Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga Hardware Issues and discussion => Topic started by: DiskDoctor on February 25, 2009, 10:34:53 PM
-
I was recently speaking with a whole bunch of Amigans or Morphosians at some Amiga party.
I was told that Hyperion's policy might be to pursue Mac Mini port soon (or it is being done already). However there was one crucial issue unclear to me. Are there any legal obstacles in releasing proprietary OS to Mac Mini platform? Note that it is discontinued since three years, I guess those all PPC Macs are not under support anymore either.
So if someone can point me into some brief legal statement forbidding any alien OSes on PPC macs, I would be grateful. Unless there is one, I'd bet it is to be released, maybe earlier than MorphOS. I know there's an issue with different firmware, but this request of mine is rather of a legal nature.
Just wanna know because if all this is legally illegal, no one will bother.
-
There's tons of info on this - the port of MorphOS to MacMini that is. It's supposed to happen officially and people have already done it on an unofficial level. Sound and USB I think are not yet supported. Do some searching here on this site as well as the MorphOS forum.
-
@DiskDoctor
Of course not.
The only obstacle I can think of comes from the Amiga IP owner, but Hyperion seems free to do whatever they want with the OS now, so...
-
no
-
No legal barriers, only aesthetic ones.
-
@Piru
When you'll release the special QEMU build that's able to run MorphOS and Amiga OS 4.1?
-
The only obstacle I can think of comes from the Amiga IP owner, but Hyperion seems free to do whatever they want with the OS now, so...
Exactly! I did manage to launch this Moana CD on my Mac Mini, so it's almost done at that stage, the only mandatory issues to fix seem the internet and the sound. Wifi and USB would be fine.
Great!
But on the other hand... ACube wouldn't like it done so it's a matter of an agreement between those parties. If there was no matter of any formal sense, the project should take no more than 3-5 weeks...
No legal barriers, only aesthetic ones.
You mean this about Mac people or Amiga people? :-)
EDIT* One more issue to be a reason - after the release for Peg2, the sales just got increased must drop back for some time to launch any cheaper platform... So Peg2 people: make up your mind quickly so that Mac people can enjoy it soon, too :-)
-
@hbarcellos
As I've stated before, it's not my project.
-
No legal barriers, only aesthetic ones.
You mean this about Mac people or Amiga people? :-)
EDIT* One more issue to be a reason - after the release for Peg2, the sales just got increased must drop back for some time to launch any cheaper platform... So Peg2 people: make up your mind quickly so that Mac people can enjoy it soon, too :-) [/quote]
I was referring to the pathetic situation of needing to make use of Mac hardware rather than having real Amiga hardware. Thanks Amiga Inc.! How's Cool Tools 3 coming along?
-
DiskDoctor wrote:
Exactly! I did manage to launch this Moana CD on my Mac Mini, so it's almost done at that stage, the only mandatory issues to fix seem the internet and the sound. Wifi and USB would be fine.
But works on a macmini G4 with 32mb vram?
-
So just put it on TPB then...
Piru wrote:
@hbarcellos
As I've stated before, it's not my project.
-
But works on a macmini G4 with 32mb vram?
Yeap! It works :-D
Edit: Evidenced from the many YouTube vids. ;-)
-
@persia
Why don't you do that?
-
@DiskDoctor
:-?
The last word about this that I've read from the Frieden brothers is that MacMini port will never happen.
So, what kernel would that AOS4.x macmini version use then?
-
On the other hand....
Hyperion could do AOS4box on top of quark kernell to open up more business via MOS as the host... :crazy: :-P
-
Any benchmarks from the AOS4 moana version.
((I've got one MacMiniG4 1.4Ghz sitting idle here.))
(moana version is illegal, btw, but some tests would not hurt anyone, especially as I own a version of AOS4.1...)
-
They are doing their own box.
Maybe "B-box" (B for Boing) perhaps? ;-)
-
moana version is illegal
Regarding the topic of this thread: "Only" from a copyright point of view (of the moana files).
-
FYI "Moana files" have been stolen to the author ... you decide if its only a matter of copyright then
-
Do AmigaOS 4.1 work on MAC Mini?
Those files on TPB are for 4.0.
-
Framiga wrote:
FYI "Moana files" have been stolen to the author ... you decide if its only a matter of copyright then
There are no special laws for the Moana files, it is the same copyright laws regulating the duplication and distribution of the Moana files as any other software, movie, music, etc, which is stealing in exactly the same sense.
-
i meant to say that the Moana files were stolen from the author laptop, along the laptop itself ... have you got it now?
-
@Piru (and his friend author of the project)
As far as I know, QEMU is an open source project under the GNU General Public License, what means that any kind of mod on the original source must also be open source.
So, where can I download the modded QEMU version that allows me to run MorphOS and AmigaOS in a window on my desktop?
-
@hbarcellos
It appears you don't understand GPL.
-
Exactly! I did manage to launch this Moana CD on my Mac Mini, so it's almost done at that stage, the only mandatory issues to fix seem the internet and the sound. Wifi and USB would be fine.
Great!
But on the other hand... ACube wouldn't like it done so it's a matter of an agreement between those parties. If there was no matter of any formal sense, the project should take no more than 3-5 weeks...
Sounds like they should hire you, if you are absolutely sure, you could do all that in such a short period of time.
Including testing on various configurations.
Especially if you meant it as "in addition to doing normal day work" like most OS4 developers probably do.
-
but Hyperion seems free to do whatever they want with the OS now, so...
Are they ?
The fact they have been put on court seems to prove you wrong...
-
Ok, you got me. I'm not an expert.
I've only heard in the past about some viral license including open source.
Anyway, what's preventing him to release that? Fear?
-
Anyway, what's preventing him to release that? Fear?
Don't know, but I'd expect it to be the good old "It's not ready yet".
GPL clearly states that if you have a binary for GPL program, you can request sources from the original developer (or he can just upload them with binary to begin with)
If no-one has the binary, there's no legal obligation to give the sources to anyone.
This allows the developers develop software in peace, and only release sources (and binary) "when it's ready"
And just curious, why would anyone fear updating a GPL licensed program? It's not illegal or anything, you know :roll:
-
Well, probably because if someone release a QEMU version that's capable of running Amiga OS 4 or MorphOS, NO ONE will never ever again spend a penny on something extremely overpriced as a Sam440p board.
PPL would happily buy a brand new Core i7 fully loaded + an Original Amiga OS 4.1 CD and everyone should be happy except the guys who want to earn money out of old hardware...
-
Jupp3 wrote:
But on the other hand... ACube wouldn't like it done so it's a matter of an agreement between those parties. If there was no matter of any formal sense, the project should take no more than 3-5 weeks...
Sounds like they should hire you, if you are absolutely sure, you could do all that in such a short period of time.
That does it.
Does 'should take' mean 'absolutely sure that takes' to you?
What the f* makes you think I'm sure about it?? Or even claim this?? Was it said anywhere?? Then I'm missing something??? Why the f* there's always a person generalizing someone's statements thus trying to make an ass of oneself???
And what tha ** makes you think hiring me is any possible?? Should mcdonald hire you for example? Bollocks!
Are you trying to prove anything or what? Go hug your kid and tell him you're the best!
What's wrong with you people???
-
hbarcellos wrote:
Well, probably because if someone release a QEMU version that's capable of running Amiga OS 4 or MorphOS, NO ONE will never ever again spend a penny on something extremely overpriced as a Sam440p board.
PPL would happily buy a brand new Core i7 fully loaded + an Original Amiga OS 4.1 CD and everyone should be happy except the guys who want to earn money out of old hardware...
The software guys don't sell the hardware, so I doubt that is much of a concern.
I think piracy of MorphOS or Amiga OS4 would be a much bigger problem.
-
You have three sets of users:
1) Guys who already bought AOS4
2) Guys who haven't yet bought AOS4 because they don't have where do run it
3) Guys who will never ever buy AOS4 no matter what.
If you release that QEMU or make AOS4 compatible with something cheap (like old Powermacs), you'll for sure increase piracy on group 3. You would most probably find several versions of AOS4 on torrents all around internet, but, those would never buy it anyway.
On the other way, you'll allow the second group, to spend their money in order to both play with AOS4 and also support the developers...
I can't see a loss relation outside the crappy hardware vendors...
*PS* Look!
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883227126R
It's cheaper than an incomplete Sam440ep combo!!!! :idea:
-
Framiga wrote:
i meant to say that the Moana files were stolen from the author laptop, along the laptop itself ... have you got it now?
Oh I got it the first time. Leeched it, lost it, whatever - it doesn't matter *how* it got out in the wild. Duplicating it and spreading it without the IP owners permission would be a breach against copyright laws, it means stealing in exactly the same way as to duplicate and distribute a music recording, a movie, a book, a computer game, etc. However, you can't claim that "moana is illegal", which is what I replied to.
-
Preface: I'm not an expert in the area of piracy & IPs, just my thinking on the matter.
The Piracy debate will go on forever, but IMO the realized lost for those whose works are being obtained and used on a daily bases for personal/commercial use is without a doubt robbing the IP owner and committing a theft. My rule of thumb is, if you use it then you should pay for it.
Now, for those who are in the mindset of advancing various areas of technology by reverse engineering other peoples works to learn and to improve upon them is simply human nature, and should be obtained legally(purchased). Is it legal? Probably not, well I'm pretty sure its not. The user agreements that we so quickly read over and click on without understand totally prohibit such activity.
But, history has shown us that IPs have been stolen since the beginning of time. You name it and it has been stolen (i.e. weapons tech, recipes, auto designs, software code :-D) and the list goes on.
So, the question remains, does obtaining certain IPs for research outside the wishes of the IP owner really a bad thing in the scope of the big picture? Will it force an advancement of the IP?
Should we even consider the economic ramifications of such an uncontrolled breach of IP information and its dissemination, which could financially cripple the future development of an IP if a company cannot secure the market and protect licensed developers and their work?
Something to ponder, my head hurts :crazy: I'm going to get a beer and chill.
-
Not everything in an EULA is enforceable. That's why the suits created the DMCA. Since the DMCA doesn't define "effective technological measures," even loading a bitmap from a specific memory location constitutes an effective technological measure--at least, that's the argument Nintendo used to prevent the import of Gameboy cartridge writers.
Regardless, there's a key exception in the act:
(f) Reverse Engineering. -
(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.
(3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.
(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term ''interoperability'' means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.
This is US law, of course, but Hyperion and its distributors sell software to US customers.
I'm not exactly sure why software like DeCSS (does anyone even care anymore?) failed in their defense. I'll note that I never heard anyone argue that DVD-Video content is software (it is, which is part of the reason why DVD-Video discs are/were tested for conformance on a wide range of players before being released) and not solely video content.
I've always detested section k for its "automatic gain control" requirement in analog video devices. "Automatic gain control" is Macrovision, and Macrovision is the sole owner and licensor of the technology. So, a US law mandates that all such products sold in the US license and implement technology from a private company, one with ZERO government oversight. I have no idea why an anti-trust case was never pursued.
-
@Framiga
i meant to say that the Moana files were stolen from the author laptop, along the laptop itself ...
Some Amigans are just nuts...
-
eh, eh! absolutely! :-)
even if it "seems" ha was coming back from an Amiga related exibition or such.
-
takemehomegrandma wrote:
Framiga wrote:
i meant to say that the Moana files were stolen from the author laptop, along the laptop itself ... have you got it now?
Oh I got it the first time. Leeched it, lost it, whatever - it doesn't matter *how* it got out in the wild. Duplicating it and spreading it without the IP owners permission would be a breach against copyright laws, it means stealing in exactly the same way as to duplicate and distribute a music recording, a movie, a book, a computer game, etc. However, you can't claim that "moana is illegal", which is what I replied to.
Does this belong to a topic?
I was referring to Hyperion's release in Amiga Inc IP prespective. I do not care about something else.
BTW All you moralizing people keeping repeating that "having Moana is evil" all over: did you manage to get further into the case? Say since AmigaOS IP is actually being decided in a court now, didn't you ever consider that buying the license now is in fact SUPPORTING one party, not necessarily an owner??
I do not know about the US law here but such cases (software) seem to be following the rule "even if not known whose this is, as long as I have it in my pocket (the source), it's mine". Great but as said, by buying it now you automatically become a supporter...
Another way - if you see two guys fighting about a wallet, would you with no doubt say "it belongs to the guy having it now"? Well, that's what you do.
All I want to say is you're off the topic.
-
Somebody put something illegal on TPB!?!?!? I'm shocked!
takemehomegrandma wrote:
Framiga wrote:
i meant to say that the Moana files were stolen from the author laptop, along the laptop itself ... have you got it now?
Oh I got it the first time. Leeched it, lost it, whatever - it doesn't matter *how* it got out in the wild. Duplicating it and spreading it without the IP owners permission would be a breach against copyright laws, it means stealing in exactly the same way as to duplicate and distribute a music recording, a movie, a book, a computer game, etc. However, you can't claim that "moana is illegal", which is what I replied to.