Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Amiga Kit Amiga Store Iridium Banner AMIStore App Store A1200/A600 4xIDE Interface

AuthorTopic: "Hyperion and Cloanto allegedly close to finalizing settlement"  (Read 23074 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

guest11527

  • Guest
Re: "Hyperion and Cloanto allegedly close to finalizing settlement"
« Reply #90 on: February 17, 2020, 12:15:55 PM »
what is transparent about 3.1.4?
Olaf, with all necessary respect, would you please be so kind and be serious about what I'm proposing? I am *not* talking about 3.1.4 here.

2 developers in background decide
Actually, no, this is not how it worked. But at least, the model was not the decision model used in forums: "He who screams loudest wins".

And what will happen with 3.1.4 if f.e, Cloanto wins?
I would suggest to ask Cloanto.

Offline OlafS3

Re: "Hyperion and Cloanto allegedly close to finalizing settlement"
« Reply #91 on: February 17, 2020, 12:24:20 PM »
now I am a little confused... you mentioned 3.1.4 several times as the new leading 3.X version unifying the different 68k  versions (3.1/3.5/3.9/Patches and so on) as far as possible to set the new standard

The others (3.1/3.5/3.9) are not in development and only patched

Other than that you are "splitting" the market too because not everyone is interested to buy and use 3.1.4

Or do I understand something wrong?

If the discussion is not about 3.1.4, about what it is about? It is the only one that is changed currently on the 3.X branch
« Last Edit: February 17, 2020, 12:25:39 PM by OlafS3 »
 

Offline kolla

Re: "Hyperion and Cloanto allegedly close to finalizing settlement"
« Reply #92 on: February 17, 2020, 12:58:04 PM »
It is the LICENSE that prevents me from BUYING any more OS from Hyperion.
Nope.
It is - the current license that OS 3.1.4 is distributed under, is unacceptable for me.

Permitted Uses and Restrictions
* This License does not allow the AmigaOS to exist on more than one computer at a time.
- this is a problem for me, as I keep live backups on multiple machines

* This license allows you to install or operate the AmigaOS only on a computer system that had a version of AmigaOS installed on it at the time you acquired such computer system, which was especially prepared for running AmigaOS through the use of a dedicated (flash)rom or similar mechanism or for which a legitimate version of AmigaOS was or is available.

- this is unclear
is this is an OR list?
 1) computer system that had a version of AmigaOS installed on it at the time you acquired such computer system
 2) computer system which was especially prepared for running AmigaOS through the use of a dedicated (flash)rom or similar mechanism
 3) computer system for which a legitimate version of AmigaOS was or is available

or is 1st point mandatory?
 1) computer system that had a version of AmigaOS installed on it at the time you acquired such computer system
  -  which was especially prepared for running AmigaOS through the use of a dedicated (flash)rom or similar mechanism
  -  or for which a legitimate version of AmigaOS was or is available

I have several computer systems that did _not_ have a version of AmigaOS installed on it at the time I acquired them, this including quite a few real Commodore Amiga systems. If first option is the "correct" interpretation, then _any_ computer system capable of running _any_ sort of emulator is legit - essentially any computer system at all, rendering the entire specification pointless. Provided that Hyperion acknowledges the legality of AmigaOS for emulators, FPGA systems etc.

Hyperion has till now refused to specify what they mean.

* You may make one copy of the AmigaOS in machine-readable form for backup purposes only.
- that is not how my backup systems work, redundancy is king. Also, I have "computer systems" where kickstart and initial ramdisk are downloaded from a TFTP-server on the LAN for installation - this does not work in accordance with the license.

* You are required to select the appropriate "Locale" setting based on the location where you will be operating the AmigaOS.
- this one I find just ridiculous - for many there simply are no "appropriate" locales that match location of the user, and for me the "appropriate" locales are of so low quality that I don't want to use them. Why is this condition there anyways?

* Except as expressly permitted in this License or by law, you may not decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify, rent, lease, loan, sublicense, distribute or create derivative works based upon the AmigaOS in whole or part or transmit the AmigaOS over a network or from one computer to another.
- problematic for many reasons - reverse engineering, disassembling and modification is what day-to-day Amiga usage is about, and transmitting AmigaOS in parts over network from one computer to another is also something that falls into day-to-day use for me.

* Your rights under this License will terminate automatically without notice from Hyperion if you fail to comply with any term(s) of this License.
- so my rights under the License were terminated once I read the license and saw the above mentioned problem (not that the license specifies any rights in the first place)

For _MY_ copy of OS 3.1.4, this license was not presented to me before I bought it, and only existed as a text file in the archive, which I did not see any reason to read before I installed the OS on the Minimig - but since then (after I made an official complaint through the European Commission), the license _is_ presented as it should - before PoS, and it says "ONLY START THE INSTALLATION IF YOU AGREE WITH THE TERMS" - I clearly do not agree with the terms, and hence I cannot start the installation, and it would be pointless of me to buy more copies.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2020, 01:00:30 PM by kolla »
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC
---
A3000/060CSPPC+CVPPC/128MB + 256MB BigRAM/Deneb USB
A4000/CS060/Mediator4000Di/Voodoo5/128MB
A1200/Blz1260/IndyAGA/192MB
A1200/Blz1260/64MB
A1200/Blz1230III/32MB
A1200/ACA1221
A600/V600v2/Subway USB
A600/Apollo630/32MB
A600/A6095
CD32/SX32/32MB/Plipbox
CD32/TF328
A500/V500v2
A500/MTec520
CDTV
MiSTer, MiST, FleaFPGAs and original Minimig
Peg1, SAM440 and Mac minis with MorphOS
 

guest11527

  • Guest
Re: "Hyperion and Cloanto allegedly close to finalizing settlement"
« Reply #93 on: February 17, 2020, 01:16:09 PM »
[quote author=Thomas Richter link=topic=74543.msg848012#msg848012 date=15819416
* This License does not allow the AmigaOS to exist on more than one computer at a time.
- this is a problem for me, as I keep live backups on multiple machines
If you have two systems, buy two licences. As simple as that. Same as for many other commercial operating systems and no need to complain about.

* This license allows you to install or operate the AmigaOS only on a computer system that had a version of AmigaOS installed on it at the time you acquired such computer system, which was especially prepared for running AmigaOS through the use of a dedicated (flash)rom or similar mechanism or for which a legitimate version of AmigaOS was or is available.

- this is unclear
is this is an OR list?
This is plain English. The system you install 3.1.4 on must have had AmigaOs installed on it before. I do not see any source for misunderstanding here.

1) computer system that had a version of AmigaOS installed on it at the time you acquired such computer system
 2) computer system which was especially prepared for running AmigaOS through the use of a dedicated (flash)rom or similar mechanism
 3) computer system for which a legitimate version of AmigaOS was or is available
All these are alternatives. It is also plain English.

I have several computer systems that did _not_ have a version of AmigaOS installed on it at the time I acquired them, this including quite a few real Commodore Amiga systems.
Do points 2) or 3) apply?


If first option is the "correct" interpretation, then _any_ computer system capable of running _any_ sort of emulator is legit - essentially any computer system at all, rendering the entire specification pointless.
If there was a legit version of AmigaOs available, yes. Do any of the points say anything about "emulation"?

Hyperion has till now refused to specify what they mean.
I don't see a problem, except you.


* You may make one copy of the AmigaOS in machine-readable form for backup purposes only.
- that is not how my backup systems work, redundancy is king. Also, I have "computer systems" where kickstart and initial ramdisk are downloaded from a TFTP-server on the LAN for installation - this does not work in accordance with the license.
Then don't back up the Os, but your data. This problem is easily solvable. Also, read in the license what "AmigaOs" actually means. Probably "the disks you received", there is a definition certainly.

* You are required to select the appropriate "Locale" setting based on the location where you will be operating the AmigaOS.
- this one I find just ridiculous - for many there simply are no "appropriate" locales that match location of the user, and for me the "appropriate" locales are of so low quality that I don't want to use them. Why is this condition there anyways?
I don't know. You do speak English. That makes English appropriate. While I do not know the reason, it may be to waive responsibility in case the user selects a language (s)he doesn't speak, and then does something stupid.

* Except as expressly permitted in this License or by law, you may not decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify, rent, lease, loan, sublicense, distribute or create derivative works based upon the AmigaOS in whole or part or transmit the AmigaOS over a network or from one computer to another.
Same condition as in all other Os, and absolutely reasonable.

- problematic for many reasons - reverse engineering, disassembling and modification is what day-to-day Amiga usage is about,
Nope, and exactly that is the problem caused by many of the "high quality software" you find out there. That's why we have specifications.


and transmitting AmigaOS in parts over network from one computer to another is also something that falls into day-to-day use for me.
Nope, neither allowed by many contemporary licenses. The Os is bound to the installation target, which is reasonable. Transmit your data, not the Os.

* Your rights under this License will terminate automatically without notice from Hyperion if you fail to comply with any term(s) of this License.
If you transmit the Os, or copy the Os, yes, the license terminates, because both is not allowed. Sounds quite reasonable to me for a commercial product.

- so my rights under the License were terminated once I read the license and saw the above mentioned problem (not that the license specifies any rights in the first place)
Nope. "Seing the problems" is not a reason for termination. Not complying to it is.

In other words, the usual Kolla foo-bla. Thank you.

guest11527

  • Guest
Re: "Hyperion and Cloanto allegedly close to finalizing settlement"
« Reply #94 on: February 17, 2020, 01:24:01 PM »
now I am a little confused... you mentioned 3.1.4 several times as the new leading 3.X version unifying the different 68k  versions (3.1/3.5/3.9/Patches and so on) as far as possible to set the new standard
Yes.

The others (3.1/3.5/3.9) are not in development and only patched
Yes.



Other than that you are "splitting" the market too because not everyone is interested to buy and use 3.1.4
In the same sense 3.1 "split the market" because 3.0 was already out in some installations. Well, it really did not because the API was backwards compatible all the way, and there was a 3.1 only, and not a 3.1 by vendor A and a 3.1 from vendor B. There was an RTG system from vendor A, and an RTG system from vendor B, due to failure in communication, and there was NSD and TD64 due to failure in coordination, that were flaws. TD64 would have been fine - as backwards compatible extension. Or NSD would have been fine (well, sort of) as backwards compatible extenion, but not both.

Thus, if the Os is advanced, *coordinate". You cannot enforce coordination in an "open source development model", but as history shows, it is very much needed.

We tried to stay compatible to 3.9 to the most amount possible, with some flaws which were beyond our ability to fix (reaction, to name one, CyberGraphics to name another for the V45 intuition - actually, V45 intuition did not end up in ROM for exactly that reason - to stay compatible). We tried to use interfaces from Os 4.x whenever something had to be extended.

There was only one rough decision, and this was on how to signal this NSD/TD64 mess.

If the discussion is not about 3.1.4, about what it is about?
It is about the development model of whatever follows. Not 3.1.4 in particular.

Offline OlafS3

Re: "Hyperion and Cloanto allegedly close to finalizing settlement"
« Reply #95 on: February 17, 2020, 01:40:22 PM »
I understand why you prefer a model where the control is one hand on the other side lots of software vanished because the owners left the market. That could even happen to 3.1.4 now (depending on both Hyperion and Cloanto). A platform not controlled by one entity (or even one person) can guarantee survival. And it is much easier for people to contribute not needed to sign NDAs.

But there we will always have different views  ;)

Time will tell (and users will decide)

BTW the standard will always be set by the leader. If it would be (as a example) Aros on Vampire then the standards for new software on Vampire is Aros. On a unexpanded Amiga certainly AmigaOS will stay the standard. Aros is dedicated to 3.1 so as long you not introduce incompatiblities to 3.1 there should be no problem.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2020, 01:46:18 PM by OlafS3 »
 

Offline cgutjahr

Re: "Hyperion and Cloanto allegedly close to finalizing settlement"
« Reply #96 on: February 17, 2020, 02:18:45 PM »
But I would argue that all of those were created *because* we'd lost the governance that Commodore provided in its stewardship of the OS.
I don't think 'governance' is the right term here. This is/was a commercial market, and both hardware and software developers would fill whatever niche they either saw as commercially viable or bothered them in their personal use of the Amiga. You can't just forbid that from happening.

Quote
And even though one or the other has been declared the "official" solution, the situation is far from resolved--MUI is still used despite ReAction being the "official" choice for OS3/OS4. If we still had strong governance a solution would have been found before a split happened, and in a way that would have not left proponents of an alternative feeling personally offended.
The GUI is actually a good example. 1.x had no proper GUI toolkit, which is why everybody created his own. Then Gadtools came along, but nobody used it because a very large chunk of users was still on 1.x. Once the majority of users were able to run Gadtools applications, the system was already outdated again, which is why we got all those Gadtools extensions or completely new GUI toolkits.

Neither Commodore's presence, nor the closed source nature of AmigaOS nor CBM's announcement you should use Gadtools from now on did do anything about this situation. What finally solved it was continued OS development. MUI still being alive is a special case, it simply survived because the competition adapted it as their solution.

No, because the 4 branches will each start out with passionate defenders who ultimately aren't numerous enough to sustain them in the long term. Meanwhile everyone else will be confused as to which one to back and in all likelihood will end up backing none of them and just lose interest and walk away. That doesn't benefit anyone.
Nah. Let's say a hypothetical open source  3.2 comes out, developed by a team lead by two respected and well-known developers, one of which has been at this for close to three decades, and it's delivered in a big shiny Box labeled "AMIGAOS 3.2". There will be absolutely no confusion as to which project one should support. If history tells us anything, there will be threads where people announce they're going to buy it, despite not having a need right now - just "to support the Amiga".

MorphOS had a head start, ran on much, much better and cheaper hardware that was continously available - and in contrast to OS4, it has seen tons of development in the last decade. But as soon as Bill Buck stopped throwing suitcases of money (or at least promises of such suitcases) at the whole thing, it got pretty much irrelevant over night. I could say similar things about AROS, but OlafS is here, and that always gets him worked up - so I won't ;)

Quote
My ultimate interest is preventing this from happening again:
I get that. But I don't think it's much of a problem in 2020 - partly due to AmigaOS now being a retro hobby toy, partly due to the low number of skilled developers. If I have two or three of those on my team, I control 80% of the qualified work force ;)

And let's not forget that Hyperion/Ben is the party that allegedly torpedoed the very early attempt to join forces and create one single PPC based AmigaOS from components controlled by Amiga, H&P, Hyperion and the MorphOS team (*)  and established a 3.x branch after Cloanto did - one who's legality is currently questioned in court - and is hated by a very large chunk of the developers and managed to get their proprietary PPC OS which was completely under their control split into two efforts. "Unity, peace and common standards" is not the first thing I think about when hearing "Hyperion".

Unfortunately, the choice is not "open source or some hypothetical well-meaning entity lead by Jay Miner's grandson" - it's "open source or Hyperion".

(*) not saying Hyperion was the only guilty party
 

Offline OlafS3

Re: "Hyperion and Cloanto allegedly close to finalizing settlement"
« Reply #97 on: February 17, 2020, 02:23:52 PM »
thanks for being so considerate  ;)
 

guest11527

  • Guest
Re: "Hyperion and Cloanto allegedly close to finalizing settlement"
« Reply #98 on: February 17, 2020, 02:54:13 PM »
And let's not forget that Hyperion/Ben is the party that allegedly torpedoed the very early attempt to join forces and create one single PPC based AmigaOS from components controlled by Amiga, H&P, Hyperion and the MorphOS team (*)  and established a 3.x branch after Cloanto did - one who's legality is currently questioned in court - and is hated by a very large chunk of the developers and managed to get their proprietary PPC OS which was completely under their control split into two efforts. "Unity, peace and common standards" is not the first thing I think about when hearing "Hyperion".
Err, what? You were not on board, so you can hardly know *when* 3.1.4 was established, but it was quite a bit earlier than you may believe. It was actually planned a lot smaller, though, when I first got the idea from Olaf.
 

Offline kolla

Re: "Hyperion and Cloanto allegedly close to finalizing settlement"
« Reply #99 on: February 17, 2020, 03:19:46 PM »
Same as for many other commercial operating systems and no need to complain about.

Care to name one?

Quote
* This license allows you to install or operate the AmigaOS only on a computer system that had a version of AmigaOS installed on it at the time you acquired such computer system, which was especially prepared for running AmigaOS through the use of a dedicated (flash)rom or similar mechanism or for which a legitimate version of AmigaOS was or is available.

- this is unclear
is this is an OR list?
This is plain English. The system you install 3.1.4 on must have had AmigaOs installed on it before. I do not see any source for misunderstanding here.

I tried to communicate two interpretations, but you seem just as confused as anyone - you are saying OS 3.1.4 is only legit on a system that previously have had a legit AmigaOS installation. But is that a prime condition that must be met, or is it one of three possible conditions, of which only one need to be met?

And then it comes down to what Hyperion considers a legal AmigaOS installation.

My FPGA systems did not come with any AmigaOS installed, nor were they specially prepared for AmigaOS when I acquired them (exception being the MiST), but Cloanto are selling AmigaOS and licenses to anyone willing to buy, and FPGA systems like the MiST have been distributed with OS 3.1 kickstart and license from Cloanto, so if Hyperion considers whatever Cloanto are selling as legit legal AmigaOS installations, then _any_ computer system is a legit target for OS 3.1.4.

Is this a correct understanding?

Is it "legal", according to the license, to install OS 3.1.4 on "home made" systems like the ReAmiga 1200, or A500++?

Quote
1) computer system that had a version of AmigaOS installed on it at the time you acquired such computer system
 2) computer system which was especially prepared for running AmigaOS through the use of a dedicated (flash)rom or similar mechanism
 3) computer system for which a legitimate version of AmigaOS was or is available
All these are alternatives. It is also plain English.


Well, and alternative 3 is one that says _any_ computer is legit, as Cloanto has been selling AmigaOS, presumably legally, for use with any computer system.

Quote
I have several computer systems that did _not_ have a version of AmigaOS installed on it at the time I acquired them, this including quite a few real Commodore Amiga systems.
Do points 2) or 3) apply?

Yes, but not 1) which brings us back to whether 1) is a prime condition that must be met, or just one of three, of which one must be met.

So this is still as clear as mud.

Quote
If first option is the "correct" interpretation, then _any_ computer system capable of running _any_ sort of emulator is legit - essentially any computer system at all, rendering the entire specification pointless.
If there was a legit version of AmigaOs available, yes. Do any of the points say anything about "emulation"?

So you're saying 1) is a prime condition, and 2) or 3) are secondary conditions. Or do you?

Emulation is irrelevant, the license says "computer systems", it does not specify whether such a "computer system" is implemented.

As "many other commercial operating systems" do.

Quote
Hyperion has till now refused to specify what they mean.
I don't see a problem, except you.

Personal attack again. Classy.

Quote
* You may make one copy of the AmigaOS in machine-readable form for backup purposes only.
- that is not how my backup systems work, redundancy is king. Also, I have "computer systems" where kickstart and initial ramdisk are downloaded from a TFTP-server on the LAN for installation - this does not work in accordance with the license.
Then don't back up the Os, but your data.

So your suggestion is that people stop making backups of their OS installations, just because they might be tempted to keep multiple backups... because license violation. Again.... I applaud thee... slowly... *clap* *clap*

Quote
This problem is easily solvable. Also, read in the license what "AmigaOs" actually means. Probably "the disks you received", there is a definition certainly.

Probably? So you don't really know what the license mean with "AmigaOs"(sic) and you are the lead developer, and come here all the time to defend "the situation"?

The definition is formulated like this:
Quote
The software, documentation and any fonts accompanying this License whether on a physical medium such as CD or DVD, in read only memory (ROM) or provided to you by download using an electronic communication network (the "AmigaOS") are licensed to you by Hyperion Entertainment CVBA ("Hyperion")

So, does this plainly say that there is only one AmigaOS, and that is whatever that is distributed by Hyperion, and Hyperion only? Essentially rendering OS3.5, 3.9 and anything from Cloanto _not_ AmigaOS?

What about all those Amiga models for which AmigaOS from Hyperion never existed?

Clear as mud.

Quote
* You are required to select the appropriate "Locale" setting based on the location where you will be operating the AmigaOS.
- this one I find just ridiculous - for many there simply are no "appropriate" locales that match location of the user, and for me the "appropriate" locales are of so low quality that I don't want to use them. Why is this condition there anyways?
I don't know. You do speak English. That makes English appropriate.

I also speak other languages, but that is not relevant according to the license - what matters is my *LOCATION* - to be compliant, I must use Norwegian locales when in Norway, and switch to Swedish locales when I cross the border to visit my mum, for example.

Quote
While I do not know the reason, it may be to waive responsibility in case the user selects a language (s)he doesn't speak, and then does something stupid.

All kinds responsibilities are waived fully at the bottom of the license - have you not read it?

Quote
* Except as expressly permitted in this License or by law, you may not decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify, rent, lease, loan, sublicense, distribute or create derivative works based upon the AmigaOS in whole or part or transmit the AmigaOS over a network or from one computer to another.
Same condition as in all other Os, and absolutely reasonable.

In 1992 perhaps, but today?

How about everyone's favourite - Windows10?
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows10ISO
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Useterms/Retail/Windows/10/UseTerms_Retail_Windows_10_English.htm

Quote
- problematic for many reasons - reverse engineering, disassembling and modification is what day-to-day Amiga usage is about,
Nope, and exactly that is the problem caused by many of the "high quality software" you find out there. That's why we have specifications.
And more often than not, there are no specifications that deal with the problems that users need to solve.

For example, with locale catalogs being incompatible between OS 3.9, a user may wish to keep OS 3.1.4 locates separate from those of OS 3.9, and binary edit the OS 3.1.4 ones to use a different directory than "sys".
 
Many edit all prefs programs to use a different font than topaz/8 - what scum they are, breaking the license!

Quote
and transmitting AmigaOS in parts over network from one computer to another is also something that falls into day-to-day use for me.
Nope, neither allowed by many contemporary licenses.

Care to name an example?

Quote
The Os is bound to the installation target, which is reasonable. Transmit your data, not the Os.

I see no mention of any "target" in any of the licenses, Microsoft speak of "devices" which they in the license define (as both physical and virtual), and Hyperion licenses only mention "computer systems" without specifying what they mean by that.

Quote
* Your rights under this License will terminate automatically without notice from Hyperion if you fail to comply with any term(s) of this License.
If you transmit the Os, or copy the Os, yes, the license terminates, because both is not allowed. Sounds quite reasonable to me for a commercial product.

Is it? I downloaded OS 3.1.4 to my laptop, where I unzipped the archive, but since it doesn't have any SD card reader (and I could not find the USB one at the time), I then transferred the ADFs and kickstart to my workstation and dumped them on an SD card there. The SD card was then inserted into the Minimig and installed to a hard drive image, and not just one image, but several images - one plain OS 3.1.4, one plain OS 3.1.4 with my stuff, and one OS 3.1.4 with BestWB. And later came OS 3.1.4.1 which I again installed on a dedicated disk image that was a copy of the OS 3.1.4 image, so that I had both old 3.1.4 and 3.1.4.1.

At one point I had filesystem error on the image with "my installation", and with the Minimig having RAM restrictions, it was not possible to fix on the Minimig itself, so I copied that OS image over the network to my laptop, fired up FS-UAE with a Minimig-like config, only a lot more RAM, and let it fix the filesystem, before copying that disk image back to the Minimig. This time I also made sure to dump a backup of this OS installation to my dedicated amiga backup directory, which is a git private online repo. In the meantime, my laptop has also been taken backup of, with one copy at my storage provider and one copy in iCloud.

How many times have broken the license now? Is all this really unreasonable?

Quote
- so my rights under the License were terminated once I read the license and saw the above mentioned problem (not that the license specifies any rights in the first place)
Nope. "Seing the problems" is not a reason for termination. Not complying to it is.

In other words, the usual Kolla foo-bla. Thank you.

Again the personal attacks - what are the odd that you are not compliant to the yourself? Maybe you have not read it? Maybe you are such a cool person that such mundane issues are below your radar?
« Last Edit: February 17, 2020, 03:21:23 PM by kolla »
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC
---
A3000/060CSPPC+CVPPC/128MB + 256MB BigRAM/Deneb USB
A4000/CS060/Mediator4000Di/Voodoo5/128MB
A1200/Blz1260/IndyAGA/192MB
A1200/Blz1260/64MB
A1200/Blz1230III/32MB
A1200/ACA1221
A600/V600v2/Subway USB
A600/Apollo630/32MB
A600/A6095
CD32/SX32/32MB/Plipbox
CD32/TF328
A500/V500v2
A500/MTec520
CDTV
MiSTer, MiST, FleaFPGAs and original Minimig
Peg1, SAM440 and Mac minis with MorphOS
 

Offline cgutjahr

Re: "Hyperion and Cloanto allegedly close to finalizing settlement"
« Reply #100 on: February 17, 2020, 03:20:36 PM »
Err, what? You were not on board, so you can hardly know *when* 3.1.4 was established, but it was quite a bit earlier than you may believe.
Cloanto's first (digital) 3.X releases are from 2004. I'm not sure when the first physical releases happened, probably a decade later.
 

guest11527

  • Guest
Re: "Hyperion and Cloanto allegedly close to finalizing settlement"
« Reply #101 on: February 17, 2020, 04:47:41 PM »
Same as for many other commercial operating systems and no need to complain about.

Care to name one?
Windows(tm). Valid for one installation. With an EULA much longer than this.

* This license allows you to install or operate the AmigaOS only on a computer system that had a version of AmigaOS installed on it at the time you acquired such computer system, which was especially prepared for running AmigaOS through the use of a dedicated (flash)rom or similar mechanism or for which a legitimate version of AmigaOS was or is available.
Well, the sentence has an *or* in it, right?


My FPGA systems did not come with any AmigaOS installed, nor were they specially prepared for AmigaOS when I acquired them (exception being the MiST), but Cloanto are selling AmigaOS and licenses to anyone willing to buy, and FPGA systems like the MiST have been distributed with OS 3.1 kickstart and license from Cloanto, so if Hyperion considers whatever Cloanto are selling as legit legal AmigaOS installations, then _any_ computer system is a legit target for OS 3.1.4.
So, be happy.

Personal attack again. Classy.
No, your post is a true "Kolla". Find reasons to complain about something on the premise that you do not like the product, or in this case, its vendor. Find reasons to distract a discussion on completely irrelevant topics that are quite obvious for everyone else.

So your suggestion is that people stop making backups of their OS installations,
Make *one* copy, store it.

Probably? So you don't really know what the license mean with "AmigaOs"(sic) and you are the lead developer, and come here all the time to defend "the situation"?
Exactly. Developer. Not marketing, not product management, not legal department. What do you actually expect from me? Write licenses? Prepare the binder? Copy the disks? Deliver it do your home?

So, does this plainly say that there is only one AmigaOS, and that is whatever that is distributed by Hyperion, and Hyperion only?
It says, it is licensed from Hyperion. From whom else?

Essentially rendering OS3.5, 3.9 and anything from Cloanto _not_ AmigaOS?
Where does it say so? Again, you want to find something to complain about, then find a formulation which, with a lot of bad feelings, could be possibly misunderstood, then make a rumble about it. Trolling, as trolling goes.

All kinds responsibilities are waived fully at the bottom of the license - have you not read it?
No, I have not, I am a *developer*. It is not my job to create licenses, read them, or check them.

In 1992 perhaps, but today?
Yes, perfectly. I suppose, you check for Windows, or MacOs?

And more often than not, there are no specifications that deal with the problems that users need to solve.
As in? There are the RKRMs, the Autodocs, and *gasp* even people you can ask. RKRMs are even online. For example here. Surprise!

For example, with locale catalogs being incompatible between OS 3.9, a user may wish to keep OS 3.1.4 locates separate from those of OS 3.9, and binary edit the OS 3.1.4 ones to use a different directory than "sys".
Os 3.9 selected to have catalog identifiers messed up. 3.1.4 stayed with the catalog IDs from 3.9. So, if you use the 3.9 preferences, you use the 3.9 catalogs. If you don't - you don't. The 3.9 perferences are not part of 3.1.4, nor do we have its sources, nor any rights on it, so they are not part of 3.1.4. Install one, or the other, but the hex editor is not a recommended solution.

Many edit all prefs programs to use a different font than topaz/8 - what scum they are, breaking the license!
Right, and this is correct this way. This is not for you to edit. It will mess with the design, and this is the clearest way to tell people to keep their hands off, and waive any responsibility for such activity. I had a program in the beta testing to replace the topaz font by some other font. Some people did not understand that the font size must match, and reported bugs. We did not deliver the program. 3.2 will have gadtools with scaling capability, so you'll get the freedom. Did not fit into the 3.1.4 schedule. I'm so sorry (not).

Care to name an example?
Windows, MacOs... you name it. You received *one* license, for *one* system. It is not supposed to be copied.

I see no mention of any "target" in any of the licenses, Microsoft speak of "devices" which they in the license define (as both physical and virtual), and Hyperion licenses only mention "computer systems" without specifying what they mean by that.
Oh, and "device" is more clear than "computer system"? Is your washing machine a device?

Is all this really unreasonable?
Your whole post? Yes, very. Laughable.

Maybe you have not read it?
Nope, what for? Not my job.

Maybe you are such a cool person that such mundane issues are below your radar?
Once again, I do not mind about the license of the product, this is not my problem. Why do you believe that this is one of my issues? I'm not even employed by Hyperion (luckely). You seem to prefer to pick me as a contact person for Hyperion, which apparently you don't like, and then instead attack me in person.

Now, does anyone wonder *why* I don't like AmigaOs open source? Because of people like you, Kolla, exactly that. In a commercial enterprise, one has "customer support" to avoid that developers have to care about the type of people you find in this forum, and to let developers do their job, and let other people care about it (and probably ignore them...). This is pretty much what would be necessary in any sane product development. If I would be Hyperion - yes, ignoring your questions is probably the best strategy to use.

Once again, *I AM NOT YOUR CUSTOMER SUPPORT POINT* and *NOT YOUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT* and *NOT YOUR COMPLAINTS DEPARTMENT*.

 
The following users thanked this post: First Ninja

Offline Matt_H

Re: "Hyperion and Cloanto allegedly close to finalizing settlement"
« Reply #102 on: February 17, 2020, 07:31:40 PM »
But I would argue that all of those were created *because* we'd lost the governance that Commodore provided in its stewardship of the OS.
I don't think 'governance' is the right term here. This is/was a commercial market, and both hardware and software developers would fill whatever niche they either saw as commercially viable or bothered them in their personal use of the Amiga. You can't just forbid that from happening.

Quote
And even though one or the other has been declared the "official" solution, the situation is far from resolved--MUI is still used despite ReAction being the "official" choice for OS3/OS4. If we still had strong governance a solution would have been found before a split happened, and in a way that would have not left proponents of an alternative feeling personally offended.
The GUI is actually a good example. 1.x had no proper GUI toolkit, which is why everybody created his own. Then Gadtools came along, but nobody used it because a very large chunk of users was still on 1.x. Once the majority of users were able to run Gadtools applications, the system was already outdated again, which is why we got all those Gadtools extensions or completely new GUI toolkits.

Neither Commodore's presence, nor the closed source nature of AmigaOS nor CBM's announcement you should use Gadtools from now on did do anything about this situation. What finally solved it was continued OS development. MUI still being alive is a special case, it simply survived because the competition adapted it as their solution.

Fair point, developers will fill gaps the vendor has left open. But originally all those toolkits were to support products at the application level. Now we have a problem of competing components at the OS level. If Commodore (and its governance/guidance) hadn't folded we probably would have seen official adoption of an MUI-like toolkit before all the alternatives took off--just like Commodore adopted ARexx and commodities.library. Even though there is an "official" toolkit now, its adoption came after the damage of the split was done.

The issues we have now are far beyond GUI toolkits. Now it seems like we've got multiple iterations of icon.library, workbench.library, exec.library, scsi.device, ixemul.library, etc.--variants that all have the same name. It's getting too difficult to keep track of them all and they're not all interoperable. If we don't get everyone lined up on mutually agreeable standards then a compatibility nightmare awaits us down the line.

Quote
No, because the 4 branches will each start out with passionate defenders who ultimately aren't numerous enough to sustain them in the long term. Meanwhile everyone else will be confused as to which one to back and in all likelihood will end up backing none of them and just lose interest and walk away. That doesn't benefit anyone.
Nah. Let's say a hypothetical open source  3.2 comes out, developed by a team lead by two respected and well-known developers, one of which has been at this for close to three decades, and it's delivered in a big shiny Box labeled "AMIGAOS 3.2". There will be absolutely no confusion as to which project one should support. If history tells us anything, there will be threads where people announce they're going to buy it, despite not having a need right now - just "to support the Amiga".
Well, that's what we'd hope would happen and what logically *should* happen under a (strong governance!) open-source model, but we're not exactly a logical bunch in this community. :)
So, who knows if it would actually be that clear?

Quote
MorphOS had a head start, ran on much, much better and cheaper hardware that was continously available - and in contrast to OS4, it has seen tons of development in the last decade. But as soon as Bill Buck stopped throwing suitcases of money (or at least promises of such suitcases) at the whole thing, it got pretty much irrelevant over night. I could say similar things about AROS, but OlafS is here, and that always gets him worked up - so I won't ;)
But that's kind of my point, right? There's been a split and there's no going back from it.

Quote
Quote
My ultimate interest is preventing this from happening again:
I get that. But I don't think it's much of a problem in 2020 - partly due to AmigaOS now being a retro hobby toy, partly due to the low number of skilled developers. If I have two or three of those on my team, I control 80% of the qualified work force ;)

And let's not forget that Hyperion/Ben is the party that allegedly torpedoed the very early attempt to join forces and create one single PPC based AmigaOS from components controlled by Amiga, H&P, Hyperion and the MorphOS team (*)  and established a 3.x branch after Cloanto did - one who's legality is currently questioned in court - and is hated by a very large chunk of the developers and managed to get their proprietary PPC OS which was completely under their control split into two efforts. "Unity, peace and common standards" is not the first thing I think about when hearing "Hyperion".

Unfortunately, the choice is not "open source or some hypothetical well-meaning entity lead by Jay Miner's grandson" - it's "open source or Hyperion".

(*) not saying Hyperion was the only guilty party
Sigh. Yeah, that's all true. But isn't even open source is a fantasy? Hyperion's not going to open-source it, and neither will Cloanto if they prevail, right? The best we can hope for right now is that they swallow their egos and try to get back to some best practices for product development.
 

Offline cgutjahr

Re: "Hyperion and Cloanto allegedly close to finalizing settlement"
« Reply #103 on: February 17, 2020, 08:09:27 PM »
Fair point, developers will fill gaps the vendor has left open. But originally all those toolkits were to support products at the application level. Now we have a problem of competing components at the OS level [...] now are far beyond GUI toolkits. Now it seems like we've got multiple iterations of icon.library, workbench.library, exec.library, scsi.device, ixemul.library, etc.--
You can either argue that open source will create a mess, or that we already have a mess - not both ;)

ixemul.library is evil, because many ports require it and it was always a bitch to pick the right version and set it up correctly. It has nothing to do with the OS though.

The others are not really an issue - if you're using one of those patched execs (which  have existed for decades, I think 'Executive' showed up in the mid-nineties?), you're on your own if something goes wrong. Most people never touch them anyway.

variants that all have the same name. It's getting too difficult to keep track of them all and they're not all interoperable.
That's the point of ongoing development: You don't need to keep track of anything, you just purchase/install the next OS update if you feel like it. This whole "hunting down libraries with a version number bigger than what I have installed" thing (aka "BoingBag 15") has become some sort of fetish for a select few, the vast majority would be more than happy with bi-annual OS updates.

Well, that's what we'd hope would happen and what logically *should* happen under a (strong governance!) open-source model
It is what is guaranteed to happen. "Open source" just means that for each release of the OS you make, you also release the source. The rest of your development process can stay exactly the same. Thomas, Olsen and the others decide what goes into next release of the official OS, and what doesn't, then implement that, then make their release.

They have THE NAME, the reputation, the experience and the advantage of having familiarized themselves with the code and build process for years. The idea that I could just take their Workbench source, compile it and suddenly become the next big player in this market thus forcing Thomas to rage-quit is nothing but fear-mongering, sorry.

But that's kind of my point, right? There's been a split and there's no going back from it.
I disagree with that, but I don't think it actually matters. Split or no split, we were discussing the future of AmigaOS development. That a split happened while it was closed source, is more of an argument for going open source, no? In an open source world, I can take whatever useful stuff is implemented in any of the forks and bring it back into my source tree. In a proprietary world, I can't...

Sigh. Yeah, that's all true. But isn't even open source is a fantasy? Hyperion's not going to open-source it, and neither will Cloanto if they prevail, right?
Battilana has been stating publicly for years that he "wants" to open source it. I'm not going to just accept that as a given if he prevails - I've been watching this soap opera for decades, after all - but at least he's consistently making the same claim.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2020, 11:58:43 PM by cgutjahr »
 

Offline kolla

Re: "Hyperion and Cloanto allegedly close to finalizing settlement"
« Reply #104 on: February 17, 2020, 10:07:58 PM »
Same as for many other commercial operating systems and no need to complain about.

Care to name one?
Windows(tm). Valid for one installation. With an EULA much longer than this.

tl;dr? Microsoft has many different licensing schemes so that you can buy one that fit your needs, covering both physical and virtual instances and more. The Windows license(s) uses clear language and is not ambiguous and does not come with ridiculous conditions - for example it allows the OS to exist on several computers and allow it to be transferred over networks, for example for backup.

http://download.microsoft.com/download/2/D/1/2D14FE17-66C2-4D4C-AF73-E122930B60F6/Windows-10-Volume-Licensing-Guide.pdf

Hyperion only offer one license, and it is ridiculous, ambiguous and extremely limiting.

Quote
* This license allows you to install or operate the AmigaOS only on a computer system that had a version of AmigaOS installed on it at the time you acquired such computer system, which was especially prepared for running AmigaOS through the use of a dedicated (flash)rom or similar mechanism or for which a legitimate version of AmigaOS was or is available.
Well, the sentence has an *or* in it, right?

Yes, ONE or - 1, 2 or 3 - which can be either 1 or 2 or 3, or it can be 1 and 2 or 3?

Quote
My FPGA systems did not come with any AmigaOS installed, nor were they specially prepared for AmigaOS when I acquired them (exception being the MiST), but Cloanto are selling AmigaOS and licenses to anyone willing to buy, and FPGA systems like the MiST have been distributed with OS 3.1 kickstart and license from Cloanto, so if Hyperion considers whatever Cloanto are selling as legit legal AmigaOS installations, then _any_ computer system is a legit target for OS 3.1.4.
So, be happy.
I am happy, but this is not about happiness, it is about finding out what the f Hyperion are trying to communicate, and what potential consequences there are.

Do Hyperion consider licenses bought from Cloanto a valid installation? Because the license suggest that Hyperion only considers their own products valid incarnations of AmigaOS, and hence OS 3.1.4 is not an update to any OS 3.1, but only a valid legal (according to the license) option for people who specifically have bought OS 3.1 from Hyperion.

That is a rather big issue, don't you think?

Quote
Personal attack again. Classy.
No, your post is a true "Kolla". Find reasons to complain about something on the premise that you do not like the product, or in this case, its vendor. Find reasons to distract a discussion on completely irrelevant topics that are quite obvious for everyone else.

Blablabla, more personal attacks saying that it is me who is trolling, rather than admitting the flaws in the license, a license you apparently have not even bothered to read.

Quote
So your suggestion is that people stop making backups of their OS installations,
Make *one* copy, store it.

And then delete the original ADFs or floppies so that there is only two copies of the Os, one installed and one copy of the installation?

Why on earth should people not be allowed to make backups of their installations?

At least Microsoft do not care how many backups you make of an OS installation, and allow you an extra backup of the installation media.

Quote
Probably? So you don't really know what the license mean with "AmigaOs"(sic) and you are the lead developer, and come here all the time to defend "the situation"?
Exactly. Developer. Not marketing, not product management, not legal department. What do you actually expect from me? Write licenses? Prepare the binder? Copy the disks? Deliver it do your home?
I don't expect anything from you, no-one asked you to come on this thread and spread nonsense - you could give Hyperion a nudge that they should perhaps contact some properly educated lawyers to review and validate their software licenses and make their services GDPR coherent etc.

Quote
So, does this plainly say that there is only one AmigaOS, and that is whatever that is distributed by Hyperion, and Hyperion only?
It says, it is licensed from Hyperion. From whom else?
It says "AmigaOS" is defined as the software licensed from Hyperion, and then goes on to say that a valid "target" for OS 3.1.4 is any computer system which there already exists a legal "AmigaOS" - ie AmigaOS licensed from Hyperion, not from Cloanto, not from Amiga Technologies, not from Amiga International, not from H&P, not from Commodore - but from Hyperion themselves.

Quote
Essentially rendering OS3.5, 3.9 and anything from Cloanto _not_ AmigaOS?
Where does it say so?
In the damn license, which I more and more understand you have not read.
Quote
1. License.  The software, documentation and any fonts accompanying this License whether on a physical medium such as CD or DVD, in read only memory (ROM) or provided to you by download using an electronic communication network (the "AmigaOS") are licensed to you by Hyperion Entertainment CVBA ("Hyperion").
See? The "AmigaOS" as mentioned in the rest of the document, is the software, documentation and any fonts accompanying this License - and this License is Hyperion only.

Quote
Again, you want to find something to complain about, then find a formulation which, with a lot of bad feelings, could be possibly misunderstood, then make a rumble about it. Trolling, as trolling goes.
Blablabla, personal attacks again. License agreements should not use language that can easily be misunderstood, and in this case it is not even easily misunderstood, it is more likely worded specifically to have multiple interpretations.

Quote
All kinds responsibilities are waived fully at the bottom of the license - have you not read it?
No, I have not, I am a *developer*. It is not my job to create licenses, read them, or check them.

I see, that figures - so then, why can you even possibly make the claim that it is not the license that prevents me from buying more copies of OS 3.1.4, and possibly the future OS 3.2?

Was it because it was *I* who wrote it, and you have a certain soft sport for me?

I am deeply flattered.

Quote
In 1992 perhaps, but today?
Yes, perfectly. I suppose, you check for Windows, or MacOs?

And more often than not, there are no specifications that deal with the problems that users need to solve.
As in? There are the RKRMs, the Autodocs, and *gasp* even people you can ask. RKRMs are even online. For example here. Surprise!
Yes, I have all those, I even host quite a few them online myself, and have for decades.

Quote
For example, with locale catalogs being incompatible between OS 3.9, a user may wish to keep OS 3.1.4 locates separate from those of OS 3.9, and binary edit the OS 3.1.4 ones to use a different directory than "sys".
Os 3.9 selected to have catalog identifiers messed up. 3.1.4 stayed with the catalog IDs from 3.9. So, if you use the 3.9 preferences, you use the 3.9 catalogs. If you don't - you don't. The 3.9 perferences are not part of 3.1.4, nor do we have its sources, nor any rights on it, so they are not part of 3.1.4.

Blablabla technobabbel - I perfectly know *why*, sheesh.

Quote
Install one, or the other, but the hex editor is not a recommended solution.
It is nevertheless a solution. If it makes you feel any better, I typically use CygnusEd for these tasks, fully paid and registered - I find Olsen a much more pleasant person to communicate with that you ;)

Quote
Many edit all prefs programs to use a different font than topaz/8 - what scum they are, breaking the license!
Right, and this is correct this way. This is not for you to edit. It will mess with the design, and this is the clearest way to tell people to keep their hands off, and waive any responsibility for such activity.
Oh your precious design, which so often is broken anyways, thanks to utterly low quality of locales, sometimes the whacky translations don't even fit into the gadgets were they are supposed to fit - something that can be fixed by binary editing both catalogs with better and more correct strings, and change the font in the program in question.

Quote
I had a program in the beta testing to replace the topaz font by some other font. Some people did not understand that the font size must match, and reported bugs. We did not deliver the program.

Dumb question - why did your program _allow_ people to chose fonts in different size then?

Also - I thought you had a policy of not delivering something that already exists as a third party tool on Aminet?
It is almost a shame you did not release it though, would be ironic if the OS came with a program specifically there to break one of the conditions in the license.

Quote
3.2 will have gadtools with scaling capability, so you'll get the freedom.

Not if the license stays at it is.

Quote
Care to name an example?
Windows, MacOs... you name it. You received *one* license, for *one* system. It is not supposed to be copied.

The companies for those operating systems have well qualified people who manage to put together coherent licenses using clear and precise language. They also offer users with multiple licenses, allowing for example multiple copies of the OS to be installed on the same machine multiple times, either under one license or individually - this is all specified in the licenses.

Can you install OS 3.1.4 under UAE on an Amiga running OS the very same OS 3.1.4?
Can you install an instance of OS 3.1.4 to run under WHDLoad to be launched from the very same OS already running on the very same hardware?

The Hyperion license does not mention how this work, it only refers to "computer system" without specifying what they mean with "computer system".

Quote
I see no mention of any "target" in any of the licenses, Microsoft speak of "devices" which they in the license define (as both physical and virtual), and Hyperion licenses only mention "computer systems" without specifying what they mean by that.
Oh, and "device" is more clear than "computer system"? Is your washing machine a device?
Not by the definition Microsoft uses, but with the Hyperion license it is not clear. My washing machine does have a computer in it, and so it is indeed a computer system too - potentially powerful enough to run an incarnation of UAE, and hence a possible target for AmigaOS.

More casual and relevant "devices" are gaming consoles, FPGA systems, other consumer computers etc.

Quote
Is all this really unreasonable?
Your whole post? Yes, very. Laughable.
No, the user scenario I described, which was straight out describing how one easily can be in violation of the license.
But by all means, go on laugh, ridicule and patronise...

Quote
Maybe you have not read it?
Nope, what for? Not my job.
Then perhaps you should also stop being obnoxious with those who have read it.

Quote
Maybe you are such a cool person that such mundane issues are below your radar?
Once again, I do not mind about the license of the product, this is not my problem. Why do you believe that this is one of my issues? I'm not even employed by Hyperion (luckely). You seem to prefer to pick me as a contact person for Hyperion, which apparently you don't like, and then instead attack me in person.
Excuse me - it was *YOU* who wrote "Nope" when I stated that the license prevents me from buying any more copies of OS 3.1.4 - it was not Hyperion, it was YOU. I only WISH it was actually someone from Hyperion who could bring answers here - you are clearly NOT the right person - not that it ever stops you though.

Quote
Now, does anyone wonder *why* I don't like AmigaOs open source? Because of people like you, Kolla, exactly that. In a commercial enterprise, one has "customer support" to avoid that developers have to care about the type of people you find in this forum, and to let developers do their job, and let other people care about it (and probably ignore them...). This is pretty much what would be necessary in any sane product development. If I would be Hyperion - yes, ignoring your questions is probably the best strategy to use.

Once again, *I AM NOT YOUR CUSTOMER SUPPORT POINT* and *NOT YOUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT* and *NOT YOUR COMPLAINTS DEPARTMENT*.

So why do you feel the need constantly jumping in to act like Hyperion's complaint department - all you have to do is... nothing!

Is your ultimate goal for replying me, to have me banned from here? Is that all you want?

Btw - the ATAPIMajik module works great on all systems so far.

And is ARexx' DATE(CENTURY) noted on the bug tracker? It still counts from 1900, not 2000.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2020, 10:27:40 PM by kolla »
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC
---
A3000/060CSPPC+CVPPC/128MB + 256MB BigRAM/Deneb USB
A4000/CS060/Mediator4000Di/Voodoo5/128MB
A1200/Blz1260/IndyAGA/192MB
A1200/Blz1260/64MB
A1200/Blz1230III/32MB
A1200/ACA1221
A600/V600v2/Subway USB
A600/Apollo630/32MB
A600/A6095
CD32/SX32/32MB/Plipbox
CD32/TF328
A500/V500v2
A500/MTec520
CDTV
MiSTer, MiST, FleaFPGAs and original Minimig
Peg1, SAM440 and Mac minis with MorphOS