In court docs: Hyperion states AROS "probably illegal"

[Floid]

redrumloa wrote:
Page 27, answer to question 4


Amazing, isn't it? My opinion of Hyperion just went down a couple more notches and it wasn't that high to begin with :-x

Heh.  Noticed that quote, but didn't pay attention to the source of it until now.  Obviously Hyperion has reason to want to play up OS4's legitimacy, I can barely read it as more than the 'not-so-secret Amiga handshake' wherein anyone negotiating is obliged to demonstrate their grave concern over intellectual property rights, yadda yadda...

That said, any questions of AROS's "legality" would seem to go back to the hazy MorphOS-type questions of who got to see source, when, and why, and Amiga Inc. are (supposedly) the ones restricting access to the AROS sources for review:

The AROS repository is running on a password protected SVN server, which means that you need to apply for access to it to be able to collaborate in the development. At the request of Amiga Inc., anonymous read-only access to the repository has been disabled.

...so if AInc. is satisfied with that roadblock/has come to such accomodation, and Hyperion never got to see (CBM/H&P) sources in the first place...  Well, like I said, standard Amiga business etiquette these days.

[Floid]

Hmm, I guess I also left out my feeling that "probably illegal" in this context more suggests 'Well, crap, neither of our companies could dare rely on it without fear of being sued into oblivion' than any sort of direct accusation.  

Sort of the way some still fear or denigrate Linux just in case there's some unauditable/unprovable bomb of a commit lurking back in its history.  (...though even then, removing the bomb should make it clean, though Linus and distributors might have some cointoss risk of liability, strongly dependent on knowledge and intent...)

Evert's not a native speaker, right?  That's a bit of a mess of a concept to express succinctly, especially when the object is a project you're 'competing' with.

[Floid]

dammy wrote:

The only reason that statement was never takend down (since you can download the source in a ISO vs SVN activity), it's a convient excuse to protect limited bandwidth to the SVN.

Good to know.  In fact, last I really looked was way before the switch to Subversion; I took a very brief poke around on the recent visit for an "obvious" 'get source here' link and didn't see it.

Now back in the day, IIRC, when AROS was running afoul with one of Gateway/AI's IP, AROS did cater to AI's wishes.  It (left button for pull down menue) was taken out and after that patent expired, reintroduced to AROS.  That issue was solved, limited bandwidth to the SVN never has been.

They/very early Bill&Fleecy AInc. also 'volunteered' their lawyers to write the license as it stands, if I recall.  And the whole point of the cooperation was to get blessing to carry on with the 'Amiga' mark (and be sure the new Amiga management didn't see anything they would want to jump up and complain or sue about) instead of becoming just 'Another Research OS.'  

... I take it AInc's actions to collect from MS for context-menu behavior weren't successful?