Dave Haynie on MOS (cross posted from ANN) -old post referenced

[Jose]

I didn't knew about this info.
HERE

Interesting no?
Did people in general knew about that?
Keep the thread clean please (NO  I'm serious).

[KennyR]

I have great respect for Haynie, but in this case I think he's just conjecturing. He has no proof that the MOS sources are stolen from AmigaOS and never will have. And such a claim doesn't even make sense considering

1) The limited usefulness of the AOS sources;
2) The fact that MOS was begun with AROS sources, which are certainly not stolen;
3) MOS (or rather QBox)  is very different structurally than AOS. It has AOS emulation using native code, called ABox. No more, no less.

[tonyw]

It does sound vaguely familiar. But then, who cares anymore? As one anon put it, if an Amiga employee gave it away, they have only themselves to blame. Again, if it has been re-written in a different language (as Hyperion has done with 4.0), its relationship with the original is nebulous at best.

tony

[Jose]

Hey 8-)

"He has no proof that the MOS sources are stolen from AmigaOS and never will have."

But he did not say that.

"1) The limited usefulness of the AOS sources;"

Not quite. As an example, one of the Frieden brothers stated recently that AOS4 DOS library has ccmpatibility with even some very old code due to some issues that are not well documented in other "sources" (RKM etc.).

"2) The fact that MOS was begun with AROS sources, which are certainly not stolen;"

Well, what about the fact that some comments on the original source  were found on that C rebuild?
It's impossible that they didn't use it. Even if they  took off the parts that were used later, they allways used it cause they saw/studied the sources;)

"3) MOS (or rather QBox) is very different structurally than AOS. It has AOS emulation using native code, called ABox. No more, no less."

Wich is not very much "emulation" but API compatibility in the Amiga compatibility layer.


AInc. is probably so broke they can't even go to court about that.

[Kronos]

@Jose
The C-exec was supossed to be used in a future revision of AmigaOS und AT/Escom,
so using "the  sources" for that was 100% o.k (if they did).

What use would it be for MOS ?
Exec : 0.0 as the exec-library in MOS works completly different due to not
being the kernel of the OS.

GFX/Layers/Intui ? That has been done by building a replycement out of CGX, I rather
doubt that old 68k-chipset-hacking sources were of any use here  ;-)

DOS ? Well casting that trash away and replacing it with something sane was more
than needed anyways.

WB ? Amibient works different.
CLI(commands) lots of free replacements to be found on Aminet or in AROS.

Need I go on ?

[redrumloa]

1) This is referencing an old post just for clarity.
2) Feel free to discuss but please keep this thread free from flamewars.

[Jose]

@tony
Legally they can probably get away with almost anything regarding that anyway.
The main point is that these people didn't want to cooperate with AInc in the past and now are using  the sources that AInc payed millions for. Of course one can't judge without knowing the details, but they never wanted to show them anyway. Probably AInc wanted to control the OS and have big percentage of gains. Fair.
Some people will argue that they bought the sources,  but this shouldnt be the way for AmigaOS, cause any company that bought it could do what wanted and screw it over. Unfortunately AmigaOS is not public property.  I do agree that it's a shame if it got scewed like that and in the first days of Amino as AInc. they were doing just that. Ditch off AmigaOS. If  their current intentions towards it are intended to benefit  the communiny or just for their business sake, you can't know. But with Hyperion's work the community will benefit. It's not like "just the name", like when AmigaOS was gonna use QNX.

[Jose]

@Kronos
"@Jose
The C-exec was supossed to be used in a future revision of AmigaOS und AT/Escom,
so using "the sources" for that was 100% o.k (if they did)."

So why was Dave raising some doubtefullness about their actions?

Other points taken. True.

[JoannaK]

Jose: to me this looks like being part (or starting argument?) of that
"Get-legal" FUD-campaing AmigaInc+followers (especially Ben Hermans)
made year-year and half ago. At that time they could not show a thing,
nor they never got anything proven (or got into court) so I must
assume there really was no Case afterall.

And.. this mail is from closed mailing list.. Apparently other
mails on that list are not going to be published so it's a bit
selective isn't it? 8-)

[minator]

So why was Dave raising some doubtefullness about their actions?

Without the full context of the conversation that is impossible to tell.

However it's interesting following this (I've been following it since the original ANN thread) because there is no proof of anything here, only something abut a piece of code written 7 years ago had similar comments and on the other threads a load of other unsubstantiated accusations.

Did you know if you get different groups of people to write code independantly you get the same errors? (this has been found in academic studies).

Ever consider that the comments are similar because the developers are writing similar things?

There are a lot more questions than there are answers and some people talk about further information but are not offering it up - this sounds suspiciously like FUD...


As far as I can tell, there doesn't appear to be any case to answer.

[Jose]

@Joanna
" At that time they could not show a thing, nor they never got anything proven (or got into court) so I must assume there really was no Case afterall."

Or no money?...

"And.. this mail is from closed mailing list.. Apparently other
mails on that list are not going to be published so it's a bit
selective isn't it? "

Selective, yeah, maybe yes maybe not. Like you said we don't know what was on the mailing list do we? 8-) But it's allways interesting to know insider information, whatever it is.

[amigamad]

Isnt this old news now that has been forgoten . :-?

[dammy]

 Interesting?  No.  Mike Bouma dredging up old crap cuz he is no longer moderating Amiga issues on OSNews (question has arisen if this was voluntary or forced) and wanted to strike out against Genesi on a MooBunny thread.

Back several months ago when the talk was about Buck eventually buying out the last of Amiga Inc's IP when they go bust (wonder if McEwen has had his house foreclosed on yet?), if Buch would turn over WB 3 to AROS.  AROS stated they didn't want the source code because it was, more or less, useless to them.  If WB 3 is useless to AROS, just how much use would it be to base any MOS on?  Remember, a fair portion of MOS uses AROS code.   It's not a huge step of faith to see there is no logical nor legal connection between MOS/AROS and WB3.

Can we now close the lid of this decaying old can of worms?  

Dammy

[Cass]

@dammy

Back several months ago when the talk was about Buck eventually buying out the last of Amiga Inc's IP when they go bust (wonder if McEwen has had his house foreclosed on yet?),if Buch would turn over WB 3 to AROS. AROS stated they didn't want the source code because it was, more or less, useless to them. If WB 3 is useless to AROS, just how much use would it be to base any MOS on?

First of all these are all hypotheses. But the point you're trying to make doesn't have any sense : several months before, WB3 code would be useless to everybody, so this isn't a valid statement. The whole argument was based on a "old can of worms" several years before :-)

[DanDude]

Sooo, this can be true... stolen code inside MorphOS!!

Oooo, Amiga Inc. would love to go after them again...

 :-o