Unofficial CyberGraphX v4 bug fixes

[Jose]

Well, why not just release the patch as a separate executable that applies the patch to the original CyberGraphX V4, that would be legal no ?

[Jose]

"How much work would it be to make an executable that patches the original binary? "

Pretty easy, specially considering it's just a few asm instructions to save/restore the register.

[Jose]

Just to be clear, I don't think distributing binaries as a new CGX version is right, because that is distributing it almost as if it's the official continuation of the original without the authors permission.
But I think a separate patch does no harm.
On the other hand I also think contacting the author first would be the best and more correct, although it's pretty evident what the likely outcomes are.

[Jose]

"Cosmos, you're one of the people that destroy the classics, don't you see this? You're destroying the motivation of investing any time into software simply by taking other's people's code and ripping it apart."

NO! I was taking you serious until now. Trolling at it's best...

@Cosmos
Most of the community really appreciates your work, ignore the rest and do what you like
Just don't release it as a new version but as a patch, I think Spirantho put it quite well.

[Jose]

@Kronos

Too much fuss about it I guess.. I think most of us would be happy with a free bugfix, if it actually fixes something...

[Jose]

"Do you think so? Do you actually know what brought me back investing some work into my old stuff? It was simply because Matthew made a bug report for my 68060.library. I checked it and fixed it, got some positive feedback on the support. This was the right way of getting things done. If Cosmos would have gone ahead, taken it and published an unauthorized patch... Well, see that this makes a difference indeed? Getting a tiny thing right at the right time made a difference. "

Fair enough, but I don't think any of us said he shouldn't contact the author first, we actually said otherwise. If the author doesn't care THEN a patch would be harmless. Although come to think about it, in this case Kronos is probably right since most people using the CGX API already know that bug and take it into account.

[Jose]

@Cosmos

From what I remember from Karlos he was enthusiastic about the Classic and would do anything but conspire... I also don't see how PPC is directly competing with the Classic, at least for now. Most of us (again speaking of everyone probably enjoy both. It's just that there is no market.
Now if you were talking about certain hardware manufacturers that would be a different story. The FPGA accelerators if they ever come to be produced in more numbers will p*ss off some people, again just my opinion.

[Jose]

@Thomas Richter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYWzMvlj2RQ