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

[olsen]

You may remember that just about a year ago a file "amiga os source code 3.1.tar.bz2" popped up on a web site, was linked to, copied, and the contents even wound up on GitHub for a couple of days. This event was widely publicized, on Twitter, on personal blogs, and it even made the news.

That file would contain pretty much all the AmigaOS 3.1 source code, and plenty of other material which used to be available to Commodore developers back in 1994. It's safe to say that the contents of the archive are now very widely distributed, just not necessarily available to the general public.

Back then there was speculation as to who made the data available, where the data came from, and which consequences the availability would have.

It's been a year now, and I'm curious. What did the availability of the source code make possible?

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

[krashan]

I think you've answered yourself in the post. Even if some projects gained by having a look into these sources, noone will confirm it.

[OlafS3]

You may remember that just about a year ago a file "amiga os source code 3.1.tar.bz2" popped up on a web site, was linked to, copied, and the contents even wound up on GitHub for a couple of days. This event was widely publicized, on Twitter, on personal blogs, and it even made the news.

That file would contain pretty much all the AmigaOS 3.1 source code, and plenty of other material which used to be available to Commodore developers back in 1994. It's safe to say that the contents of the archive are now very widely distributed, just not necessarily available to the general public.

Back then there was speculation as to who made the data available, where the data came from, and which consequences the availability would have.

It's been a year now, and I'm curious. What did the availability of the source code make possible?

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

 I do not know if anyone looked inside, I assume some for pure curiosity  I stayed away and propably most others too. It is funny how much noise was created around 20 years old sources, you could think future of mankind depends on defending the sources. So answer nothing changed by it. If anyone ever looked inside to get some tips how to do something or simply to see how it was done would be stupid to post it anywhere. You could also ask if someone has the intention to rob someone and expect a honest answer :-)

[wawrzon]

as a contributor to aros, however minor my input is i steer clear of such illegal sorces leaks. thats a very honest answer on my part.

[kolla]

As a result we now have updated C:Sort and C:Wait programs in the "BB3+4", plus some other neatness (trackdisk.device 40.2?) right out of the "box". Especially the Wait update was useful, one can give a file as argument, and wait will sit there till the file shows up. Great! A lot of people have had fun looking at the sources and learning about the inner workings of whatever subsystem they are interested in - I could list names here, but I prefer they rather do it themselves (some have been quite open about on the Amiga Facebook groups), a lot of code has been improved because of this knowledge.

[kolla]

In my opinion, the cat is out of the bag - AmigaOS 3.1 is to be considered open source, whether one like it or not. The sources are out there, all you need to do is ask. It is merely the legal status that is unclear in the draconian parts of the world, the vast majority of people on this planet live in countries where the concept of "copyright" is not a reality. Why we in "the west" inflict our society with such regressive nonsense is beyond me, I suppose it is our love for bureaucracy and regulations.

[OlafS3]

In my opinion, the cat is out of the bag - AmigaOS 3.1 is to be considered open source, whether one like it or not. The sources are out there, all you need to do is ask. It is merely the legal status that is unclear in the draconian parts of the world, the vast majority of people on this planet live in countries where the concept of "copyright" is not a reality. Why we in "the west" inflict our society with such regressive nonsense is beyond me, I suppose it is our love for bureaucracy and regulations.

 not entirely true... ancient china killed everybody that tried to bring silkworms outside china or how porzellan is created

[A2666]

Really hard to believe that there is so much fuss over 20 year old code.
 JUST MAKE IT OPEN SOURCE!
When code is available benefits are undeniable.
Pretty simple.
 Imagine how much more vibrant and successful Amiga NG would be with open source system.  
 Oh but no! Our licensing fees... money... bla, bla, bla. Same sad story and same outcome as it was in 90's.

[Jose]

" vast majority of people on this planet live in countries where the concept of "copyright" is not a reality"

Which does not make it ok does it ? I mean, the ones profiting from it are the big companies that ended up cutting costs to develop software to sell their hardware while coders are less and less paid. Similar situation to the music industry, everybody talking bad about big labels and then they pirate everything including the small bands. Why do you think there are not any decent bands anymore with success ? And don't tell me about youtube or apple music store, they just exploit the artists too.

[TheMagicM]

Nobody other than a few in the Amiga "world" care about this old operating system and what it does on our old hardware.  Nothing to see here.  

But c:sort, man..thats one piece of software I've been waiting for.

[Joloo]

I've to ask myself, what I would have gained by looking at these source codes. Short: nothing.

Back in the late 1980/early 1990 I've disassembled parts of the OS in order to figure out, how the involved routines did work and what they did expect.

In addition, looking at professional C coder's source codes is useless for me because they mostly don't document what they want to achieve and what tricks they do apply to do so (their attitude; I'll get paid for programming, not documenting...).

Next to nothing, the OCS/ECS/AGA hardware is very well documented - and even in the late 1980 it was, thus it is no problem to fall back on OS routines only when really necessary (bypassing them if required) and talking instead with the hardware directly.

The part I am curious in is the 3rd party graphic device, i.e. Picasso96, but I am too lazy these days to disassemble and have a look at it. Any other part of the OS is today boring for me, because I already know (or better said, gained enough information) how it works (till and including OS3.1) and how I have to handle it to achieve what I want to.

Besides that, knowing or at least having the source codes of an OS doesn't imply to easily program a software/application for it; two years ago I've spent just a week to program my very first (and in addition, complex) software for Android-OS without knowing any details about Android's OS; achieving that by only using a strong IDE (Android Studio) and visiting 'stackoverflow.com' and studying Android's developer documentation. If I would own a copy of the OS3.1 source codes and would have no knowledge of this OS otherwise, I wouldn't be able to realise this software at all!

So, on my part, there are no consequences at all. Nothing has changed for me. Still using the buggy datatypes system (if I cannot avoid it), still using the Workbench with its flaws and limitations, and still using 'vbcc' and a text editor to develop software for AmigaOS/MorphOS and 'gcc' on the AROS part.

Even the AmigaOS3.1 source codes were one day publically and legally downloadable, I wouldn't spend any second on studying it.

[Gulliver]

For me it was an educational experience:

I understood how the modularity approach in development led to some of the third party system extensions, replacements, patchs and hacks that we love and enjoy in our Amigas. But as downside, it also made the build and release process way too complex and less focused with lots of integration issues.

I still think modularity was the right approach for AmigaOS given the hardware it ran on, but I would have chosen a more unified set of tools for its development, with a more strict coding guideline. And a clear roadmap designed with the help of the developers for them to follow in pushing new releases of the OS wouldnt have hurt.

It was also interesting to see what Commodore plans were at the time it went bankrupt.

[eliyahu]

@A2666

i guess i don't understand the unhappiness over whether the OS is open-source or not. we have AROS, which is open-source. and API-compatible. and portable. and more advanced. so why not contribute to that project and let the commercial guys keep doing their thing in parallel?

-- eliyahu

[guest11527]

It's been a year now, and I'm curious. What did the availability of the source code make possible?

Apparently, it had no observable effect, except for a general rumble about it. I believe this is obvious for everyone, so I wonder what the purpose of the question is? (except generating another rumble, maybe ;-).

So, there are two possible conclusions:

C: Nobody cares. That is, it did not trigger the generation of any new software of or around the Os because nobody *C*ared enough to attempt working on the sources. In such a case, it is completely irrelevant whether the sources will become available or any updated Os becomes available because there is no demand for it, and nobody willing to satisfy the non-existing demand. Thus, just don't bother.

D: People actually do care about it, though copyright still means something. Despite the claims of some ignorant people, the Os is (then?) not "open", but just "stolen". Note that there is an important difference between these two words! In such a case, replace the "c" by a "d": Nobody *D*ared to make anything available due to potential consequences.

In case option "C" mirrors reality, I wonder why places like this exist. It seems like a contraction to me.

[Pat the Cat]

It's been a year now, and I'm curious. What did the availability of the source code make possible?

Disclaimer: All my opinion.

It made it easier to understand the AmigaDOS Code from Commodore's point of view. That is the primary difference. It cost $$$$$ to be a developer.

It did not necessarily help malware experts to monitor, target, or attack Amiga systems, although it certainly did not hinder that either.

It might have helped some devs create honest software a bit quicker, for both 3.1 and post 3.1 systems, by understanding the 3.1 code.

It made emulating 3.1 hardware systems and designing new hardware systems that could interface with 3.1 a bit easier.

So not a game changer, but an advatnage, an edge, that some people might find useful, and some would scorn, really. It's not like there was huge point in recompiling the source code and knocking out copies in the markets of Singapore (no disrespect intended to people of that city, but you do have a reputation for innovation success against the odds).

Technically, it was a breach of copyright, a leak of private IP. The nature of leaks is, there is no mop up of the spill. Leaked is leaked, And as for who... "The ship of State is the ONLY ship that leaks from the top".