"Hyperion and Cloanto allegedly close to finalizing settlement"

[OlafS3]

What "critical mass" can we loose? 

for commercial software development? When yes what commercial software development?

Most software developed right now are games and those bang the hardware and do not use the OS

For commercial software you must offer some kind of future, new chances

"preserving" the old platform is not enough

[OlafS3]

the comparation is a little silly

nobody expects anything amiga related, even if open source, to become a success like Linux

I already wrote that it is dangerous for software on a small market to be dependent on the decisions or fate of one person. If Cloanto wins and they cannot come to a agreement with Hyperion (Ben H.) 3.1.4 is dead and all your work vanishes. If 3.1 would have been open source and you would have contributed to it, it would not be important what anyone else does. And as I already wrote too... the danger of lots of forkes is not big because you need skilled devs for it who want to do it. Those are rare in the amiga community so finally there would very propably be just one fork you (perhaps together with one or two others) would manage. No different than now, just without the danger of being killed by others. And it would be easier for people to take part because of no NDA to sign. I cannot understand your aversion against open source. Even if it is a little more chaotic the advantage of being independent outweighs the potential disadvantages, at least for me. And the problems closed source has is obvious when you look at the situation of Amiga OS. The same already happened to lots of amiga software.

It is anyway just a theoretical discussion... it all depends how the legal argument is decided. Nobody here can influence that and nobody will ask you either. If Cloanto really open source 3.1 (what they repeated a couple of times in recent years) you have to think if you want to continue. In this case 3.1.4 is in doubt anyway because of the 4.1 sources you used (as I understand it). If Hyperion wins or it ends without decision nothing changes for you.

[OlafS3]

they cannot contribute because they signed NDAs with Hyperion not allowing them to contribute to anything else

[OlafS3]

that is a silly sentence...

even 2-3 skilled developers would make a huge difference

[OlafS3]

I understand what Thomas says but I do not share his view

He wants to control the development and decide not have discussions with others who might then forke 3.1 and make something not ciompatible. I do not see this happen but of course there could be discussions between developers. But finally the lead devs with most experience in the software decide. I see that in Aros happening and no forking and no problems. In case of 3.1 it would be the same devs deciding that decide now working on a closed source owned by Hyperion.

[OlafS3]

that they cannot contribute to Aros because of NDA signed and Hyperion was said from several developers in the recent years so they cannot be all wrong

[OlafS3]

I am on Aros development forum (Slack) and see how it works. And there this what you expect is not happenig

[OlafS3]

I cannot speak for Thomas but I assume too he would not be interested to contribute directly to Aros even without any legal issues. But f.e. people could look in his sources and integrate it in Aros (if propriate). At the moment f.e. the Aros devs work on extending datatypes including saving in lots of different formats. Looking in sources would make life easier.

Or take another example... if MUI would be open source (I know it is MorphOS not Hyperion) everyone would have compatible implementations and not everyone has to do the same again. A huge waste of resources. And it ends in not compatible forks finally. Working together on a common open source base has lots of adavantages for everyone. I know that is a pipe dream not happening...

So I really do not understand why many devs in such a small community prefer the closed source model (not just Thomas and Hyperion, also the MorphOS team).

Regarding Cloanto we will see. As I understand it you cannot simply open source 3.1 because of commercial parts included. For those you would have to get the OK, additionally you must analyse the sources to see what is copyright and what is not. And you must make it compatible to GCC (what is today normally used). That sounds like a lot of work (and you need skilled devs to do the migration to GCC). So we will see what will happen "if" Cloanto would win.

[OlafS3]

Why are cou contributing to 3.1 then?

The discussion was done lots of times already. We are here because we like amiga how it was and could have been. A new modernized OS has not the same attraction to the amiga community than a modernized but still compatible OS. That is where Aros f.e. fits in.

Breaking everything to modernize it would be possible but I doubt that it would have the same attraction and I doubt that it will attract many new users from outside. Perhaps you can integrate layers like Microsoft did in Windows to stay compatible when migrating to 64bit but that makes a lot of work certainly. I like Aros because it offers compatibility and adds features like RTG, network and USB not existing on 3.1. The big versions of Aros running on AMD64 including 64bit and SMP never interested me. For "modern stuff" I have Windows and Linux.  And expecially Aros 68k offers the "real amiga feeling" because you can mix amiga and aros components in it. For me (as someone interested in amiga stuff) the perfect solution.

[OlafS3]

I understand that Thomas and you want to safe the existing old 3.1 platform

For me the attraction is to have something more modern and complete but still compatible

And for compatibility (and sometimes speed on 68k hardware) looking in the old sources would help

[OlafS3]

you seem to be a specialist for Aros...

[OlafS3]

if you would look in the API definition (autodocs) you would see that Aros is somewhere between 3.1 and other NG platforms implementing additional

[OlafS3]

you guys completely unerestimates how much work it to create a own forke. Even on aros there are no forkes because it is too much work (even if someone is motivated)

[OlafS3]

yes but someone skilled with both interest and time has to make commits

[OlafS3]

at the end most of the forks were dead soon after being created...

[OlafS3]

you are very uniquesided... despite claiming not to have interests or get money...

it is not only about having not a cpmpetitive product, Hyperion also sold license for kickstarts to iComp

from Cloantos business view they are doing what Hyperion is not allowed to, they were only allowed to develop 4.X based on 3.X sources

Hyperion obviously interprets this very differently and that is the reason for the lawsuit

who is right from a legal point will be decided before court. You often sound like a speechman and clerk from hyperion

BTW I cannot judge too who is right there (regarding the contract)