A McBill era Amiga history, long version

[sim085]

So where is the source of Workbench3.1? I thought that AROS and MorphOS where based on Workbench3.1 and that therefore these projects had the source code available! or not?

I am mostly referring to this diagram:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/AmigaOS_3_and_clones.svg

[arnljot]

@sim085

They are based on the AP, not the actual code it self.

However, there has been code exchange between AROS and MOS.

[kolla]

So where is the source of Workbench3.1?

Last known location - in the hands of OS4.x developers. Appearantly many things that were fixed and updated with OS3.5 and 3.9 never got into 4.x, as Hyperion never got the sources for those (who knows where they are now, locked up at H&P somewhere?), and basically had to start from 3.1 sources. Luckily for them, many of the devs that had helped with 3.5 and 3.9 also went onboard for 4.x so at least some of the 3.5/3.9 updates also went into 4.x.

I thought that AROS and MorphOS where based on Workbench3.1 and that therefore these projects had the source code available! or not?

No, they are reimplementations, not based on original sources. I suspect AROS at least could benefit alot from the 3.1 sources, if those would have been available. MorphOS developers in general has much deeper understanding (hehe) of how AmigaOS works (and is supposed to work) and have managed quite well without the help of the sources.

[cgutjahr]

is it correct to conclude that today the AmigaOS 3.1 copyright holder is non existant?

No. Even if Escom (and all its follow-ups) really could not prove the acquisition of the AmigaOS rights, somebody still owns them.

What is more important to you is that Hyperion now thinks it has many of these rights (including the right to prosecute people pirating the AmigaOS IP) - and Hyperion is not exactly known for being shy about legal battles.

So actually there is no proof of ownership or copyright holder

The German judge stated that "in the documents presented to him", he couldn't find proof for the acquisition of the Amiga rights by Escom. That's not the same as "you don't own these rights" or "there is no proof". Somebody claiming that Escom/Gateway/Amiga Inc. never owned these rights would still have to prove that in court.

only valid licenses that some few companies have since the time of Commodore

There are no licenses left from the Commodore days, the oldest licensee would be Cloanto - who got a license from Gateway.

[kolla]

No. Even if Escom (and all its follow-ups) really could not prove the acquisition of the AmigaOS rights, somebody still owns them.

The owners neither know nor care.

What is more important to you is that Hyperion now thinks it has many of these rights (including the right to prosecute people pirating the AmigaOS IP) - and Hyperion is not exactly known for being shy about legal battles.

If the real owners did care, Hyperion would be out of luck, right?
Also, what would Hyperion have to gain on such a battle? They dont give a rats ass about OS1.x upto OS 3.9.

And what did that last settlement between Amiga Inc. and Hyperion say about who's owning rights to what again?

The German judge stated that "in the documents presented to him", he couldn't find proof for the acquisition of the Amiga rights by Escom. That's not the same as "you don't own these rights" or "there is no proof". Somebody claiming that Escom/Gateway/Amiga Inc. never owned these rights would still have to prove that in court.

Only if Escom/Gateway/Amiga Inc. bothered to sue in the first place.

There are no licenses left from the Commodore days, the oldest licensee would be Cloanto - who got a license from Gateway.

Who might not have been in a situation to give them a license in the first place  - seriously, rights to this software has vapourized over the years, and the only sensible thing is to pretend noone owns it and tackle who-ever pretends to have those rights as they show up.

[unusedunused]

>So where is the source of Workbench3.1? I thought that AROS and MorphOS where based >on Workbench3.1 and that therefore these projects had the source code available! or not?

thats nice, but sadly this is not true.

AROS and MOS(that is based on AROS source) are complete rewritten.

when there was AOS source out, then many many years of developing can save.

I see that with AFA.80% of devloping time it cost me more because i have no AOS source and must need AROS source.

So i can really really confirm that when there was for AROS and MOS AOS source here, the systems are more far ahead.

[dannyp1]

cgutjahr said  "Somebody claiming that Escom/Gateway/Amiga Inc. never owned these rights would still have to prove that in court."

I think you've got that backwards.  If Hyperion claimed you were using their code, they would have to present the proof that they own it and not you.  They are the accuser.  I would also say that somebody had better come up with some more documentation quick if the judge says that he can't see where Escom ever acquired the rights.  cgutjahr also says "  That's not the same as "you don't own these rights" or "there is no proof". "  To me that is exactly what the judge is saying going by the papers in front of him.

[cgutjahr]

the real owners

I don't think you're in a position to judge who owns what. I'm certainly not - and in contrast to you I speak German and are actually able to read the judges's decision and reasoning.

Also, what would Hyperion have to gain on such a battle?

I'm not a Hyperion spokesperson, so I can't answer that. I was just trying to point out that m68k-amigaos might not be as abandoned as you think.

And what did that last settlement between Amiga Inc. and Hyperion say about who's owning rights to what again?

Perhaps you should reread it? Especially the part that grants Hyperion the rights to prosecute IP infringements on their own?

seriously, rights to this software has vapourized over the years, and the only sensible thing is to pretend noone owns it and tackle who-ever pretends to have those rights as they show up.

That's wishful thinking, nothing else. You don't get rid of the (quote) "piracy stigma" just by pretending it's not there.

[weirdami]

The word "expose" is use in the mission statement of that. So, there's that to consider.

[cgutjahr]

I would also say that somebody had better come up with some more documentation quick if the judge says that he can't see where Escom ever acquired the rights.

The judgement is dated July 1997 - Escom declared bancruptsy 12 months earlier and Amiga Technologies had been handled by a bancruptsy trustee during that period. Yes, somebody should have come up with some more documentation, but we're not talking about a working company where some experienced executive just has to phone his lawyer and ask him to fax the relevant documents.

cgutjahr also says "  That's not the same as "you don't own these rights" or "there is no proof". "  To me that is exactly what the judge is saying going by the papers in front of him.

I have no proof here that your car is really yours. Please hand your keys over to Kolla.

(yeah, finally a car analogy )

[dannyp1]

Thank you for making my point.  If you reported to the police that I had your car, they would first want to see your proof that it was yours.  

You also say that they would just have to call their lawyer to get the papers.  Here in Michigan we have our lawyers with us when we go to court.  Could an executive really forget to take his lawyer to court with him?

[kolla]

I don't think you're in a position to judge who owns what. I'm certainly not - and in contrast to you I speak German and are actually able to read the judges's decision and reasoning.

So just like that you assume that I'm not capable of reading German, huh.

I'm not a Hyperion spokesperson, so I can't answer that. I was just trying to point out that m68k-amigaos might not be as abandoned as you think.

I didnt  say it was abandoned, I'm saying the rights have vaporized, and with that I mean that noone really knows who owns what anymore. There's heaploads of "object code" in 3.1, 3.5, 3.9 and even 4.0 that is lots older than 3.0 - who owns those? OS 3.5 CD contains 3.1 in full, and 3.9 contains 3.5. Hyperion now claims rights on 3.1, but has it been verified that Amiga Inc. had those to license away in the first place?

Perhaps you should reread it? Especially the part that grants Hyperion the rights to prosecute IP infringements on their own?

I have read it, and if I remember correctly, it says that Amiga OS up to 3.1 is owned by this weird entity that we know as "Amiga Inc.", and that Hyperion is sole owner of AmigaOS 4. It also says that Hyperion is granted a worldwide royalty free, transferable rights to 3.1, to do whatever they like with it.

However, all this is based on the assumption that Amiga Inc. had ownership in the first place.

That's wishful thinking, nothing else. You don't get rid of the (quote) "piracy stigma" just by pretending it's not there.

There's just one way to find out, isn't there? Standing around doing nothing wont do any difference. Earlier people have tried to distribute kickstarts with updated scsi.device and fastfilesystem for large disks, and they have not been stopped by Hyperion or Amiga Inc., but by Cloanto - how whack is that?

[Hell Labs]

Give the amigaos rights to the current owners of tripos.

[rzookol]

There are no licenses left from the Commodore days, the oldest licensee would be Cloanto - who got a license from Gateway.

macrosystem had/has licence for amigaos3.1 (draco and cd version for cd32)

[dreamcast270mhz]

We REALLY need OS 3.1 open source, it would really help update it for classic amigans

[Tension]

I thought Village Tronic made 3.1 for Amigas?  Where do they fit into this?

(Yes, I know 3.1 was on the CD32 as well...)