If you had been in that position at the time, you might feel angry too now.

[gertsy]

Society is degrading.  Amiga source code leaked, dogs and cats living together!

[slaapliedje]

Kind of reminds me of the whole SCO vs Linux battle, where they were trying to prove that some code from Unix was reused in Linux, even though all they could find was stuff that was already in the public domain.  

That is more what the source dump is, pretty much public domain.  Guess in less than 50 years the copyright will be up, and all the hardware that it runs on will mostly be dead.  Yeah, that makes sense... seriously copyright law for software should change.  It was meant to be for those writers so they could make money off their royalties.  After 20 years of being out, I can't think of anyone that would purchase software, most 20 year old software won't even run outside emulation or for us nutters who still have an ancient system.

Granted there are still a few commercially supported software packages that I have no problem buying to get continued support.  Hell, I even bought OS4 even though I don't have a system (outside of emulation) that will even run it.  Maybe one day someone will make a new PPC board for my A4000D that doesn't cost my left nut.  But I'm mostly interested in the OS anyhow, and would rather keep my real hardware at 68k.  

It's kind of funny though, speaking of old software that people do still buy.  Like from GOG.com.  Kind of surprised they only do DOSBox wrapped games, and haven't started with UAE wrapped ones.  

The only other thing I could think the source code would be useful fo is to maybe be able to modify it a bit to get it working from a VM or better emulation.  Maybe someone could port it to the TT030 or Falcon?  

[kolla]

Disagree. Open source as a development root has a specific definition.

No, this so called "specific definition" you speak of, was piggy-backed onto what had been going on for quite a few years before when OSI was formed.

Source for 3.1 is now a point of reference, a leaked document in the public domain. No more than that, it is too much of a jump to declare it as a true open source OS. It isn't.

So are you saying AmigaOS 3.1 sources are now public domain?

Why? Copyright rests with the copyright holder until 70 years (probably longer) after expiration of the copyright holder.

That depends where you live. In the same way certain countries decide to ignore treaties they have signed regarding human rights violations, the Geneva convention, the treaty of Rome, the Paris Climate agreement etc, some countries also chose to ignore copyright treaties like the Berne convention. I can assure you that copyrights are ignored in most of the world.

It becomes Open Source 70 years after CBM filed for Chapter 11.

Hardly. First of all, CBM barely had all the copyrights themselves, a lot of the components of OS3.1 was licensed in the first place, and some of if legally dubious already. It is unclear whether all the rights to those licenses were transferrable, or whether they were CBM strictly. As Thomas here can confirm, CBM themselves were not exactly saints when it came to copyrights.

If in the meantime, it gets wholesale conversion to native HEX code, as opposed to being compiled C, then the translated version could be declared as Open source (translated works are not a technical breach of copyright, although they could be used as the basis for an IP infringement legal case - extremely unlikely). However, such a translation would have the same Amiga problem - it would require a custom ROM version for each basic Amiga type. NOT a small task.

I did not understand squat of what you tried to communicate there. You are saying that if you dump a binary as hex, you can declare that hex as "not a copy"? Then there has not been a leak of the AmigaOS 3.1 sources, as it was spread as a tar.gz file, which obviously has no similarities with the original works, but merely is a file describing how the original sources must have looked like :laughing:

[kolla]

Society is degrading.  Amiga source code leaked, dogs and cats living together!

That is a mighty big twinkie you have there! :roflmao:

[Pat the Cat]

So are you saying AmigaOS 3.1 sources are now public domain?

Not everything in the public domain can reasonably be described as open source. The 2 are not interchangable, no matter how badly you want them to be.

That depends where you live. In the same way certain countries decide to ignore treaties they have signed regarding human rights violations, the Geneva convention, the treaty of Rome, the Paris Climate agreement etc, some countries also chose to ignore copyright treaties like the Berne convention. I can assure you that copyrights are ignored in most of the world.

Copyright is a RIGHT. Rights cannot be taken away, no matter how hard you want them to be. Privaleges can be taken away. Not rights. The only country in the world that specifically, constitutionally ignores copyright - is Taiwan. Coincidentally (not) where an awful lot of hi tech companies are HQ'd.

Hardly. First of all, CBM bare had all the copyrights themselves, a lot of the components of OS3.1 was licensed in the first place, and some of if legally dubious already. It is unclear whether all the rights to those licenses were transferrable, or whether they were CBM strictly. As Thomas here can confirm, CBM themselves were not exactly saints when it came to copyrights themselves.

Copyright covers the text of the source code. If parts of that code were PUBLICLY RELEASED, and they were not, things might be different. CBM did not release the code, nor has anyone that bought the IP in the meantime.

I did not understand squat of what you tried to communicate there. You are saying that if you dump a binary as hex, you can declare that hex as "not a copy"? Then there has not been a leak of the AmigaOS 3.1 sources, as it was spread as a tar.gz file, which obviously has no similarities with the original works, but merely is a file describing how the original sources must have looked like :laughing:

I am sorry you are too unintelligent to understand. HEX code is native to the machine - it is viewable by humans in source form as "assembler", but very few humans can easily understand the mechanics of a computer program, purely by looking at a page of HEX.

But that's what the chips really understand. C code, compiled, will never run as fast. That's an old myth.

You can copyright TEXT, ie source. You cannot copyright a number as such, although you can prove the numbers (hex) have a text origin, in the form of source code that will assemble to a given hex code block.

Understand, or do I have to get the book of little words out - The "Caveman Dictionary for Stupid Criminals".

I'm very disappointed in you Kolla. I thought you might actually try the challenge of rewriting an entire OS, for 6 different machines. Seems I was mistaken. Hard work isn't your style, it seems.

[guest11527]

In terms of declaring it open source and specifically using it as a development resource for public future development, sticking it on a github, etc, you are correct.

And that is exactly the point. "Open source" does not mean "I can look at the source". It means that the owner granted me (some sort of) rights to look at the source, and - potentially - even use it for particular purposes.

None of that is the case here. You might look at the source if you can get hold of it, but without the permission of the owner. That does not make it open. It makes it a stoled proprietary closed source piece of software, which doesn't help you in development. In particular, it brings you into a delicate position if you try to develop software from it.

Not as a true piece of open source development, but as a discarded scrap of abandonware.

Though that's an important difference.

If you want to be ignorant about the current situation, that is your choice, and your choice will be respected, by me, at least.

I'm not ignorant about the situation. I'm just getting nuts about people that call it "Open Source", which is exactly *not* what it is. The copyright header in the sources states clearly what you can do with it - Nothing. Don't touch, don't use.

[Pat the Cat]

I'm not ignorant about the situation. I'm just getting nuts about people that call it "Open Source", which is exactly *not* what it is. The copyright header in the sources states clearly what you can do with it - Nothing. Don't touch, don't use.

But it can't legally state "Do not translate".

Which wouldn't technically be USING the original, save as a point of reference.

Yes Thomas, I can see you are very angry about this, as a point of principle. And much of what you are saying is valid.

But, points of reference are there to be used - for good, for bad. They are tools. They are not, in themselves, wrong or malign or bad.

Germany has very strong privacy laws, principally there to stop a replay of the National Socialist Partei happening again. Remember, not everywhere is so strict about what might be observed and recorded, quite lawfully. With or without permission.

[EvilGuy]

But it can't legally state "Do not translate".

Depends, some places class the translation as a derivative work and that permission needs to come from the copyright holder in the first instance. Places like the US where the source code is copyrighted.

Back OT, I think we can see what the consequences of the source code release have been - apart from random Amigans arguing about it and getting their post counts up - nothing.

[Pat the Cat]

Depends, some places class the translation as a derivative work and that permission needs to come from the copyright holder in the first instance. Places like the US where the source code is copyrighted.

Back OT, I think we can see what the consequences of the source code release have been - apart from random Amigans arguing about it and getting their post counts up - nothing.

Nope. You cannot legally prevent translation.

You could go into a court and try to argue that a Hex translation into pure MC started as a C source file, but without evidence you'd have no case.

Damned difficult to prove. If the C source compiled to something substantially different, case dismissed. (If if was an exact replica, or could be positively identified as a derivative work, different story).

Even worse, if you could demonstrate the new version was a substantial improvement, you could counter claim for malicious prosecution... and who exactly would be taking you to court? Cloanto? They have a license to sell original ROMs, sure. But they don't lay claim to the code.

Hyperion? Their current offerings don't even run on machines that such a ROM would be aimed at.

Who is left? Who can claim that a new WB3.1 derivative is going to hurt them, financially?

[Minuous]

What did the availability of the source code make possible?

The "Undocumented AmigaOS" document ( http://amigan.1emu.net/releases/UndocumentedAmigaOS.lha ), in the spirit of "Undocumented DOS", etc.

[EvilGuy]

Nope. You cannot legally prevent translation.

Of course you can, read your EULA.

Even worse, if you could demonstrate the new version was a substantial improvement, you could counter claim for malicious prosecution...

What a load of crap. Improving something you've violated the copyright on doesn't give you any extra rights and admitting it makes you an even bigger target, ffs.

Who can claim that a new WB3.1 derivative is going to hurt them, financially?

Whoever owns the copyright..

[magnetic]

(Careful: there could be legal strings attached to answering this question, so you might consider your options when posting answers here)

LMAO we are sooo scared. Its quite sad that the legacy of Amiga os is being held hostage by a Belgium lawyer.

[Pat the Cat]

Of course you can, read your EULA.

I have no EULA for Kickstart. I was never provided one by the manufacturer.

What a load of crap. Improving something you've violated the copyright on doesn't give you any extra rights and admitting it makes you an even bigger target, ffs.

But it wouldn't be violating the copyright of the C code. It could be proven NEVER to have been a C program.

And for the 2nd time, who is going to target such an innovation? Who can claim a loss from better Kickstarts for old Amigas?

It certainly isn't Hyperion

[Whoever owns the copyright..

So who owns the copyright to the source code? It's labelled CBM, so who got the IP for the source code, bud?

Bearing in mind, the last case to decide this happened in 2014. It's not like it happened 20 years ago.

Also, in the USA, litigation is handled at the State level. Not the national Federal level. So what set of rules is decided by which State the case is fought in. As Hyperion are based in BOTH Belgium and Germany, the laws used would be the ones of the locaiity of the registered World HQ.

If Thomas is right, and that's Germany, then Hyperion have a robust set of laws to defend them. But, they would still need to show evidence of loss or harm to their business.

It would be funny in court to see a classic Amiga trying to run 4.1, their current product. Compared to a classic Amiga running 3.1.

[magnetic]

The thread is a little silly to me. Nobody is going to come after anyone legally unless there is some sort of commercial distro even then i doubt it. My favorite thing on these type of amiga threads are the arm chair lawyers legal opinion. lol