Consequences of the AmigaOS 3.1 source code "leak", one year after?

[Pat the Cat]

It's been a year now, and I'm curious. What did the availability of the source code make possible?

Disclaimer: All my opinion.

It made it easier to understand the AmigaDOS Code from Commodore's point of view. That is the primary difference. It cost $$$$$ to be a developer.

It did not necessarily help malware experts to monitor, target, or attack Amiga systems, although it certainly did not hinder that either.

It might have helped some devs create honest software a bit quicker, for both 3.1 and post 3.1 systems, by understanding the 3.1 code.

It made emulating 3.1 hardware systems and designing new hardware systems that could interface with 3.1 a bit easier.

So not a game changer, but an advatnage, an edge, that some people might find useful, and some would scorn, really. It's not like there was huge point in recompiling the source code and knocking out copies in the markets of Singapore (no disrespect intended to people of that city, but you do have a reputation for innovation success against the odds).

Technically, it was a breach of copyright, a leak of private IP. The nature of leaks is, there is no mop up of the spill. Leaked is leaked, And as for who... "The ship of State is the ONLY ship that leaks from the top".

[Pat the Cat]

So, it's not "Open Source", eh?

It's hardly closed source and fresh as a daisy, either. It was when first developed...

Even some intelligence agencies release some of their old muck, eventually. And that isn't a commercial law deal, that's a national or international security law deal. Big kettles of fish. Not a poxy little one marked "Amiga source code 3.1".

[Pat the Cat]

It's stolen closed source. That doesn't make it open.

In terms of declaring it open source and specifically using it as a development resource for public future development, sticking it on a github, etc, you are correct.

However, to childishly stomp your foot and scream "IST VERBOTEN" ignores the fact that the source text used to describe the final object code it's now effectively everybody's, as a point of reference. Not as a true piece of open source development, but as a discarded scrap of abandonware.

If you want to be ignorant about the current situation, that is your choice, and your choice will be respected, by me, at least.

It is easily available and will remain so, that makes it open.

Disagree. Open source as a development root has a specific definition. Source for 3.1 is now a point of reference, a leaked document in the public domain. No more than that, it is too much of a jump to declare it as a true open source OS. It isn't.

Why? Copyright rests with the copyright holder until 70 years (probably longer) after expiration of the copyright holder.

It becomes Open Source 70 years after CBM filed for Chapter 11.

If in the meantime, it gets wholesale conversion to native HEX code, as opposed to being compiled C, then the translated version could be declared as Open source (translated works are not a technical breach of copyright, although they could be used as the basis for an IP infringement legal case - extremely unlikely). However, such a translation would have the same Amiga problem - it would require a custom ROM version for each basic Amiga type. NOT a small task.

[Pat the Cat]

Frankly, I'm of the opinion the whole thing was a big non-event in the first place.
The only people that would find this source code interesting are people still using the OS.

Not true. I haven't touched the OS for a long time, and a USER of an OS would not care.

A DEVELOPER might care. Indeed, seems to be a little flame war building over the issue, and I hope I've stated some points that might make people THINK a little bit more before ranting.

[Pat the Cat]

So we are all hackers, users/developers... that all kind of blurs after a few decades.

You used the term. If your usage of the word "user", short for "end user", was imprecise, not my problem.

In the days when this code was written, CBM developers had a contract with CBM. There was a very big difference indeed, and it cost a lot of cash. Not that CBM gave much in return - they certainly didn't hand out source code to developers just for registering.

If you had been in that position at the time, you might feel angry too now.

[Pat the Cat]

So are you saying AmigaOS 3.1 sources are now public domain?

Not everything in the public domain can reasonably be described as open source. The 2 are not interchangable, no matter how badly you want them to be.

That depends where you live. In the same way certain countries decide to ignore treaties they have signed regarding human rights violations, the Geneva convention, the treaty of Rome, the Paris Climate agreement etc, some countries also chose to ignore copyright treaties like the Berne convention. I can assure you that copyrights are ignored in most of the world.

Copyright is a RIGHT. Rights cannot be taken away, no matter how hard you want them to be. Privaleges can be taken away. Not rights. The only country in the world that specifically, constitutionally ignores copyright - is Taiwan. Coincidentally (not) where an awful lot of hi tech companies are HQ'd.

Hardly. First of all, CBM bare had all the copyrights themselves, a lot of the components of OS3.1 was licensed in the first place, and some of if legally dubious already. It is unclear whether all the rights to those licenses were transferrable, or whether they were CBM strictly. As Thomas here can confirm, CBM themselves were not exactly saints when it came to copyrights themselves.

Copyright covers the text of the source code. If parts of that code were PUBLICLY RELEASED, and they were not, things might be different. CBM did not release the code, nor has anyone that bought the IP in the meantime.

I did not understand squat of what you tried to communicate there. You are saying that if you dump a binary as hex, you can declare that hex as "not a copy"? Then there has not been a leak of the AmigaOS 3.1 sources, as it was spread as a tar.gz file, which obviously has no similarities with the original works, but merely is a file describing how the original sources must have looked like :laughing:

I am sorry you are too unintelligent to understand. HEX code is native to the machine - it is viewable by humans in source form as "assembler", but very few humans can easily understand the mechanics of a computer program, purely by looking at a page of HEX.

But that's what the chips really understand. C code, compiled, will never run as fast. That's an old myth.

You can copyright TEXT, ie source. You cannot copyright a number as such, although you can prove the numbers (hex) have a text origin, in the form of source code that will assemble to a given hex code block.

Understand, or do I have to get the book of little words out - The "Caveman Dictionary for Stupid Criminals".

I'm very disappointed in you Kolla. I thought you might actually try the challenge of rewriting an entire OS, for 6 different machines. Seems I was mistaken. Hard work isn't your style, it seems.

[Pat the Cat]

I'm not ignorant about the situation. I'm just getting nuts about people that call it "Open Source", which is exactly *not* what it is. The copyright header in the sources states clearly what you can do with it - Nothing. Don't touch, don't use.

But it can't legally state "Do not translate".

Which wouldn't technically be USING the original, save as a point of reference.

Yes Thomas, I can see you are very angry about this, as a point of principle. And much of what you are saying is valid.

But, points of reference are there to be used - for good, for bad. They are tools. They are not, in themselves, wrong or malign or bad.

Germany has very strong privacy laws, principally there to stop a replay of the National Socialist Partei happening again. Remember, not everywhere is so strict about what might be observed and recorded, quite lawfully. With or without permission.

[Pat the Cat]

Depends, some places class the translation as a derivative work and that permission needs to come from the copyright holder in the first instance. Places like the US where the source code is copyrighted.

Back OT, I think we can see what the consequences of the source code release have been - apart from random Amigans arguing about it and getting their post counts up - nothing.

Nope. You cannot legally prevent translation.

You could go into a court and try to argue that a Hex translation into pure MC started as a C source file, but without evidence you'd have no case.

Damned difficult to prove. If the C source compiled to something substantially different, case dismissed. (If if was an exact replica, or could be positively identified as a derivative work, different story).

Even worse, if you could demonstrate the new version was a substantial improvement, you could counter claim for malicious prosecution... and who exactly would be taking you to court? Cloanto? They have a license to sell original ROMs, sure. But they don't lay claim to the code.

Hyperion? Their current offerings don't even run on machines that such a ROM would be aimed at.

Who is left? Who can claim that a new WB3.1 derivative is going to hurt them, financially?

[Pat the Cat]

Of course you can, read your EULA.

I have no EULA for Kickstart. I was never provided one by the manufacturer.

What a load of crap. Improving something you've violated the copyright on doesn't give you any extra rights and admitting it makes you an even bigger target, ffs.

But it wouldn't be violating the copyright of the C code. It could be proven NEVER to have been a C program.

And for the 2nd time, who is going to target such an innovation? Who can claim a loss from better Kickstarts for old Amigas?

It certainly isn't Hyperion

[Whoever owns the copyright..

So who owns the copyright to the source code? It's labelled CBM, so who got the IP for the source code, bud?

Bearing in mind, the last case to decide this happened in 2014. It's not like it happened 20 years ago.

Also, in the USA, litigation is handled at the State level. Not the national Federal level. So what set of rules is decided by which State the case is fought in. As Hyperion are based in BOTH Belgium and Germany, the laws used would be the ones of the locaiity of the registered World HQ.

If Thomas is right, and that's Germany, then Hyperion have a robust set of laws to defend them. But, they would still need to show evidence of loss or harm to their business.

It would be funny in court to see a classic Amiga trying to run 4.1, their current product. Compared to a classic Amiga running 3.1.

[Pat the Cat]

The thread is a little silly to me

Agreed. I think I've said more than enough. I guess it boils down to people being protective - perhaps overprotective.

YES, I'm guilty of that, just as much as the next Amigan.

I think Cloanto have seen this coming.

Sooner or later the situation will inevitably change (due to the  expiration or special exemption status of some copyrights, or because of  the quality and diffusion of compatible alternatives, or for other  factors), but until then we

https://www.amigaforever.com/kb/13-122

[Pat the Cat]

You don't violate the copyright of the C code, you violate the author's rights.

You don't unless the person suiing you can prove that your code - came from the C code.

Knowing is one thing. Proving in a court is very, very unlikely. If a dereviative product is not sold, merely distributed, there would be no basis for financial compensation.

[Pat the Cat]

it wasn't just hyperion which told folks not to link to the archive, by the way. hyperion is not the only claimant to the source copyright.

-- eliyahu

Oh, really? I see lots of references to license to distribute, I've seen no references anywhere saying Commodore's copyright to source was ever transferred outside of Commodore.

Tell you what. Before I do anything - look at the source even - I'm going to write, to Hyperion, Amiga Inc, Cloanto, etc, asking them specifically if they lay claim to the code, and if so, what the basis of that claim is, and what evidence they have to support such claim. With the rider that if I don't hear back from them in a sensible time frame, I will assume that they have no such claim.

Until then, I'm shutting up. Eliyahu, if you know anybody else, please PM me so I can ask them, officially.

[Pat the Cat]

So wait, by Pat's logic, if you distribute someone's copyrighted source code, you are in infringement, but if you distribute the binaries (compiled or 'translated'), you are okay?  I mean the copyright is on the pre-compiled TEXT according to him.  

That would pretty much change everything on how software copyright works.  Hell if that logic works, people download compressed (translated into computer 1s and 0s) music and movies that should also not be considered copyright infringement, right?

Not a personal attack, just wondering because if there is a translation clause out there, you could actually argue the difference and maybe push for a more sane copyright on the binaries.  Afterall, binaries do become useless after so long, while source code could be tweaked and updated to work with newer ssystems.

Not quite what I wrote. Compiling directly on the unlawfully derived, but released to the public domain, is a no-no, if you want to distribute the final article. You wrote (compiled or 'translated').

Translating, then compiling, different matter. Very hard to prove direct copyright infringement. Some USA States courts you could still be in trouble.

One other thing I noticed, Cloanto claimed all IP made by CBM up to 1993. 3.1 was released (and still being developed) in 1994. So I really will have to write those letters and ask the various claimants to put up evidence of a claim to the source, or at least indicate the route of their claim, from CBM to themselves.

So far, seen nothing, I think all parties assumed the source was destroyed already when they reached their current arrangements. Or, possibly, when CBM was first broken up, the solvency people sold the copyright to the code to an unknown individual or agency. I guess I'd have to check with them for that.

(sigh)

[Pat the Cat]

Huh, I am curious... where have you been since 1994?  It has been quite well established knowledge that the sources have been  around all the time.

Excellent. By whom? Who has claimed that? Where were the sources available from? How long have they been available for?

AFAIK this code was leaked just a year ago. Now you say it was always around. Where from? Who from?

Or was it just passed around the Dark net as a piece of exotic techno  contraband? That seems to be what you are talking about, maybe. I doubt  it, it would have surfaced a lot, lot earlier if that was the case.

You want 22 years of my personal history? Google is your friend, they say.

EDIT:
The official settlement, which was reached out of court, and rubber  stamped by the court in Washington, is here. It seems to make no  reference to the fact that AmigaDOS is itself based on a sublicense from  Metacomco... which everybody seems to have conveniently forgotten.

https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/washington/wawdce/2:2007cv00631/143245/148/1.pdf?ts=1261252743

Anyway, I'll study it further. Metacomco were British. Y'all thought  everyting Amiga were totally developed in the States? Not quite true.  Dr Tim King certainly not. I never met him, but I did get to study some  of his 6502 code on a completely unrelated project, legitimately).

[Pat the Cat]

I ask again - with binaries floating around that were built using the leaked sources - why are the legal owners not doing anything?

Read the settlement. That just states Amiga Group have the right to enforce copyright.

Whether they choose to do so, or are able to do, is a different question. And whether their claim to do is legitimate technically hasn't been tested in a court (yet). That would be the "bottom line", I guess.