Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga Software Issues and Discussion => Topic started by: carvedeye on December 22, 2014, 11:49:18 PM
-
Hi all I am wanting to setup Winuae with PPC support but I don't know where to get the cyberstormppc.rom file from? I am hoping to be able to get aos4.1 fe classic soon but I want to make a working 3.9 setup before hand?
-
Sent a PM :-)
-
I am looking for it to
-
See this amiga.org thread (http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=67981) to download ROMs you are interested on.
-
I am looking for it to
Other threads link is broken so PM on the way :-)
-
This post has been deleted due to our moderation policy (http://www.amiga.org/index.php?pageid=moderation_policy) specifying the deletion of any post "involving or advocating the distribution of warez in any way." Please refrain from posting direct links to copyrighted material in future. Thanks!
-- eliyahu
-
@thread
please keep in mind site rules prohibit posting links to commercial software without permission of the copyright owner. i know this seems a little, er, strange since the companies in question no longer exist, but, still.... ;)
-- eliyahu
-
@thread
please keep in mind site rules prohibit posting links to commercial software without permission of the copyright owner. i know this seems a little, er, strange since the companies in question no longer exist, but, still.... ;)
-- eliyahu
DCE still exists and holds the license/rights to the Blizzard PPC and Cyberstorm PPC roms, as far as I am aware ?
-
DCE still exists and holds the license/rights to the Blizzard PPC and Cyberstorm PPC roms, as far as I am aware ?
might be the reason not to support uae as official os4 platform, because it might mean officially supporting piracy for all these users that do not own the hardware in question.
-
If UAE were officially supported, Hyperion would be responsible for fixing or working around bugs in UAE as well. I think they have enough work to do already. :)
-
If UAE were officially supported, Hyperion would be responsible for fixing or working around bugs in UAE as well. I think they have enough work to do already. :)
as if winuae was unmaintained..
-
I have a blizzppc, is there any tool to exctract it my self?
-
As an owner of CSPPC I am curious about what the ROM contains, and whether there ever were any updates?
-
As an owner of CSPPC I am curious about what the ROM contains, and whether there ever were any updates?
I got the CSPPC 44.67, 44.69 and 44.71 roms, no idea what has changed since I never owned a CSPPC card sadly :/ But something has been updated ^^
-
Ah I see. Pretty sure I never flashed mine with new ROM, or if it is even possible.
-
P5 software is available at
http://phase5.a1k.org/index.php?driverslibraries
I did flash my CSPPC once.
-
Yes, the EPROM files there all work and add only minor features; they are not ROM's though, because they can be flashed.
-
Just in case the Cyberstormppc.rom creates a problem with copyrights, is there a replacement video for those who want to run OS4.1 on WinUAE?
-
@thread
Ralph Schmidt says that the has the rights to release them and so he did (http://amigaworld.net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7357#94650)
#6
-
He did not. The files on Aminet do not contain the PPC ROM files needed for emulation. Only 2060 SCSI, 1230 IV SCSI and FastlaneZ3 ROM files are there. All other archives only contain update software which needs a running accelerator (may be emulated, but with working ROM) which can then be updated.
-
You can also get it from Indiego appstore with graphical client you can download from: http://www.indiego-gaming.com/marketplace
In appstore look it under category "emulation".
Price is 100 amicoins = 1 Euro.
-
I just updated the news item on Amiga-News: The archives that have been uploaded to Aminet do only contain patches for existing ROMs, no complete ROM images. Approached by Amiga-News, Ralph Schmidt explains he won't release complete binaries that could be used with emulators.
-
apparently cyberstorm ppc firmware is still ralph schmidt's property. and if he doesnt intend to make it free, then distribution of the images is not legal.
-
You can also get it from Indiego appstore with graphical client
Is it still available? phoenixkonsole's latest postings on Amiga-News sound like he removed it.
Price is 100 amicoins = 1 Euro.
You can't buy just 100 amicoins, apparently you have to buy 500.
-
Is it still available? phoenixkonsole's latest postings on Amiga-News sound like he removed it.
correct. according to pascal's post on AWN (link (http://amigaworld.net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7357&start=0&order=0#94653)), he is withdrawing them from sale due to lack of commercial rights. so that's that, then.
-- eliyahu
-
correct. according to pascal's post on AWN
Ah, right. Thanks.
-
Hooray. Every amiga user will benefit of NOT having legal access to the ROMs! Great!
-
If you were quick, you could be having probably legal ROM image still.
I actually bought that from Indiego before this all happened.
It is bit of a question how does this legally work out now.
Basically I legally in good faith bought it from Indiego.
Indiego legally in good faith had bought license from DCE to sell it.
DCE on the other hand was selling something they werent allowed to.
This is one of the tricky cases legally, but basically i would imagine I basically have now a legal copy of the ROM image, and if Frank decides, he could ask DCE for damages from me having it. but not sure.
-
Plenty of places you can get the ROMs from, seems silly to be holding these to ransom in this day and age.
A quick Google and they're pretty easy to find.
-
Does some one need to make a virtual device as a replacement?
I am shooting in to the wind. :(
-
This is one of the tricky cases legally
No, not at all. If Ralph Schmidt is right (about him being the only owner of the rights), your copy isn't legal - period.
but basically i would imagine I basically have now a legal copy of the ROM image, and if Frank decides
Technically, he can't ask you for damage, but he can ask you to delete it.
Which he won't obviously.
-
sick, how much people try to twist this around to make it appear legal while it apparently isnt. whats the problem all the sudden? why dont you just honestly pirate it as all the time before?
-
@cgutjahr
Actually it is not that clear case.
To take example of car theft.
If you buy a car from your local cars dealer, and later point it is found out that the car you bought was actually stolen. If there was no reasonable reason for you to doubt it, you get to keep the car you bought (at least in most countries), and dispute is between the original owner and the theft, not between you and the original owner.
Similarly another case could be that for example GOG.com finds out that their Sierra games arent actually legally licensed. That the real owner suddenly appears and tells them that the deal they have about those games, was made with wrong company.
GOG would have to stop selling those sierra games unless they make a new deal with the real owner, but people who bought those games before, would (probably) still be having legal copies of it, despite that they were illegal in the first place, as there was no reason to doubt that GOG was selling real, legal copies of those games.
However, in this case because I was customer that became aware of the situation (although after already having bought it), and it wasnt after many a year, but quite instantly noticed, it is easy to reverse the situation (delete file) etc.
And because I couldnt easily enough find any contact info for Ralph Schmidt to ask him permission to keep that PPC ROM file, i deleted it.
-
@cgutjahr
Actually it is not that clear case.
To take example of car theft.
If you buy a car from your local cars dealer, and later point it is found out that the car you bought was actually stolen. If there was no reasonable reason for you to doubt it, you get to keep the car you bought (at least in most countries), and dispute is between the original owner and the theft, not between you and the original owner.
Similarly another case could be that for example GOG.com finds out that their Sierra games arent actually legally licensed. That the real owner suddenly appears and tells them that the deal they have about those games, was made with wrong company.
GOG would have to stop selling those sierra games unless they make a new deal with the real owner, but people who bought those games before, would (probably) still be having legal copies of it, despite that they were illegal in the first place, as there was no reason to doubt that GOG was selling real, legal copies of those games.
However, in this case because I was customer that became aware of the situation (although after already having bought it), and it wasnt after many a year, but quite instantly noticed, it is easy to reverse the situation (delete file) etc.
And because I couldnt easily enough find any contact info for Ralph Schmidt to ask him permission to keep that PPC ROM file, i deleted it.
Not sure this is true. Is the U.k. At least if you bought a car in good faith that turned out to be stolen. The car would be returned to the proper owners and you would potentially be out of pocket unless you can get the money back from the dealer.
-
@cgutjahr
Actually it is not that clear case.
To take example of car theft.
If you buy a car from your local cars dealer, and later point it is found out that the car you bought was actually stolen. If there was no reasonable reason for you to doubt it, you get to keep the car you bought (at least in most countries), and dispute is between the original owner and the theft, not between you and the original owner.
Similarly another case could be that for example GOG.com finds out that their Sierra games arent actually legally licensed. That the real owner suddenly appears and tells them that the deal they have about those games, was made with wrong company.
GOG would have to stop selling those sierra games unless they make a new deal with the real owner, but people who bought those games before, would (probably) still be having legal copies of it, despite that they were illegal in the first place, as there was no reason to doubt that GOG was selling real, legal copies of those games.
However, in this case because I was customer that became aware of the situation (although after already having bought it), and it wasnt after many a year, but quite instantly noticed, it is easy to reverse the situation (delete file) etc.
And because I couldnt easily enough find any contact info for Ralph Schmidt to ask him permission to keep that PPC ROM file, i deleted it.
you can keep your rom image. you just cant claim its legal. if you have paid for it and are not comfortable with the outcome, delete it and demand your money back. why do you want to argue in the open, that your copy is legal even if acquired from an apparently illegal source? i dont understand your concerns.
-
@wawrzon
Most of time when i argue about legal matters, it is because i am interested in legal matters and find it fun. Not necessarily because the issue might have something to do with me directly (like this one had). Hence my main point wasnt to argue that my copy is (well, was) legal, but simply argue about legal matter.
I also find it beneficial for exercise to argue/think of these matters. As example this time since the matter happened to have something directly to do with me.
My first thought was the comparison with car theft, and i was thinking my copy was legal. Then i started thinking about the spirit behind these laws, of why were they put there in the first place etc. and i came to conclusion that Ralph Schmidt should have right to decide in this case wether i can keep it or not (after which i deleted it, since i couldnt contact him, and i decided that basically he had said no by forbidding the selling). At this point I was however still thinking that would this be in court, judge would rule in my favor of keeping the ROM. Although I doubt no sane mind would go to court for a case like this.
But after giving even more consideration, i actually came to conclusion that even Judge would rule for not letting me keep the ROM file without Ralphs permission.
For thing is, the principle behind (to my understand in most countries, but i could be wrong) getting to keep the stolen car, the idea is that people need to be able to trust official car dealer companies. That we cant demand regular people to find out if their newly bought car from car dealer shop is stolen, if all the papers etc. seem okay.
If there would happen lots of these cases, then people would be afraid of buying cars anymore in the end.
Naturally if stolen item is something unique. Say you in good faith thought you bought copy of Mona Lisa, and it appears it is actually the real one. You wouldnt get to keep it, but it would be returned to real owner.
Personally I think each car theft should be treated as their own case. For example, lets say you have a car you use for work. It gets stolen, you cant afford new one, and hence it becomes impossible for you to work. Suppose the legal buyer later on is then a millionaire who just buys that car to sit in his endless car garage. In my opinion, you should get the car back, and then millionaire would have the claim for money from the thief (or the seller).
Similarly, if it was stolen from same millionaire, and buyer is someone who used every last penny of his to buy it to be able to use it for his work. Once again, millionaire can afford it, that other guys livelihood depends on it. Hence I once again would think it is better that dispute is put between millionaire and theft, instead of the poor chap.
But another example of this principle, lets take example of you are selling Illegal copy of Madonnas newest Cd release.
You have sold it directly to 10 000 people in shops and markets. Then you are sued about it and have to withdraw it from market.
It is not realistic to think that you can contact all those 10 000 people who have already bought that CD from various sources. For example, someone bought it from shop with cash. There is no way to trace that one. Hence to my understanding law basically lets people keep those cds instead of forcing them to destroy it.
However, not we come to this ROM file case. This is different from that principle. Since by default, those who bought the ROM file, are so said actively using indiego, hence it is possible to inform them that ROM files are not legal after all, since they are all tracable through their user accounts.
Hence I would imagine that even a judges ruling would be that each one who bought rom files would need to delete them, as it is reasonably possible to arrange and there is no big harm for anyone.
And just to point out. That I wrote this long with all these examples only because I found it fun to write about legal matters. And also, that I am no lawyer, and this is one of the tricky cases in law, hence I am not sure it really would go like this, just to my understanding this is about the principle how it generally goes and basis for it, but it varies from country to country. Especially since, as i already mentioned, its a tricky case.
-
I don't understand what MorphOS devs have against emulation. MorphOS pup edition has a special clause that prevents it from being used with emulators. And now these ppc Roms that won't be released to prevent use with emulators.
What's the point?
-
And just to point out. That I wrote this long with all these examples only because I found it fun to write about legal matters. And also, that I am no lawyer, and this is one of the tricky cases in law, hence I am not sure it really would go like this, just to my understanding this is about the principle how it generally goes and basis for it, but it varies from country to country. Especially since, as i already mentioned, its a tricky case.
It's a simple case. The person you bought it from had no right to sell it, therefore you didn't get anything for your money and you should demand a refund.
If you buy a car that was stolen and it gets identified then the original owner (or the insurance company who paid out on the claim) will recover the car from you. The first you'll know is that someone will knock on your door to take your car there and then. If you go to court then the judge won't care whether you need the car, because it's someone else's property. All you can do is sue the person who sold it to you, if it was a legitimate car dealer then you will know where to find them and they should have enough money to pay you. If they are dodgy then they will either have disappeared or will declare themselves insolvent when you ask for your refund. Caveat emptor and all that.
I don't believe there are any countries where the law is written in the way you think. However there are countries where laws don't get applied.
-
It is not that "they won't be released for use with emulators," it is a matter of intellectual property, and MorphOS emulates a 68k Amiga on a PPC Mac, so it is likely $$ with them as they may lose control of their "licenced to the hardware" grip.
-
I did a bit of a check, and seems I am mostly wrong about the law issue. It seems I had somewhere read example of an exception of the law and thought it was general.
It appears that in Finnish law there are two different titles for selling goods you dont own. One is the traditional stealing, and another one is that someone for example loaned you something and you sold it.
If you bought something that the guy had loaned, and there was no reason for you to know that seller didnt actually own it. Then you, the buyer, are for most part protected. Original owner still has right to get his thing back, but he must pay for you, the buyer, the price you paid for the seller. Then the original owner has right to ask that money back from the seller. By otherwords, Buyer in this case has no risk, he either gets to keep the goods, or gets the money back he paid. Original owner on the other hand has a risk of losing always. He always has a risk of not getting money back from the thief if thief if broke.
Although it most times seems to be elsewhere too that stolen car is returned to owner, here is one example of exception: http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162239
However, have to remember that that is just a forum, and who knows if those really know what they are talking about even.
-
I don't understand what MorphOS devs have against emulation. MorphOS pup edition has a special clause that prevents it from being used with emulators. And now these ppc Roms that won't be released to prevent use with emulators.
What's the point?
The MorphOS devs were the ones who originally got screwed over royally by H&P and their WarpOS package. I'm not surprised they're still holding a grudge.
-
Well I am surprised, that any one can hold a grudge for 15 years or more.
-
The MorphOS devs were the ones who originally got screwed over royally by H&P and their WarpOS package. I'm not surprised they're still holding a grudge.
I am sorry, but are you saying that the MorphOS developers are holding a grudge against Haage & Partners over WarpOS and this is why they do not let their software (which emulates a 68000 emulating an Amiga) be emulated itself on other hardware, and subsequently that the copyright laws covering the distribution of the CyberstormPPC ROM are, in effect, wrong or invalid? Or is there some other reason that MorphOS comes into place in a thread discussing the copyrighted CyberstormPPC ROM's that are in effect owned by the actual people with a physically present CyberstormPPC product? Or is the intellectual property of MorphOS not the same as the intellectual property of anyone else? Or does a deal going "bad" mean that in the years insuing said "screwed over royally" action mean anything to anyone's intellectual property rights?
You see, I am confused... Could you explain?
-
To answer some part of your questions, supposing i understood them right. Now I havent really digged into this, so this is somewhat a guess what i am saying next.
But if i understood right, Claim would go about following:
DCE bought phase 5:s rights for all the boards. Hence DCE is probably allowed to make more physical PPC boards, which i guess is unlikely they will do anymore due to it probably not making financial sense anymore.
However, part of those PPC boards, is the PPC ROM. And this PPC ROM however wasnt owned by phase5, but Phase5 only had license to use that PPC ROM on their physical boards. This right might, or might not have been moved to DCE.
The one they licensed that PPC ROM from, was Ralph Schmidt, and Schmidt is heavily involved with MorphOS, hence the thought of "moprhOS team" although in reality we are talking only of one individual. As example, If i would refuse something, it wouldnt be "Amiga users refuse", but just me.
So to correct some thought that you might have thought, supposing i read your message right.
MorphOS or MorphOS team itself doesnt have anything to do with preventing this PPC ROM being licensed. Only one individual who happens to be part of MorphOS team does.
Wether hes decision is based upon reason (fear of decreased sales of MorphOS and increase of competitor AOS4), or grudge from past, at least i havent seen stated.
In addition, if you own physical PPC board, and you take ROM image from it. Then as far as i have understood, that image should be legal, and right now seems to be only legal way to get that PPC ROM image to run AOS4 under emulation on your PC.
-
Well I am surprised, that any one can hold a grudge for 15 years or more.
+1
-
running os4 in emulation is illegal according to the os4 development lead person, it wont be supported, its only tolerated. they just decided to cash on it anyway. now the owner of the necessary firmware, who doesnt earn any penny on that, has stated, that the replication and distribution of his firmware is illegal but will be tolerated if it isnt done commercially.
now i wonder, why the developers linked to morphos get all the bashing for not supporting the usage, they dont have any business with. this whole affair will not affect anything, except the good feeling os4 uae users may have gained, if they could claim everything they do is legal and official, as they seem to insist on it where they can. otherwise everybody can proceed further as they did, i dont see the problem.
-
running os4 in emulation is illegal according to the os4 development lead person, it wont be supported, its only tolerated.
Do you have a link to this?
For as far as i have understood (but i havent really read), the point was that it is legal to emulate AOS4, but just that you wont get support for problems that might be because of emulation environment.
As example, if you have X1000, and there is some piece of hardware causing problem to AOS4, you can get support for it. But if there comes some problem under Emulation environment, then they wont help you.
I also wonder if it is actually even possible to legally forbid someone from using anything under emulation.
-
running os4 in emulation is illegal according to the os4 development lead person, it wont be supported, its only tolerated.
Think about this...doing a demo at AmiWest while surrounded by fans and spokesperson for AmigaOS4...
I expect somebody will. It has become a pretty popular trick in recent weeks. (http://www.amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=39267&forum=16&start=60&viewmode=flat&order=0#740914)
WinUAE is not a supported target platform so you are 100% on your own. (http://www.amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=39487&forum=2)
#6
-
Well I am surprised, that any one can hold a grudge for 15 years or more.
Grudge against whom?
Pascal Papara and Ralph Schmidt have never had any public issues with one another.
On the other hand, it is Hyperion Entertainment CVBA who are legally in a position to officially release a version of their operating system for emulation purposes but have instead made a point to state in their software license agreement that users are only allowed to run their OS on specific hardware platforms.
By not licensing his software (at this time), Ralph Schmidt is in fact discouraging the commercial enablement of what Hyperion Entertainment CBVA consider to be an "unsupported use" of their software.
Does this sound like somebody who wants to upset Hyperion Entertainment CBVA at all costs? Hardly.
-
Grudge against whom?
Pascal Papara and Ralph Schmidt have never had any public issues with one another.
On the other hand, it is Hyperion Entertainment CVBA who are legally in a position to officially release a version of their operating system for emulation purposes but have instead made a point to state in their software license agreement that users are only allowed to run their OS on specific hardware platforms.
By not licensing his software (at this time), Ralph Schmidt is in fact discouraging the commercial enablement of what Hyperion Entertainment CBVA consider to be an "unsupported use" of their software.
Does this sound like somebody who wants to upset Hyperion Entertainment CBVA at all costs? Hardly.
Agree, but that's not how the thinking goes.
AmigaOS4.x for classic was said to be their "best seller" at one point.
So the logic being employed is that any action that seemingly affects their "best seller" has been taken with intention to do harm. Any other logical explanation is to be ignored. heh.
#6
-
How many companies made a ppc accelerator?
I do not remember many.
-
@trekiej
besides phase5? i know of some prototypes being produced, by one of the guys at metabox, but can't think of anyone who produced powerpc accelerator expansions other than phase 5 with their blizzard and cyberstorm lines. can anyone else?
-- eliyahu
-
state in their software license agreement that users are only allowed to run their OS on specific hardware platforms.
So you mean that when you install AOS4 and there comes this "legal agreement" or what ever they call it there, there reads what you just quoted or they have said it elsewhere?
Im not saying that i dont believe they have said that, I am just curious if they did so. For it is quite strange move from them if they did. I do completely understand that they dont give support for emulation, since that is bit hard to control, but if they even forbid using AOS4 through emulation, then thats strange.
I am also asking this since at least from what Number6 put links to, they didnt say it wasnt allowed, they just said theres no support.
-
So you mean that when you install AOS4 and there comes this "legal agreement" or what ever they call it there, there reads what you just quoted or they have said it elsewhere?
the license includes the following line:
This license allows you to install or operate the Amiga OS only on a computer system that had a version of AmigaOS installed on it at the time you acquired such computer system or which was especially prepared for running Amiga OS through the use of a dedicated flashrom or similar mechanism.
-- eliyahu
-
Interesting. I wonder how is AmigaOS was installed at time computer was bought is determined.
For example, If i buy a PC with one of the previous versions of Amikit that still required you to have AOS in it, then would that be a legit machine then? That did it have AOS installed in it at the time i bought the machine?
Also, I wonder if clause like that is actually legal. As example, can I sell you a car with condition that you only use it to travel between French and England?
-
Interesting. I wonder how is AmigaOS was installed at time computer was bought is determined.
thats an interesting clause anyway. by this definition installing os4 on genuine amigaone computers must have likely been illegal as well, since as far as i have heard they were delivered with linux as os4 wasnt available at the release. am i wrong?
-
thats an interesting clause anyway. by this definition installing os4 on genuine amigaone computers must have likely been illegal as well, since as far as i have heard they were delivered with linux as os4 wasnt available at the release. am i wrong?
no. you are wrong. "This License allows you to install and use the Amiga OS on a single Amiga-branded or Amiga-licensed computer at a time."
-- eliyahu
-
@wawrzon.
What i left out from Eliyahus quote was "or which was especially prepared for running Amiga OS through the use of a dedicated flashrom or similar mechanism."
I would imagine amigaone computers would fall under this OR part.
-
no. you are wrong. "This License allows you to install and use the Amiga OS on a single Amiga-branded or Amiga-licensed computer at a time."
-- eliyahu
except it seems amigaone is not an amiga-branded nor amiga-licensed computer in a strict legal sense, am i wrong again? ;)
-
"This License allows you to install and use the Amiga OS on a single Amiga-branded or Amiga-licensed computer at a time."
This license allows you to install or operate the Amiga OS only on a computer system that had a version of AmigaOS installed on it at the time you acquired such computer system or which was especially prepared for running Amiga OS through the use of a dedicated flashrom or similar mechanism.
I wonder... is it considered illegal to install OS 4.1 FE to Pegasos? It certainly is not Amiga-branded and I have not seen any proofs or claims it is Amiga-licensed computer. And so on.
Or is the license different for different OS4 4.1 flavours?
(Just ;) here...)
-
@wawrzon
yes, you're wrong again. the amigaone was an amiga-licensed product and mark back in the mist of time. plus the firmware was altered to support AOS, so it's covered anyway.
@itix
dunno. the license text is probably different. but i would imagine that hyperion wouldn't have a license they solely write for a product they solely sell and produce that prevents its use. :lol:
-- eliyahu
-
lets not forget the sams, especially the 440, that to my knowledge has never even been branded "amigaone" or whatever. looks like the license wording isnt very lucky or consistent to say the least. however it doesnt matter much, its just some laughs it deserves.
-
@itix
dunno. the license text is probably different. but i would imagine that hyperion wouldn't have a license they solely write for a product they solely sell and produce that prevents its use. :lol:
Can you check it from your OS4 FE install CD? Could be interesting to know and certainly running Classic OS4 in WinUAE is not only option. Pegasos hardware can be emulated on Windows and Linux...
-
Can you check it from your OS4 FE install CD? Could be interesting to know and certainly running Classic OS4 in WinUAE is not only option. Pegasos hardware can be emulated on Windows and Linux...
i'll see if i can pull it out of the "stack of stuff" in the basement tonight and double-check. i wasn't aware the pegasos could be emulated, though. you mean through QEMU or something else?
-- eliyahu
-
Bigfoot will be all over you.
-
In principle, making a profile for Qemu that resembles a pegasos or a sam board enough for OS4 to run on it, should not be too hard.
-
@kolla
On the other hand making MorphOS run on a QEMU Mac seems to be difficult, given that it has been tried last year by Zoltan Balaton (http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/cgi-bin/namazu.cgi?query=MorphOS&submit=Search!&idxname=qemu-ppc&max=100&result=normal&sort=date%3Alate) - without success, as it seems.
-
Zlatan did run morphos on qemu (with virtualgfx driver + vnc).