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

[kolla]

I have visited friends and colleagues who wanted me over because of issues they had with some game on WinUAE, and it turned out were using the built in AROS kickstart, which works for quite a few games and demos, but certainly not all. Do such people count as AROS users?

[kolla]

Code: [Select]

$ grep Commodore boingbag3.9-3\&4/boingbags3\&4.readme
Cloanto. Likewise, the intended/tested Kickstarts are Commodore/Village
BindDrivers               38.2       ->  42.1               Commodore
Clock                     40.1       ->  42.1               Commodore
iffparse.library          40.1       ->  42.2               Commodore
Sort                      37.3       ->  42.1               Commodore
Wait                      37.3       ->  42.1               Commodore
Film24 monitor driver                    40.1               Commodore
led.image                                42.2               Commodore
MacPaint datatype                        42.1               Commodore
narrator.device                          37.8               Commodore
PCX datatype                             42.1               Commodore
Say                                      38.5               Commodore


[kolla]

So far, seen nothing, I think all parties assumed the source was destroyed already when they reached their current arrangements.

Huh, I am curious... where have you been since 1994? It has been quite well established knowledge that the sources have been around all the time.

[kolla]

Nice rant about how much distaste you have for Linux, now provide examples of how brilliant closed source products are

[kolla]

Just got a new SCSI2SD hardware here, with some linux software to install it.

Why would this need "special software" btw?

System is a pretty stable ("rotten"?) Debian system. Does the software work out of the box? Of course not! It misses "libudev.0", except that Debian runs (since ages) libudev.1, the next version, with a different interface. Why was that breakage necessary? Was it really necessary to create "just another incompatible" interface for udev?

Yes, udev is part of systemd, you just entered dragon territory.

If open source coders had some discipline in keeping their software interfaces stable, linux could be a much better system - but that is not the development goal of open source.

Wrong, it has _nothing_ to do with open source, it's just not the goal of certain popular Linux distributions.

It sounds me to that you would be much more at home running NetBSD, for example.

[kolla]

I would love to invite ThoR to fix my mom's ASUS laptop. It got upgraded to Windows 10 and the built in web camera now insists to record upside-down, much to my mom's (and her friends') frustration when she is on Skype. I went through a large handful of drivers from both Microsoft, ASUS and camera vendor, but only the ancient Microsoft drivers from 2006 (!), that Windows 10 by default insisted on, were able to produce a picture at all. The controllers in the drivers that typically would allow you to set various properties, are mostly all "grayed out", with a few exceptions. Among the grayed out options are those for rotation. So... woop woop for compatible closed source drivers from Microsoft.

[kolla]

Read the settlement. That just states Amiga Group have the right to enforce copyright.

Whether they choose to do so, or are able to do, is a different question. And whether their claim to do is legitimate technically hasn't been tested in a court (yet). That would be the "bottom line", I guess.

So what do you call sources that are floating around on internet for anyone to download, and for which the ownership is unclear, and for which the acclaimed owners do not take any legal action for whatever reason?

[kolla]

To setup the parameters, for example the SCSI ID by which the device is seen.

I see, well, it is a good thing that this software too is open source - is it not?

In fact the entire SCSI2SD is open source - what _are_ you doing?!

Yes. Amongst the other "dragon territories", as such as "which init system do I use today", "which X11 replacement system do you prefer" and "how do I configure my printer with cups".

I have used openrc for the last 15 years and have no plans on switching.
Bonus feature is that openrc is now also standard on TrueOS.

I do not replace X11, I use Xorg, how long as Xorg been around?

I don't configure cups, I don't even have it installed.
I just tell the software that wants to print, to use a network printer.

Anyhow, cups, though open source, is mainly maintained by Apple developers.

One comes with the other, and that is the problem you do not (yet?) understand.

Excuse me? It is perfectly possible to build entire open source operating systems without having to touch anything Linux. That you prefer Linux as your platform for development is _your_ choice. And it is funny that you are so unhappy about your own choices.

As a paid developer, my motivaton is my pay-check, and this comes from the customer. If the product doesn't work, I'm fired. Full stop.

Many people have been fired because of their crappy code in open source projects as well - just ask Intel.

Means, "bad code runs the industry", and AmigaOs is certainly that (to major parts): Bad code. However, it's bad code that works. If you leave this bad code to open source, you might get good code in the end, but no compatibility. BPTRs, BSTRs? Away with this nonsense. Legacy GlobVec initialization in dos.library? Away with this crap. graphics.library workarounds for bad programs? Sorry for them, away with the junk...

All nice and correct from a software engineering perspective, but still a bad decision from the user perspective.

If you search, you can probably find post by me on USENET from 20+ years ago where I argue for breaking compatibility in favour of progress of the OS. And I am a user. It's not like super-duper compatible 3.1 would disappear, it would always be around for those who need it. And it could be sandboxed it various ways, for example I have a clean 3.1 that I launch with WHDLoad to run certain software.

[kolla]

Got warranty on it? If so, return it and get it fixed, that's what warranty is good for. If not so, pay for a working software. Quite simple.

I am quite willing to pay. Who do I pay? Can I pay you to fix it?

[kolla]

Would be cool to see ThoR switch to DragonFlyBSD, with its "Amiga connection" and all

[kolla]

The actual (not "acclaimed") owners do take legal action whenever they find a copy of the code being hosted somewhere.

Really - but they have chosen to avoid the problem by not looking? As I (and others) have pointed out numerous times - the BoingBag3+4 contains binaries built from the "stolen code".

Take action, whoever you are!

[kolla]

No, I'm not running a windows repair shop, I'm not interested in this work.

So what _do_ you do for a living?

[kolla]

You are a developer,

Actually I am not, I am a system administrator :hammer:

[kolla]

I don't get that attitude. Several Github repositories and regular downloads have been taken offline after the rights holders (both Cloanto and Hyperion) took action. They do take action, period.

Well, they clearly do not bother typing in "amiga os source code 3.1.tar.bz2" in google very often.

Now you're trying to provoke them into taking down something they apparently haven't noticed yet, potentially hurting the maintainer of the BB3+BB4 projects, and definitely hurting the people interested in these projects.

What are you suggesting?

And even if your approach works (nobody takes action so you can shout "told you so, open source, Thomas Richter is a doofus" in a lot of future threads)

Nah, I am having way too much fun watching Thomas "defend" Windows now. Thomas is not a doofus, he is smart as heck, he just has some very outdated views on how software is made and used.

It doesn't actually achieve anything: because the code still can not be used legally

Are you now callow BB3+4 illegal? Which is it?

and thus will only be tampered with by the likes of Cosmos.

The likes of Cosmos rarely bother with sources, they tamper binaries.

Maybe it's just me - but that looks like a massive dick move, doesn't it?

I am flattered

[kolla]

Such are referred to as leaked documents. Not open source.

But, they are sources, you can compile them and build binaries.

Just because something is IN the Public Domain does not make it Open Source.

In my country, we do not have the concept of "Public Domain", and I very much doubt that the sources we speak of qualifies as Public Domain anyways.

Open source has been voluntarily forwarded and made available to the end user for examination. There was no such voluntary disclosure.

"Open source" has no strict definition, you prefer to look at it as defined by OSI, but they do not own the term, it has been around for much longer. What I have been saying is that when sources are so easily available, they are for all _practical purposes_ open sources - nobody knows who have them, who have seen them, who have used them, and what for, unless they just admit it. Some do so openly, and it has had zero consequences for them so far.

[kolla]

And again: No. Do you call "publishing a program" or "deriving your own work from them" a "practical purpose?". I do. And no, that's exactly what you *cannot* do. The consequences are that your program will be taken down, by a call to order, and exactly that happened to the sides that hosted the stolen source.

Oh, but taking down stuff would be "a massive dick move" and hurt people, you know.