Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.

[bhoggett]

@red

From the OS 3.9 licensing agreement:

"This License allows you to to install and use the Amiga Software on a single Amiga-labelled or Amiga-licensed computer at a time."

...

"This license allows you to install or operate the Amiga Software only on a computer system that had a version of Amiga OS installed on it at the time you acquired such computer system."

So, I think that McEwen reference to the EULA is a fair and resonable one in view of Bill Buck's voiced intention to bundle OS 3.9 with pegasos.

@MarkTime

Your stance is correct, of course, except that no EULA can ever suspend a purchaser's statutory rights as defined by the law of the country that purchaser lives in. It is often the case that EULAs contain clauses which are illegal in the country the product is sold to.

This is not to say that people should ignore EULAs where they are perfectly valid, even when the clauses are ridiculous in most people's views.

(My comment has nothing to to with the Amiga or Apple EULAs in particular)

[bhoggett]

@red

OK I stand somewhat corrected. So how is it that OS3.9 has a 'Install Emulation' feature? Kind of backwards isn't it?

I dunno. My copy certainly has no such option, so I have no idea where that comes from.

[bhoggett]

@seer

Maybe a version provided with Cloanto's Amiga Forever ? Tho I don't recall them offering 3.1+

AmigaForever does have 3.1, but not 3.5 or 3.9. Older versions only go to 3.0.

It is possible that there is more than one edition of 3.9, with minor undocumented changes, including this one. It's also possible that there is such a function on my copy too, but I'm certain I've never seen it.

[bhoggett]

@lempkee

The EULA is a mess.

It does say you can use OS 3.9 on an Amiga-licensed machine, or one that came with AmigaOS installed at the time of purchase.

So, if you buy a PC with UAE and AmigaOS 3.1 pre-installed (Amiga Forever), then you'd be entitled to run OS 3.9 according to the EULA, except for it not being Amiga-labelled or Amiga-licensed.

I suspect that wheoever put that EULA together was a donkey, both in the business and the legal sense.

[bhoggett]

@Lando

Unless the PC already had AmigaOS installed when you bought it, you're still breaking the EULA. This also includes AmgaOnes that come pre-installed with Linux. To install UAE and run OS3.5 or 3.9 would be in breach of the EULA.

That's absolutely true. Even though the AmigaOne may be both "Amiga-branded" and "Amiga-licensed", it does not satisfy the qualification that AmigaOS must be installed on it when you buy it.

It's a stupid EULA, of course, but any AmigaOne owners running AmigaOS 3.5 or 3.9 on it under UAE are breaking the licensing conditions - which automatically invalidates the license according to the EULA itself.

[bhoggett]

@MarkTime

What if I am allowed to break a contract in my country...so what, do only laws govern your values, or is your word and integrity important on a level above the law?

That's a spurious argument. According to you, it is the moral obligation of a user to respect a EULA, even when the conditions imposed by that license are illegal in his country.

That's utter hypocrisy.

Either the law is the final standard by which actions are judged, or else people get to make their own moral judgments. You can't have a bit of both, whichever suits you best.

The point that has been made is fair: a lot of American products are sealed with a sticker that says that by breaking the seal you agree to their license, which in most cases cannot be read until after you have broken the seal.  The vast majority of courts in the vast majority of countries will throw out that clause for a start, as it is blatantly illegal.

Furthermore, if the law of any country allows the use of certain software under a "fair use" clause, even if that breaks the EULA, the user is NOT a pirate and not doing anything wrong.

If companies want to make their EULAs respected, they should ensure that they do not contain any clauses which are illegal in any country in the world. (Now there's a challenge for you).

Having said that, I agree that people who are ready to break the Apple EULA should not whine about the Amiga Inc EULA being broken.

[bhoggett]

@T_Bone

However 3.9 has a separate install for emulators. Why would that be there if they don't want it running on a non Amiga branded machine?

As we've discovered, not all copies of OS 3.9 have this "Installation-Emu" option.

As for the "why would it be there?" question, I can't say.  I quoted from the license, I didn't say I thought it was a good licence.

[bhoggett]

@Hammer

Actually, neither AmigaForever or AmigaOne satisfy the EULA of AmigaOS 3.9, which states that AmigaOS must be installed on the system when it is bought on order for you to be able to install OS 3.9. So, only AmigaOne machines which come pre-installed (and pre-configured) with UAE and OS 3.1 may install OS 3.9, and AFAIK no PCs are shipped with AmigaForever pre-installed. People who have ordered AmigaOne boards and built their own system do not qualify.

The Cloanto site provides information on HOW to install 3.5 and 3.9, but there's nothing there to indicate it gets special dispensation from the licensing conditions.

[bhoggett]

@mdwh2
IMHO, EULAs as implemented today are an abomination.

The only way to really make a EULA valid is to ensure the buyer can peruse it before he buys the product. Ergo, software packaging should have the entire EULA printed on the box cover, and anyone selling software on-line should have a link to the EULA for every product they sell.

Only if the purchaser is given the option to agree or refuse the EULA conditions before he parts with his money would the EULA agreement be fair.

[bhoggett]

@Kronos

But I think the point is rather mood as H&P are the ones (exclusivly) distributing OS3.9 not Ainc, and I haven't seen Mr Haage complain (Iand don't think he ever will).

H&P are the publishers. This does not automatically make the IP theirs, nor does it mean that the EULA is theirs. Furthermore, as H&P never paid Amiga Inc any money at all for OS 3.9, it's questionable whether their "exclusive distribution" contract is still valid. Amiga Inc certainly don't think so, and are happy to grant distribution rights to anyone else.

We can also be sure that AInc will never actually fight H&P over the rather foggie question who owns what of AOS (as been seen with Amithlon).

That's because of the money involved in the case being far more than any damages which could be extracted from H&P. Even the winner of such a case would be losing a great deal of money, and we all know Amiga Inc can't afford it.  Lack of legal action does not mean H&P own the IP, nor does it mean thay have been acting legally or correctly.  Unfortunately, in today's world the price of justice can sometimes be prohibitive.

I think you'll also find that EULAs are legally enforceable in Germany, even if you can't read them before you buy the product. Only those clauses which are illegal would  be exempt.

[bhoggett]

@Kronos

Ands who say that the 3.9s bought by BB aren't actually AmigaOSXL-packages

Those are even more illegal, as they contain unlicensed copies of the Kickstart images.

[bhoggett]

@pixie

What is your problem?

The thread discusses the legal issues surrounding the OS 3.5/3.9 EULA. It's a valid and reasonable topic for discussion, as so far it has stayed on-topic for the most part.

Now you seem to be suggesting that redrumloa is out of order for challenging a statement by Bill McEwen?  Wha' ?

If we were all to just take everyone's word at face value and not question anything we'd be a very sad and sorry bunch, and a pretty stupid one too.

Of course if anyone was stalking McEwen's family they were way out of order, whatever their motivation. This goes for everyone's family, but what does any of that have to do with this thread?

It seems you get upset every time someone questions or criticises Amiga Inc, and you automatically assume they do so out of bias. Why is that?