New AmiKit X with AmigaOS 3.1.4 support!

[Pgovotsos]

The license for OS 3.1.4 does not specify whether it permits use with emulators or not, but Thomas Richter has been very vocal about the license specifically only allows OS 3.1.4 to be used with physical Amga systems, since Cloanto are the ones with permission to distribute for emulators.

But AmiKit aren't distributing it, only providing a link to buy it from Hyperion.

[Pgovotsos]

The license for OS 3.1.4 does not specify whether it permits use with emulators or not, but Thomas Richter has been very vocal about the license specifically only allows OS 3.1.4 to be used with physical Amga systems, since Cloanto are the ones with permission to distribute for emulators.

But AmiKit aren't distributing it, only providing a link to buy it from Hyperion.

Exactly, leaving it up to the individual users to commit the license breach.

Do you have a link to the license?

In my extremely un-lawyer mind, which understands absolutely nothing about the technicalities of licenses, if a license doesn't explicitly say something one way or another about something, doesn't that mean that there are no license terms that apply to the issue so no restrictions? I understand that the developers may have a different opinion, but if Hyperion owns the product don't they set the terms? I'm not saying it is right or wrong, especially since the developers weren't paid anything as I understand it, it just is.

Now my understanding of license technicalities is near zero so anything that I think I understand could be completely wrong

[Pgovotsos]

Why is this in the license?

"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"

So if I bought a second hand machine that didn't come with the installation media I couldn't install 3.1.4 on it. I thought that it included all the disks to make a virgin installation.

[Pgovotsos]

Why is this in the license?

Because Hyperion intend to keep all interpretations open so they can make them fit whatever scenario they potentially end up in.

It actually sounds more like something that closes options. If I purchase it, by the letter of the license, I can't install it on a machine that doesn't already have a previous version of the OS installed. And how does that work with machines without hard drives? Those cannot have the operating system previously installed. They have a boot ROM (Kickstart) installed but that isn't an operating system - it's just what gives the computer enough instructions to go get the operating system.

So the big box models usually shipped with hard drives installed with the operating system pre-installed. I can install this on them. On the other hand, most of the wedge models did not so by a strict interpretation of the license I can't install this on them.

Essentially I guess I'm saying that I agree with you about the license having issues. Besides the ambiguity regarding use in emulators they severely limit the machines it can be installed on. Actually I guess that statement actually removes the ambiguity regarding use in emulators - they don't, by definition, have an operating system of any kind installed so this can't be installed on them. This statement may have been intended to be a restriction on emulator use but because of the wording applies to much more.

[Pgovotsos]

The full sentence is:

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.

The last part (which may or may not be an addition), allows the purchaser to install 3.1.4 on a wedgie. Also, Amiga Forever comes with licensed ROM's and licensed Amiga operating systems. Where's the problem?

Are problems not just being seen where they don't exist here?

The part saying "through the use of a dedicated (flash)rom or similar mechanism or for which a legitimate version of AmigaOS was or is available." wasn't there when I copied the phrase to my post. It has been subsequently added as far as I can tell.

I don't know if the reason is that Hyperion is seeing the comments in various places, as a result of kolla's complaint, or something else entirely. Regardless it still leaves a lot of ambiguity. Software licenses are such a well explored subject that Hyperion shouldn't have any problems coming up with a comprehensive and precise license but Hyperion hasn't always done things the easiest or best ways

[Pgovotsos]

The full sentence is:

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.

Do you read the above as 2 types of systems, or 3 types of systems (do you have an implied "or" or an implied "and" before the "which was especially prepared")?
What is your understanding of "a legitimate version of AmigaOS"? Is a kickstart ROM enough?
What is a "similar mechanism" - is a kickstart file on an SD card a "similar mechanism"?
Does Hyperion consider Cloanto distributions of kickstart/workbench, and licenses of thereof (for example sold with MiST and Minimig), "legitimate"?

"And" I'd say. The comma, as used in this statement, indicates that the following is a continuation of the previous part of the sentence. In this case a further clarification of the previous part. So "which" refers back to "AmigaOS".

My understanding is that Kickstart alone does not constitute the AmigaOS. As they say the flash(rom) only prepares the computer to run the AmigaOS.

"Similar method", not being further specified, seems to imply a physical item, not solely digital. An SD card, being a type of flash memory, should fall within the description although since it is technically flash RAM and not ROM it could be argued that it does not. A Kickstart image on a mechanical hard drive may not but on an SSD would. It really depends on the technical meaning of the word "similar" from a legal standpoint. I am not a lawyer nor do I portray one on TV so I don't know enough to answer that

For "legitimate" I would have to say that it depends entirely on the terms of the license from Hyperion that the reseller is granted distribution. Without being able to see the license I doubt we could decide. It's probably also going to be subject to the outcome of lawsuits like the ongoing cases between Cloanto and Hyperion. That particular situation, as I understand it, is over several issues - ownership of things and distribution / reselling rights.

[Pgovotsos]

Well, this is the license with terms for end users who buy from Hyperion directly, you can read it here:

http://hyperion-entertainment.biz/index.php/where-to-buy/direct-downloads/188-amigaos-314

That is definitely different from the version that was there when you posted the link before. Just looking at it without reading it you can see that all of the sections are longer. For the most part it seems that the additions and edits are the inclusion of more legalese and weasel words to make it more vague and favorable to them.

Edit - there are a couple of changes in other sections I noticed. They added that there is no guarantee that the documentation is correct. That's definitely weasel CYA (cover your a$$) words. One addition that I was surprised was not in the previous version is the requirement for mandatory arbitration and no law suits for settling disputes. That has been a fairly exclusion in licenses for a while.

I really hope that anyone who purchased this before the license changes kept a copy of it. The new version is definitely more restrictive for the end user.

[Pgovotsos]

@Pgovotsos

I have checked now, the license currently on the web page is _identical_ to the one that came with zip file - apart from a couple of line feeds, diff shows now difference at all. So whatever changes you have seen, must have been your imagination

I was curious, because I really couldn't see any difference...

I was going from my memory of the version posted on their website prior to the cease and desist compared to the one currently up. I did not compare to the archive. I'm pretty sure that the section about requiring a machine that previously had an installation did change since I copied the whole end of the sentence and the currently following words weren't there or I would have copied them as well.

Again though, operating from memory doesn't always work