Amiga.org
Amiga News and Community Announcements => Amiga News and Community Announcements => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: Kees on June 12, 2003, 07:50:51 AM
-
"Open Amiga is an effort to create a standard for the Amiga that developers and users alike can
use in their quest for the perfect Amiga platform. This standard is intended to minimize the
programming effort needed to port between the 3 current Amiga platforms, Amiga OS 4, AROS and MorphOS."
Read more at http://openamiga.tk/ (http://openamiga.tk/) or check out the AO Thread (http://amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2801) ...
-
All contributions are welcome, and any time / talent donated is especially appreciated. This is OUR project as a COMMUNITY. The more we all get involved, the better.
-
I was thinking OpenGL or MESA.
Which one is supported most in AOS ??
-
I wish I knew more about MESA, but I was under the impression that is was just a derivative of OpenGL... thus OpenGL would make sense as the API standard.
I will look up MESA as soon as I get some free time.
Side Note: Given that OpenGL is the standard across all platforms and is an integral part of SDL, it will have to be supported wether we like it or not. :-)
-Edit- Yup, MESA does use the OpenGL API, so by supporting OpenGL we include MESA (in fact MESA might even become the standard implementation of the API across the platforms as it's free...):-D
Linq
http://www.mesa3d.org/ (http://www.mesa3d.org/)
-
Its a good idea, but it must be done properly. I also wonder if it will work, or have the desired effect. For that to happen, it must be implemented right. But i still wonder if the AOS4 and MorphOS teams will want anything to do with it.
As AmigaOS and MorphOS grow, their going to grow appart, and the trouble of mainting system wide libraries that are compliant with this standard is just going to be come a hassel.
Basicly, whats going to happen is, whilst AmigaOS and MorphOS advance and leave their old libraries in favour of new one, their going to just have to keep them around so people can easily port their software. Not going to happen.
Plus, why do we need this when all these OSes can just support POSIX and then, not only make it possible to port between the 3 main AmigaOS but, between those and all other operating system compliant with POSIX.
So while its a good idea, i dont think the community will adopt it, and i think we should put more effort into making all parties aware of the great benefits of POSIX compliance, rather then our own flavour.
Theres already a standard for Operating Systems, lets not creat another one. For me, it too limited. Limited to AmigaOS and clones!! Use POSIX it opens us upto the world and a huge range of software. Eg, if AmigaOS was POSIX compliant, we may not have our browser trouble.
-
At the moment, the combined userbase of AOS, MOS and AROS is small - having a set of guidelines for portablility should mean that we can pool our apps. Unfortunately I have to agree that the three will diverge - AOS merging with the DE, MOS using the QBox, and AROS doing someting else once perfect AOS compatibility has been achieved. But hopefully by that point each will have enough users to proceed their own way. In the meantime, Open Amiga should benifit everyone, and not affect coders badly.
I don't think that we should aim for complete POSIX complience - I don't know much about it, but if everyone coded for POSIX wouldn't we just be better off ditching AOS/MOS/AROS :-?
-
POSIX it totslly irelevant for this disscussion, other than Openamiga needs to define a standard for it.
The API's that openamiga covers have nothing to do with what POSIX covers.
POSIX, is about tasks, memory, threads, stdio, etc... kernel stuff...
Openamiga is about gfx, audio, networking, 3D, MEdia layers.. etc...
-
Witha ll due repect, I don;t see why even diverging platforms can't still support an openamiga standard?
The Standard will continue to be revised and improved and even somthing as simple as SDL (with it's supported OpenGL 3D system) support suddenly opens up loads of new games!!
Unix should have died yeas ago, but look at all the unixoids out there!!! and they are all pretty much source code compatible... why can't the Amiga have somthing similar?
:-)
-
Maybe do some sort of Dev package, where alle those tools are collected.
MOS, AOS and AROS.
Maybe do some sort of proggy, that can help with development, ie. some sort of visual tool for GUI, (could generate C code). Have a look at RapidQ for Windows, this is how things should be done, IMHO.
Just use C instead of basic
Other Libs could be a standard, and easy to use, lib to handle different soundformats, pictureformats and anims.
While we are at it, some basic 3D stuff, that uses OpenGL, but adds some more, and easy to use functions, such as texture blending, different effects, (fire, water etc.)
-
Admittedly I have not been following the thread or any of this at all. Still this is my thoughts.
You all are wasting your time discussing this. Why? AmigaOS standards from this point on will be defined by Hyperion Entertainment and ONLY Hyperion Entertainment. Nothing wrong with that, they are the ones who have their livelyhood tied into it. Likewise MorphOS standards will be defined by Genesi and or the MOS team, just like above nothing wrong with this.
-
AmigaOS standards from this point on will be defined by Hyperion Entertainment and ONLY Hyperion Entertainment
.........and OpenAmiga standards from this point on wil be defined by the APPLICATION DEVELOPERS and ONLY the APPLICATION DEVELOPERS.
No apps, no platform. Simple as.
So if we set up this standard, more apps for a three platforms and any other OpenAmiga compliant platforms in the future.
Who's to say an OpenAmiga compliant environment can't be created on Linux/Windows/BeOS years from now.
You get me now?
-
The point of this is to consolidate the fact that all Three OS porjects have quite a high degree of compatibility.
It surely makes sense to define the specification for this compatibility and allow developers a minimum spec to allow quick and easy porting of software across the OS's thus increasing the software base, userbase and developer base.
There also been some disscusion as to the possiblity of Binary compatibility on the same CPUs... this has obvious advantages, for everyone.
-
.........and OpenAmiga standards from this point on wil be defined by the APPLICATION DEVELOPERS and ONLY the APPLICATION DEVELOPERS
I *hate* playing devil's advocate here, I really do. One thing you are all forgetting is that Amiga Inc has a long, documented history of zealously threatening people who "encroach" on their trademarks and IP.
They (Amiga Inc, Hyperion, or Eyetech) will, unless I am mistaken (which is possible) see any attempts to design an Open Amiga architecture as a threat to their existence. After all, they're not getting paid for it, right?
That being said, I sincerely hope this initiative continues and is wildly successful. We NEED something community driven to build a basis for real, open, thriving future development. Amiga.org will gladly donate any resources we can to this project to see it succeed.
We have seen what closed-development and proprietary dongled systems get us... Let's get back to heading towards the future.
-
Thanks Wayne! :-D
I've been thinking about AInc and the litigation gene that they seem to have, and I think we'll be ok.
We are not using any IP,copyrighted or trademarked stuff. Just telling people that if they want to have software that is easily ported, they should comply to this minimum spec.
and openamiga is one word, so we aren't using their trade mark Amiga either. ;-)
If they did decide to try and sue us, who would they go after, me? matt? every developer that writes apps that conform to the spec?
The community would not be impressed by them either, and it would be the final nail in their coffin IMNSHO.
Can you imagine it?
A company suing an collection of developers that are actually promoting for FREE said companies product? Not even AInc are that stupid. Are they?!?!?!? ;-)
-
@mdma,
Glad you seem to have thought of everything. Just be aware that they traditionally consider anything with the word Amiga in it to belong to them. I see your point about developing an open concept. Amazingly, this is what Amiga Inc promised and failed to do since 2000. Before responding to that, realize that it's not a dig against Amiga Inc.
But... in McEwen's FIRST appearance as CEO (circa 2000), one of his first promises was an open architecture so that many manufacturers could write to it.
What we ended up with is a closed-architecture, proprietary, dongle-driven system by Eyetech and Hyperion. I am NOT suggesting that that's either a good, or bad thing, but like so many things that Amiga Inc has promised us through the years, I consider this yet another promise unfulfilled.
Not even AInc are that stupid. Are they?!?!?!?
Before I, or any color troll get started off on this tangent, let me stop you right there with a basic "no comment". :-)
-
I think that everyone should see benefits. We are not saying:
"Do this, do that"
All we are saying is, Every OS soloutin has it's strengths and weakneses... fine, they also have their supporters, even better!!! But if we want lots of lovely software, then there has to be some kind of common path.
-
Lets mix up the Amiga gene pool a little. Maximize the benefits of evolution! ;-)
-
The Tearm I use with AROS is "Cross pollenate" :-D
-
@bloodline
Fully agreed. A common path (as long as it's not the "lowest common denominator") is best for everyone concerned now. Put away the flags and armor, pick up your keyboards, and get back to coding which is really the only important thing left.
-
@Wayne
Just be aware that they traditionally consider anything with the word Amiga in it to belong to them.
I reckon their are plenty of 'Prior Art' examples of the word amiga everywhere. Particularly in Spanish libraries! ;-)
-
I wish you luck, I still don't see how it will work without cooperation from the companies. A whole bunch of wrappers? :-?
-
The Tearm I use with AROS is "Cross pollenate"
Stalks or seeds? ;-)
-
@Red
I have to disagree here:
When developers decide to stick too MUI-3.8 and that part of CGX that is supported by P96, than both Hyperiom
and Genesi have to live with it. Remember that H&P tried to push ReAction since 1998 (or 99 ?),รถ and how little most
external developers cared ?
Only if they add new APIs that really are superior, or if one side gets a marketshare over 80%, only than would using those
APIs make sense for commercial devs. Bed-rooms-coders on the other side may actually be too lazy, or "sided" to bother
for an "Amiga"-branch they don't use.
-
Will someone who has an account on amigaworld.net please "Ask Fleecy" what he thinks of OpenAmiga? :-D
I haven't submitted it as news there, as I want to see if it makes it's way on there from the other sites it's own.
-
There's only a short thread about openamiga at amigaworld.net. There's a little support, but mostly it's "why go for lowest common denominator when we can get the full AOS4"? And "Amiga, Inc. is in charge; let them do the standard-setting." That sort of thing. I guess they feel the AmigaOne will be successful enough on its own to drive the market, set the standards, attract the developers and the buyers, and there's no need for market-maximizing things like openamiga.
I won't comment on how realistic that may or may not be, but let's just say it's consistent with the general rallying behind Amiga, Inc., Hyperion and Eyetech and disdain for competitors that you would expect. But again, it's a very small sampling so I don't want to make unwarranted generalizations about that website. ;-)
-- gary_c
-
@gary_C
And you've bought Amigaworld.net into this for what reason?
:-?
so I don't want to make unwarranted generalizations about that website.
Erm... you just did (nice one).
Ian
-
@amimonkey
And you've bought Amigaworld.net into this for what reason?
Because I mentioned it first!
-
@mdma
You asked if somebody could "Ask Fleecy"... doesn't mean that gary_C has an excuse to go off on one and generalise about the people who frequent amigaworld.net.
It just seems that people who visit this site will take ANY opportunity to slag off amigaworld.net - but it's based on a very small sampling so I don't want to make unwarranted generalizations about this website. ;-)
Oops I just did ;-)
Ian
-
MUI shouldn't be a standard since it is not a free application (unless it's changed since I looked at their website a long time ago). Making users purchase MUI in addition to AmigaOS and hardware just to run a "standard" application is bad, bad, bad. If MUI was a minimum standard, then new users couldn't even run such "standard" applications if they didn't have a full copy of MUI.
-
@DavidF215
There is a free clone of MUI called Zune that is availible.
-
I think the OpenAmiga idea is a good one... but I remain sceptical as to whether it will work or not.
Say somebody was coding for OS4 - for which I understand there will be a lot of improvments (like memory protection). Would the programmer not use these features just to save a little time in porting the app?
Anyway, good luck :-D
Ian
-
@DavidF
MUI is free for MorphOS.
Zune (MUI-clone) is open-source, and should compile on all OSes if needed.
OS4 will come with an unregistered copy of MUI, that will allow you to run MUI-apps (no need to buy a MUI-key for that),
but won't allow you to change the standart-look.
Also a GUI-system is needed, and GadTools/Boopsi on there own are just not good enough.
ReAction, Triton, StormWizard and other are also no help, as they are all closed-source, non-free and most aren't
developed anymore (or just for one OS).
Porting QT/GTK or so may be an idea, but would that still feel "amiga" ?
-
@amimonkey
MP is not something you code (cos it would mean coding bad on purpose), it is something that will just make it easier for
the user to live with badly programmed SW. Wether the "optional" MP in OS4 will be of much use on this is another question.
But as I wrote earlier, it is allways a question wether those new APIs are worth loosing a part of the market.
And that goes for both OSes, or should I say "all three", since AROS also has some extended APIs ?
-
edited by Wayne : off-topic
This site is not about close-mindedness and hero worship, it is about ANY AND ALL alternatives to the Classic Amiga community.
Here's a fact. If the majority of Amiga community members thought that ANY of the parties involved were doing a perfect job, the ideas and concepts of an OpenAmiga consortium would have never been needed.
End of story. Now, let's get back to helping the OpenAmiga effort please?
-
It just seems that people who visit this site will take ANY opportunity to slag off amigaworld.net - but it's based on a very small sampling so I don't want to make unwarranted generalizations about this website.
That horse has been flogged so much it's dead, and i don't want to play reanimator.
Editied by redrumloa. Reason: off topic :-P
-
In a desperate attempt to get immediately back on topic, how can I, and Amiga.org help the Open Amiga effort?
Wayne
-
@Wayne
Would it be possible for us to have a banner ad or something similar on amiga.org?
Maybe have a separate 'membership by request' forum?
-
@mdma,
Not sure what you're asking, but get me a banner and I'll be happy to put it up for you.
-
Thanks Wayne,
By 'memership by request forum'I meant have an OpenAmiga forum, that you can only post to if you ask for posting rights first.
That make sense? (I've just got back from hospital and my painkilers are kicking in now. I'm a bit mashed!)
-
Oh sure! Just let me know what you need and find a moderator for it and I'll be happy to put it up.
-
Hello
I have idea about agreement between OpenAmiga, Amiga Inc and OCPA about porting AmigaDE/AA / Intent to OpenAmiga Standards. According to Mr Bill McEwen, Intent is already available for Motorola 68K.
This will add market for OCPA members.
This will enable classic Amiga hardware to run AmigaDE / AA applications and OCPA members will be familiar with OpenAmiga standards.
They can port various applications to OpenAmiga through AmigaDE /AA. Once ported, this application can be optimized and enchanced using static binary translation, native 68K assembler programs etc.
Is the idea possible?
-
@Wayne
Cheers.
@Bloodline
You up for being a moderator on the OpenAmiga forum Matt? :-D
-
Wayne wrote:
They (Amiga Inc, Hyperion, or Eyetech) will, unless I am mistaken (which is possible) see any attempts to design an Open Amiga architecture as a threat to their existence. After all, they're not getting paid for it, right?
It's nice that you at least acknowledge the possibility that you are wrong. Plainly, I find it rather disgusting to talk about "Zealots" in such a colored, unfounded, and highly zealous statement.
I don't see open standards as a thread to our existence (in fact I was attacked on this very site and on ANN for promoting the adoption of XML as an open standard). However, I don't see much chance for an open Amiga standard, out of purely technical reasons - the choice of MUI on MorphOS and Reaction on AmigaOS already means that there is a gap. Saying people should use MUI is not a solution, since OS 4 doesn't endorce it.
Of course you could argue that we chose Reaction out of purely zealous reasons, which wouldn't actually surpise me. But of course, I could be wrong.
-
@Rogue
Thanks for taking the time out to give us your opinions on OpenAmiga.
As you have said, these standards don't pose any threat to anyone. They just inform developers what they need to try and keep to if they want to maximize their potential sales. This is a small market, and even smaller if it gets divided up into three separate markets.
-
@Wayne
Thx alot for the support :-)
-
I seem to be answering most of the question around the web :-)
I would be happy to moderate ;-)
-
Thanks for taking the time out to give us your opinions on OpenAmiga.
I didn't give an opinion about it. I like the idea, but I think it is not going to work unless you settle for the smallest common featureset. This means that you neiter use AROS nor MorphOS nor AmigaOS to the extend that it could be used.
Sure, for some things it is going to work, but the Reaction <->MUI example is already a case where you run into trouble. Sure you could argue to use MUI in both cases since it is available for both, but what if certain components are only available for MorphOS (AFAIK the MorphOS developers don't need to merge with the general code anymore, meaning that OS 4 has no access to their modifications).
The feature list on the web site indicates the "smallest common subset" thing already.
(I wonder though why it needs to specify the executable format; with a certain certainity, a MorphOS ELF file will not run on AmigaOS, and an AmigaOS ELF file will not run on AROS. )
As you have said, these standards don't pose any threat to anyone.
No, I never claimed otherwise (It was Wayne that did claim Hyperion would). As I stated before, I am all for open standards - another reason why we have XML services integrated into AmigaOS. Of course I don't speak on behalf of Amiga or Hyperion officially.
I wish those behind the effort best of luck. When AmigaOS 4 is done, all documentation for it will be available, and people will be free to use it to produce software for AmigaOS 4. I don't have a problem with the same software running under MorphOS or AROS (in fact while Hyperion never officially supported anything but AmigaOS, we did likewise not build anything into our programs to prevent them from running under MorphOS or Amithlon).
However, please also understand that we're not going to hold back with implementing new API's and system components for compatibility's sake. If we think that it will bring the platform forward, we'll go ahead and do it,
-
@Rogue,
I certainly have no interest in arguing with you. I find it very interesting to get your input and hope that you speak for both Amiga Inc and Hyperion in your acceptance of the effort. If the OpenAmiga effort can start and be unburdened by Amiga Inc trying to kill it as they have done with other community efforts in the past, I would consider that a monumental step forward.
That being said, I digress.
I don't view this effort as wanting to impose any petty proprietary packages such as MUI or Reaction. I would see a standards committee as providing concepts and ideas of how things should work, not forcing people to accept one particular product or another. If anything, I would see them developing a wholly independent solution where necessary.
That's just me however, feel free to disagree.
-
Your bang on Wayne! :-D
Apps could be written that have AOS4/MorphOS/AROS specific extensions, but still compile and run on the other platforms.
Isn't this the Amiga way afterall? If a library doesn't exist, then fine, your app still works, it just doesn't use the added functionality that the extra library would have given it.
-
Wayne wrote:
I find it very interesting to get your input and hope that you speak for both Amiga Inc and Hyperion in your acceptance of the effort.
I can't speak for either Hyperion nor Amiga, however, I think I can say that the production of software is in our own interest - after all we don't do an OS just for the OS' sake.
... by Amiga Inc trying to kill it as they have done with other community efforts in the past,
I think that AROS is still alive...
I don't view this effort as wanting to impose any petty proprietary packages such as MUI or Reaction.
The openamiga.tk homepage does exactly this: It lists MUI as a requirement.
But that is exactly one of the problems you face. If you look at the Linux world, many of the projects there that would be an easy port to the Amiga fail to be such an easy port because of the GUI system.
If you want to define an open amiga platform, you would need to start at a higher level, otherwise you do exactly this - select a few proprietary packages and declare them standard.
By all means, if you want to have an open standard, you have to abstract from the packages you have. You need to define an API layer that can be mapped to the specific API's of the systems you are targeting. The only item from the list that fits this is SDL. Anything else is choosing one package and making it standard.
In my opinion, what needs to be done is define an abstract API for handling user interfaces, audio, kernel services and file services, and implement this on the respective platforms. Anything else, and you'll drive yourself into a dead end.
f anything, I would see them developing a wholly independent solution where necessary.
Seems we fully agree here :-)
-
By all means, if you want to have an open standard, you have to abstract from the packages you have. You need to define an API layer that can be mapped to the specific API's of the systems you are targeting. The only item from the list that fits this is SDL. Anything else is choosing one package and making it standard
Ok, you have misunderstood, maybe, my reasons for choosing the systems I did.
Every API I listed had to forefill three requirements:
1. It is a commonly used API in the comunity.
2. It is available on every platform
3. A Free alternative must exist (if no native verison is available).
The only two that don't fit are OpenGL and SDL, these I added because I think they are very important, for the future.
It really was as simple as that... no politics, no jibes, no conspiricy... just simple logic. :-)
-
Being no coder but designer and musician who made his first steps using Amiga computers I wont be able to add anything usefull to this thread but:
Good luck guys!!!
This sort of unity is exactly what amiga comunity needs if we are to stop using wintel machines any time soon...
-
It really was as simple as that... no politics, no jibes, no conspiricy... just simple logic.
Didn't want to imply anything else. Like I said, I doubt that it is possible to define a common standard on the component level you chose. These API's are already going separate ways, and the gap is going to widen. For a common platform, you need to aim at a higher level. SDL fits into the picture, because it is developed indenpendent of the OS it is ported to. The same needs to be done for other parts.
Only when you control the API can you ensure interoperability. This is why a program like GIMP can run on Windows and linux - because it is based on glib and gtk.
-
Only when you control the API can you ensure interoperability. This is why a program like GIMP can run on Windows and linux - because it is based on glib and gtk.
Indeed, and I agree. But what we are defining here is not an attempt to contol the platform, but rather an attempt to identify the commonality of the existing OS solutions... Thus allowing the easy spread of software.
I would hope that in future the amiga community can decide what specification the openamiga platform should have, and it can be revised accordingly.
The problem is that we don't share the same view of the world with regard to this problem, and thus we don;t see the same solution :-(
-
-edit-
REMOVED: MDMA IS HAVING A BAD DAY! TOO MANY PAINKILLERS ;-)
-
Your pain killers sound great, I want some :-D
-
Crack a vertabrae in your back and i'm sure the hospital will give you some too! ;-)
-
ok, will do ;-)
Actually my mate Steve broke his neck about 4 years ago and he claims the drugs they gave him for that were amasing.. :-o
-
The NHS are are wondeful organization! :-D
-
amimonkey wrote:
@mdma
You asked if somebody could "Ask Fleecy"... doesn't mean that gary_C has an excuse to go off on one and generalise about the people who frequent amigaworld.net.
Well, mdma was also interested in the general reaction at amigaworld.net and since I had already posted there in a short thread about openamiga, I decided to write up a little summary of the opinions in that thread.
I don't think my generalization was wrong actually, and as a qualifier I pointed out that it was based on a small sample, but it was wrong to express the opinion in this thread if it gets people off-topic and upset. Sorry about that.
-- gary_c
-
See Mike Bouma's comments on osnews.com for an idea of why i don't even read amigaworld.net let alone post news to it. :-(
-
http://openamiga.org/ (http://openamiga.org/)
openamiga.org is now active, please update your bookmarks! ;-)
More input from coders would be nice too! :-D
-
I don't see open standards as a thread to our existence (in fact I was attacked on this very site and on ANN for promoting the adoption of XML as an open standard).
I don't know if you've done it on purpose or just misread what was written at that time, but THAT is not what has happened.
I have questioned the decision to use XML for preference files, and I've explained in great detail why, and YOU attacked me in response.
The "open standard" was never an issue, neither was the reason of the disagreement.
-
I had a thought last night (must be that time of year :-) ). Would it be possible to have an OpenAmiga system in a similar way to ixemul and ixnet? Like an OpenAmiga library that developers can use to ensure interoperability, and that will allow the standard to evolve, and also allow AmigaOSiods (love that word :lol: ) to evolve in all thier different directions without having to worry about the AmigaOpen standard within the OS itself?
Or am I just off on a wild daydream? ;-)
-
Like an OpenAmiga library that developers can use to ensure interoperability, and that will allow the standard to evolve, and also allow AmigaOSiods (love that word ) to evolve in all thier different directions without having to worry about the AmigaOpen standard within the OS itself?
Well that is exactly what we are doing, only we can't have one library for obvious reasons, so the functionality of the Open standard is divided up inot separate libraries... namely: cgx, ahi, mui, bsd socket... etc...
ixemul is an API of very limited scope... it is sort of analogous to amigas exec.library in a way... you see? It doesn't cover gfx or audio and stuff they need spearate standard libraries.
Basicly you have got the idea in one, but we can't rally have a massive single monolithic library to do it, that is not the amiga way :-D
-
I am making an assumption here, which is that your idea of openamiga is simply to create a set of programming standards to ensure software is easily portable between various Amiga style OS's.
It's a good idea, and if you can get some quality developers to join your effort, it should be quite successful.
As far a trademarks, copyright etc go, you don't seem to be doing anything wrong. You are simply creating guidelines and community produced code that will ensure that applications created using them are compatible with certain operating systems.
As long as no actual OS code or OS literature is included in each persons final product there can be no legal consequences from Amiga.
As for using the name Amiga in Openamiga - It would be an incredibly tough sell to convince a judge that this was trademark infringement. The only way they could do it is if they could produce a convincing argument stating that by using the name Openamiga, people could in some way be fooled into thinking your product was in some way officially linked with them.
Also you would have an enormous number of precedents to show that what you have done is both normal and legal - for instance 99% of Amiga magazines used the word Amiga in their titles.
Anway IMHO this is a sound idea, good luck with your venture..
-
I am making an assumption here, which is that your idea of openamiga is simply to create a set of programming standards to ensure software is easily portable between various Amiga style OS's.
That is exactly it.
As for copyrighted material, the Openamiga referance platform is totally Opensource. Thus not a single peice of protected IP is required to forefill the platform requirements. :-)
-
As for copyrighted material, the Openamiga referance platform is totally Opensource.
The headers for the AmigaOS API's on our SDK CD will be from AROS anyhow. :-D