Why not support Aros 68k instead of patching old binaries?

[SpeedGeek]

The problem with AROS is that it's (unfortunately) not a practical replacement for 68K AmigaOS. Unless AROS can run at a "Usable" speed on a 68020 Amiga with 512KB ROM and 4 MB Fast RAM with a high degree of compatibility to 68K AmigaOS it never will be practical.

That's why I still code (and patch) for my classic 68K Amiga's from time to time. But I'm not sure if will release any more patches for AmigaOS or any third party stuff either. It's just not worth the hassle of defending your patches against people acting as "Self-appointed" lawyers of the copyright owners (who have long since abandoned the Amiga scene or just really don't care what happens).

Sorry folks, my A3000 scsi.device patch (now supporting RDBF_SYNC and some other improvements) and

My A2091/A590 scsi.device patch (14MHz scsi timings, obsolete xt.device removed and now supporting RDBF_SYNC) and

My 7/14MHz jumper select GURU ROM* patch may NEVER be released!

*The author has the patched ROM binary and could release it any time he wants.

[SpeedGeek]

Is a standalone binary patcher not possible?

Yes, possible but not likely.

@SpeedGeek

to be clear the issue on amiga.org isn't so much binary patches, with  distributing complete binaries with the patch already applied. for  example if one releases a small patch for cybergraphics.library, it can  only be used with people who have the original. whereas if someone  releases a full copy of cybergraphics.library with the 'new' patch  applied, they are distributing someone else's (commercial) software and  would need permission to do so. see the difference?

-- eliyahu

I see the difference but not everyone else does (e.g. ThoR). Also, once a binary patch has been released it can be used by anyone to distribute the full version of copyrighted software (it's makes no difference if it's commercial or non-commercial it's the copyright and the license to use that copyrighted software which makes all the difference).

[SpeedGeek]

He does see the difference between distributing patches and full copies, you don't appear to understand what his objection is.

Think of it like two religions arguing over which is right. Some people want to release binary patches rather than rewriting stuff and using a modern compiler, others want to rewrite stuff and use a modern compiler but see the binary patches as a reason not to bother (because it essentially is).
 
Using aros would be the most logical, but like when religion is involved logic goes straight out of the window once someone is convinced they are doing the right thing and others support them. The best way of derailing a good system is to make a bad one popular, like how Windows has become the no 1 OS.

Really? It appears you don't understand what his objection is. He simply objects to any patching or updating of anybody's code (unless it's public domain or open source) without the owner's express consent. It makes no difference to him whether you release a binary patch or the complete software.

He doesn't care if your patching abandon-ware or just releasing a bug fix, if you don't have the author (or copyright owners permission) then you have no business messing with their code PERIOD.

The real problem is that copyright laws (originally written to protect published writers and artists works) aren't really suited for computer software which becomes outdated, obsolete and finally abandoned in very short time periods as compared to what the laws were originally written for.

[SpeedGeek]

That is only one of his objections. The compatibility issue is another. In situations here the person who wrote the code is contactable it makes perfect sense.

 He has just given a much more detailed explanation of his objections on this thread and it's appears that neither one of us completely understood them.  

That wasn't your original argument. You said he didn't understand the difference. I said he understood but that wasn't what his objection was. You're now saying it makes no difference to him, which is essentially what I told you. So you're agreeing with me but telling me I'm wrong. Is English not your first language?

 Semantics or language (English) that is the question. Maybe he doe's understand the difference but considers them to be irrelevant to his objections. The end result is the same (he still objects) but apparently you expect both me (and him also) to be sticklers and perfectionists of trivial details in causal discussion (e.g. he should explain in great detail that he has no legal objections to releasing binary patches even if it's completely irrelevant to his primary objections).

[SpeedGeek]

Your statement was completely and utterly the opposite of what you meant. That isn't trivial, I'm not picking you up for grammar/punctuality/spelling.

When I commented on it you didn't understand what I said either & carried on arguing. Your objection seems a little one sided, you can say anything and we have to agree and you can't be held responsible if you say something wrong. I'd expect that from talking to a woman, not on an amiga forum.

How could anyone be 100% certain based on his earlier posts he really did understand the difference? He was certainly no less aggressive in his objections to releasing a binary patch then to a full release of the software in question.

I already explained that I could have been wrong about his not understanding the difference but in the end it's still a TRIVIAL issue because the end result is exactly the same (he still objects).

Now, that's exactly what I would expect from a woman, continued bickering about a completely moot point! :lol: