Pegasos running native OS4 apps?

[Rogue]

Amiga.inc has been playing games here, I think Genesi wouldnt mind OS4 on Pegasos! (anyone recall the public offers bbrv has made to send a Peg to Hyperion?) but Amiga.inc et al dont want to see that, their having to much fun with MS style roms and whatnot over on the A1.

Common business practice is that deals and licences are not handled over public forums but via official business channels, and a MorphOS mailing list or forum isn't considered an official channel. This has nothing to do with "MS style ROM's" or any such nonsense as you like to quote.

Just "offereing a Pegasos for free" is no licence application, and apart from that and the usual "we'll make it happen" nothing has happened to make AmigaOS 4 on the Pegasos (regardless of number) any more likely than it was at the very beginning.

Unless Genesi or someone else aquires a licence for OS 4, it will not automatically appear on any Pegasos hardware. And yes, I know it won't be long before I can read a "don't worry we'll make it happen" posting again, but unless you can show me a bit more substance than that, I'd be cautious before I stick my head out too far.

[Rogue]

@bloodline & meerschaum:
(Yes, I am one of the Frieden brothers).

About the licence:

Please understand what this licence is about. The facts about it have been twisted over and over, but if you look at the essence, it serves its purpose. The main point is that OS 4 will not be available boxed (except for CSPPC and BlizzardPPC). It will only be sold with a board. Secondly, the hardware vendor should, through the licence, be bound to some degree of customer support.

I don't think that the conditions are unreasonable.

To the best of my knowledge, Hyperion does not earn any money from the licence other than the sales of OS 4, but I don't know that for sure.

Microsoft and Asus have more money in their pencil budget than Hyperion earns in ten years, so I don't think that their rules are applicable. Same with Sony and EA.

Yes, OS 4 would benefit from Pegasos support. It would benefit from any additional hardware it supports. However, there is some work involved in porting, maintaining and supporting any new port, and the licence ensures that part of that will be handled by the hardware seller, who also benefits from OS 4 running on his hardware.

I don't understand the argument that Hyperion should be buying a licence from Genesi - you try to argue me out of it by arguing the other way around?

In spite of the ":-)" I find it a bit offensive to say that "hyperion are not into cooperation". In fact we are, since we are cooperating with quite a number of companies. However, as I said before, Cooperation is a two way road, and business is not conducted via mailing lists and bulletin boards.

[Rogue]

Rogue basically what your saying is that I'm right to think that Hyperion isnt the barrier between AOS4 on Pegasos or not?, do you think if Amiga.inc went under AOS4 would find its way onto Pegasos?...

No, I didn't say that. Like I said, the licence is in everyone's interest really since it takes away part of the burden of support from us, and it ensures a bit of safety against piracy, which, as you will agree, still poses a rather big thread.

As to what would happen if Amiga Inc goes under, I am not a lawyer. My understanding is that the AmigaOS licence is safe from any sort of demise. What that means for a Pegasos version is highly speculative; I wouldn't think that the outlook would be any different than it is now: The only thing that stands between AmigaOS 4 and the Pegasos is that there is no one holding a licence for OS 4 on the Pegasos hardware.

[Rogue]

That depends on the conditions, which are not available to us, and you claim that you don't know them either. Or am I mistaken?

There was a thread, I think it was either here or on AW.net, where Ben Hermans outlined the conditions. What I know is the following:

- There must be something on the board (or a USB dongle) that allows to distinguish between licenced and non-licenced boards ("the dongle").  What that is is completely up to discussion. Might even be a special firmware version.

- OS 4 must not be sold separately (unless otherwise stated in the licence agreement). Units of OS 4 sold must be included with the board, but it doesn't mean that anyone wanting the board has to buy OS 4.

- Part of the customer support for the licenced board must be taken care of by the manufacturer/licence holder. That is, a customer will contact Eyetech first, and if they can't sort it out, they will contact Hyperion and/or Amiga.

That's about it. I don't know if there is a licence fee at all (other than the costs of a copy of OS 4).

That is what I meant when I said I don't think these conditions are unreasonable. What I mean when I said I don't know the details is that I don't know any details (like fees etc).

Like I said before, the two primary reasons for the licencing are offloading parts of the support burden to the licensee, and prevention of piracy - because if you already have OS 4 with the board, you're not going to copy it. I'm afraid that we cannot take another wave of piracy - too much work, time and money has passed into this.

I'm sure you will understand that.

[Rogue]

I do see what you are saying, but as the software developer it is your responsibility to support your software. By asking For a licence for the OS you are saying that you don't want to be troubled with support (I know that is a simplified view).

And a wrong one, too :-) No honestly, when you look at it most support queries will be the same. Assume (I'm not saying it is the case) that for a certain hardware you have to have your CD-ROM connected as secondary slave because it doen't work otherwise (yeah, I know, it sounds awfully constructed, but it should serve an an example). Instead of having 100 people enquire at Hyperion about that, these 100 people could be on the licencees support mailing list and get that question answered there, because that question is typical for their hardware. The licencee will forward anything that they can't help out to us.

What if I were to make a PPC board and sell it for 150 Euro, but one of the ways I keep it at such a low price is that it come with no OS.

Would I then have to buy a licence from Hyperion in order to allow OS4 to run on it?

I don't understand the question to be honest. If you have a board that costs 150 euros because there is no OS included, then there is no OS included. Period. If you could buy a copy of OS 4 for that board, this would raise the price again, and you wouldn't get away with 150 euro anymore.

The licence wouldn't disallow selling the board with no OS.

I also don't understand the last part of the question - if there is an OS 4 version for the board, it would be available as a bundle with the board (that could mean that a dealer or private individual has bought a licence).

A dealer might want to sell boards with OS 4 as a bundle and make a licence deal with Amiga (not with Hyperion).

[Rogue]

If there was not the few words in the brackets, it'd be utter nonsense. Someone purchases a Pegasos 2 board, and when later decides so that he wants OS4 he has to purchase a new board...

As I said before, you might have a USB dongle, or might have an exchange program where the missing part is fitted to your board.

As to the conditions - I think the most important conditions are those which you have omitted. Namely the hard cash part into which the manufacturer/dealer is forced into, and of what we know nothing.

You are contradicting yourself. You say that a dealer/licencee is forced into a "hard cash part" (note the word "forced"), and in the same sentence admit that you know nothing. Can you elaborate?

That's what I've mentioned. I suppose there is.

You suppose there is? That means you are condemming the whole concept because you assume?

[Rogue]

Obviously, we differ slightly in our view of a business model when it comes to OSes (software and drivers should be commercial but the OS should be free IMHO).

You tell that to Microsoft. I had to pay € 70 for a System Builder Version of XP. I'd rather pay for the OS and get the drivers for free when I buy the hardware, because I am bound to need more drivers than OSes.

It seems to my cynical eye that Hyperion are atempting to circumvent people freedom to choose the OS that suits them best.

This would be the case if the donglization would prevent any other OS from running. It doesn't. You *can* run Linux on the AmigaOne, you *can* run MacOS X via MOL, and if Genesi would do it, you *could* run MorphOS. If you would port AROS, that would run, too. There is plenty of options to choose from, and to put it plainly, we're not afraid of competition (I think that a bit of competition is healthy for all involved, most notably the user).

I would really like to hear an explanation how we are circumventing people the freedom of choice for their OS. We aren't. You don't have to buy a board with an AmigaOS 4 licence. And if you did, there is nothing preventing you from running any other OS.

However, if you want it, we want our share for it. I have virtually given two years of my life to it, and I think I deserve some compensation for that.

[Rogue]

I assume that if there were no money involved, and obtaining the licence were so easy as you depict it, we'd have Amiga/Pegasos dealers in a long line offering Pegasos with OS4 "when released".

We have none. Care to explain the phaenomenon?

"We have none"? How do you know?

The phaenomenon is easily explained: Rumours are flying. Just look at yourself. *Everbody* is assuming that it has got so many strings attached that it isn't worth asking.

It has already been said before that the Pegasos I, due to its limited numbers and trade-in offer, is a rather small market. The Pegasos II is different, but not on sale yet. And most of all there is no OS 4 yet, so there isn't really reason to hurry.

[Rogue]

So I could buy a licence for OS4 (for free?  ) and then run it on the Pegasos boards that I sell?

Not knowing about "for free", as I said, but yes, if you are a pegasos dealer you can acquire a licence and sell your boards with OS 4.

What I'm buying, with the licence, is the responsibility to support my customers, right?

What you are buying is a licence for OS 4 and the right to distribute it with the boards you sell. What you are buying is our work to port it to your platform, and our support of your platform and those customers that you cannot handle yourself. WIth it also comes the responsibility to support your customers as far as you can. If it turns out to be a hardware issue (CD-Rom example), you're probably going to know more about the problem than I do, anyway. Otherwise you will redirect your customer to Amiga/Hyperion, and we need to care about the problem.

It's not that much different with e.g. Dell selliing you a Wintel PC, you will probably also inqure at Dell when you need support, and they may or may not redirect you to Microsoft.

[Rogue]

When someone deeply involved in OS4 development and being one of the core members of Hyperion admist 'he doesn't know' then don't be surprised of assumptions.

What do you expect? I'm a doctor, not a bricklayer (no wait, that was someone else...) I'm a developer, not a salesman. I don't need to know anything about licencing and sales. I couldn't even quote you what Eyetech are asking for, say, an A1 with a 750FX@800, because I simply do not need to know these issues. All that I care of is to get this thing finished, and to make it as good as possible. (and I start to notice that I am spending too much time on forums again :-) )

I personally find it quite natural that things like license fees are not discussed openly on Forums. I was utterly p*ssed when someone published the fee we where asking for Warp3D adaption. That is internal dealings and doesn't belong into the public. Interested parties should inquire with Amiga or Hyperion, but certainly not on a public forum, and certainly not with a developer. I am sure that the same applies to quite a lot of companies.

[Rogue]

Forcing people to buy specific hardware just so they can run their chosen software is stupid.

That must be the reason why I can buy MacOS X for Intel boxes and Windows for Mac hardware.

Sorry if that offends anyone. I just find the attempts to justify the licensing policy to be utterly lame.

How could someone be offended because you called him stupid, or granting the people involved an inflated ego ;-)

Luckily for you, no one is "forcing" anyone. You demonstrate quite clearly that you have the freedom of choice. The rest of your ranting is highly offensive and clearly demonstrates your disability for a mature discussion.

[Rogue]

But unless that information is available, we won't know who to blame  I think my position is understandable as well right? (To whom should I write a letter problem, you know)

I do understand you. If in doubt, try to bring it up on AW.net's "Ask Fleecy" session :-)

I'd like to know if it's Genesi's/Hyperion's/AmigaInc's/Dealers' fault that there is no OS4 on Pegasos.

Why? Would it change the result? I don't think so. The truth will probably be someone in the middle anyway.

And now I think I am going back to work. The tone in this discussion was quite fine, which was a pleasant surprise until, well...

[Rogue]

No. I called the policy stupid, not the people. I know English is not your native language, but you should really make the effort.

Ok, so that makes us people with only an inflated ego with stupid ideas, right? Sounds a bit like splitting hairs.

That's a personal opinion, I admit, but yes, I do think most of the personalities involved have inflated egos.

Personal or not, it doesn't mean it is any less offensive. My personal opinion may be that person X is a blatant idiot (note: MAY BE. I didn't call anyone anything), but uttering it would make it offensive nontheless. So stating that you don't want to offend someone and calling him stupid (ok, stating that he makes something stupid, which is good enough) or inflated ego is distrubing to say the least.

Why don't you address the issues instead of snipping them out?

What issues? All I saw from you was a hypocritical post stating you don't want to offend someone and do it anyway?

Why should customers pay a licensing premium so that the hardware manufacturer or the system vendor becomes their first line of software support?

I don't understand where you get the idea that a customer needs to pay a licence fee. The board manufacturer does, and yes, it makes the board more expensive by a few euros, but you are getting something back for it. If it where sold by us directly, it would probably be more expensive.

I would uderstand it if the hardware manufacturer paid the licence fee so that YOU, the software developer takes on the software support responsibilities of supporting their hardware, but not just for the priviledge of increasing your sales while relieving you of the burden of support as well.

I know English is not my native language (as you correctly pointed out yourself), but where did I say that it frees us from the burden of support? It just distributes the support issues. If someone has a problem with Eyetech hardware, he contacts Eyetech first, which I think is quite natural. If things turn out not to be an Eyetech issue, the AmigaOS 4 team takes over. Where does that free us from any support issue? In the end, if it isn't a hardware issue, it *will* end up on my plate. Where is the problem?

It's not like AmigaOS4 is a world famous killer application anyone would die for, is it?

That remark is completely uncalled for. The reasoning for this thread *was* that someone specifically *wanted* to run OS 4 on the Pegasos. I wasn't suggesting anywhere that everyone must have OS 4. As you said yourself, if you don't want it, you don't need to buy it, no one is forcing you.

However, the whole point is that *IF* you want it to run on your hardware, you *must* get a licence for it. The same applies to every software product that you buy - even GPL'ed programs come with a licence that you need to comply with. If you don't like the license, you are entitled to reject it and not use the program in question. Where is the difference? Are you complaining that the GPL forces you to open-source all modifications and derivative work? I don't think so.

In essense, all I saw from you was an offensive post that got a hypocritical twist by stating that you didn't want to offend someone. It's like saying "You are an idiot, but I mean that in a friendly way".