AmigaOS 3.9 Boing Bag #3

[LoadWB]

The onus is not upon the copyright holder to monitor every project out there, but on the project producers to ensure they are not violating copyright.

None the less, I would suggest keeping a running score board of products for which you have received the okay to proceed with BB3, along with the official notice from the original author.  Then only include those in the archive as testing progresses.

If no one has objected so far when contacted, then kudos to you and keep moving forward with attempts at contact, but certainly do not assume cooperation.  Bear in mind that some people may be a little miffed or offended by inclusion of their work in a project, even if not-for-profit, without having been contacted first; they might not even make first contact with you.

I think the BB3 project is a great idea and would be a benefit to us all, but only if done correctly.

[Ancalimon]

sometimes rules must be bended. It's the one way to move on and the only "human" way.

[kolla]

@ kolla & dannyp1

Well IMHO the situation is clear: The BB3 compilers didn't clear the copyright issues. The BB3 limbo is direct result from this.

It would be no matter how much work you'd put in it.

This is exactly the reason why you should always clear these issues beforehand.

This is exactly why on should avoid closed source proprietary systems at all, amigaos (and morphos for that matter) is a relic of the past in this regard. That the ...ahm.. "owners" havent bothered to go for a more open development path after fall of CBM has been a real PITA.

The current situation might seem unfair, considering no money making is involved. However, copyright is the "copy" "right", and it applies regardless of the payment (even if none).

How do one know who has the copyright of a given component of AmigaOS3.9? There are copyright stamps east and west there, and as you have pointed out earlier, also stolen components etc - to breach some more copyrights owned by ignorant copyright holder is just keeping up a long and strong tradition of 3.5+, nothing new, same old, same old.

If tomazkid and amigaworld.net have any balls (heh) they should also ban any discussion of OS3.9, or linking to Amiga dealers who still sell OS3.9 - this a much much worse breach of copyrights than this BB3 will ever be. I'm quite sure you agree.

[Framiga]

comparing the Moana files with BB3, is unfair.

I didn't have the time to reply to tomazkid at aw.net but once for all ... the Moana files were STOLEN along the laptop that stored them. This is ALL another matter.

[LoadWB]

This is exactly why on should avoid closed source proprietary systems at all, amigaos (and morphos for that matter) is a relic of the past in this regard.

This cannot be a serious interpretation.  Open source non-proprietary systems have licensing problems as well.  In short, this is absolutely NOT a closed-source issue.

[kolla]

This cannot be a serious interpretation.  Open source non-proprietary systems have licensing problems as well.  In short, this is absolutely NOT a closed-source issue.

Copyright is there also without a license, it is not the same.
Opensource licenses ensures that you as a user is free to fiddle with the sources and compile as much as you like. The license might prohibit you from distributing binaries, but that is not much of an issue when there are sources that can be distributed.

[LoadWB]

Copyright is there also without a license, it is not the same.
Opensource licenses ensures that you as a user is free to fiddle with the sources and compile as much as you like. The license might prohibit you from distributing binaries, but that is not much of an issue when there are sources that can be distributed.

But is that not ultimately the problem here?  The distribution of someone else's work without permission, whether modified or not?  Technically, the inclusion in a package modifies the program, its distribution package, and/or its intended method of installation.

Irrespective of the nit-picking, I still stand on my previous statements.  I am all for the BB3 project, provided everyone who has "contributed" gets their proper due.

[nyteschayde]

But is that not ultimately the problem here?  The distribution of someone else's work without permission, whether modified or not?  Technically, the inclusion in a package modifies the program, its distribution package, and/or its intended method of installation.

Irrespective of the nit-picking, I still stand on my previous statements.  I am all for the BB3 project, provided everyone who has "contributed" gets their proper due.

Omg, if people are going to keep bickering about the copyright issues let's just do the following:

a) For any files that exist on AmigaOS disks (or compact discs) simply create patch files for them from the original to the final state. Determine which OS the user is providing and apply the appropriate patch. This appears to be OS3.9 for the most part.

b) For any files that cannot be included in another package but that are free for download from a site such as Aminet, write a simple downloader with a modifiable file/url list that connects to the net OR uses previously downloaded files of the same name and/or version in a locally cached directory. It would be nice if each file had a handler script so that only that script could be updated when software was updated elsewhere, but this is not necessary.

c) For the rest of the files that are free to distribute put them all with the final installer alongside any patches made in step a. Do this as much as possible because having to download files from mirrors that seem to constantly break for Amiga software is a big pita.

Finally no matter how it is finally distributed, somebody (preferably several somebodies) should keep a copy of each file needed to make this Boing Bag complete. And for those people who are complaining about the name, just call it the Unofficial Boing Bag #3. That way the title is different and other people can't complain about it any more. For Christ's sake there are tons of businesses across the world that have the same name as well other products that have the same name. This is a non-issue.

I don't have a lot of Amiga specific C programming but I can write something in Python for the Amiga (I noticed there is a 68k distribution albeit older) if it would help.

[Framiga]

"a) For any files that exist on AmigaOS disks (or compact discs) simply create patch files for them from the original to the final state. Determine which OS the user is providing and apply the appropriate patch. This appears to be OS3.9 for the most part."

this solution would be perfect and legal IMHO

[Piru]

a) For any files that exist on AmigaOS disks (or compact discs) simply create patch files for them from the original to the final state. Determine which OS the user is providing and apply the appropriate patch. This appears to be OS3.9 for the most part.

That only solves the issue if the patches themselves don't contain any 3rd party copyrighted material.

If they do, then this method solves nothing.

[buzz]

Seems only pedants stuck with an Amiga whilst everyone else got a PC !

[LoadWB]

Seems only pedants stuck with an Amiga whilst everyone else got a PC !

Wat?

[buzz]

I think the meaning of my message was quite clear!

[dannyp1]

Huh?

[Minuous]

OK, V1.0 is released.

[nyteschayde]

OK, V1.0 is released.

Is this the installer? Where is the link?