Does Hyperion own the rights to OS 3.1, 3.5, 3.9?

[WolfToTheMoon]

It is not possible to edit all 50,000 Amiga apps and convert them from Motorola 680x0 asm into coldfire asm.  Therefore Coldfire is not compatible.  Final Answer.

Not according to Atari Coldfire team...

[SIZE=-1]- CPU 266 MHz The main component of the MCF5474 is a ColdFire V4e Core. It is very  similar to the 680x0 CPU family, but not fully compatible. Basically,  some complex or rarely used instructions and addressing modes have been  removed. Thus the ColdFire CPU is more simple and cheaper than any 680x0  CPU, while being a lot faster. With an additional lightweight software  layer, the ColdFire CPU can be made compatible with existing 680x0  programs. [/SIZE]

They intend to run TOS/FreeMiNT on it so it is possible.

[ChaosLord]

Originally Posted by ChaosLord                                    
                 It is not possible to edit all 50,000 Amiga apps and convert them from Motorola 680x0 asm into coldfire asm. Therefore Coldfire is not compatible.  Final Answer.

Not according to Atari Coldfire team...

Not the first time Atari ST users were wrong about something.

[WolfToTheMoon]

Not the first time Atari ST users were wrong about something.

... but they sure got that Firebee thingy right. I'd love to have one like those to run OS 3.x... Good thing about Firebee is that you can use it as a PCI card in any PC or a standalone motherboard. It is a nice project.

[takemehomegrandma]

and what about earlier versions: 1.x and 2.x ?

"Does Hyperion own the rights to OS 3.1, 3.5, 3.9, and what about earlier versions: 1.x and 2.x ?"

No.

They don't.

They don't even own 4.0 or 4.1.x.

http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=587420&postcount=159

[TheGoose]

... but they sure got that Firebee thingy right. I'd love to have one like those to run OS 3.x... Good thing about Firebee is that you can use it as a PCI card in any PC or a standalone motherboard. It is a nice project.

Wow, why can't we be cool and do this for 68K Amiga:

http://www.atarimusic.net/index.php/component/content/article/37-fp-rokstories/66-atari-firebee-an-atari-coldfire-clone-built-for-music

[orb85750]

"Does Hyperion own the rights to OS 3.1, 3.5, 3.9, and what about earlier versions: 1.x and 2.x ?"

No.

They don't.

They don't even own 4.0 or 4.1.x.

http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=587420&postcount=159

I don't understand the scenario under which the OS was not properly transferred to AInc in the first place.  What?

[Gulliver]

I don't understand the scenario under which the OS was not properly transferred to AInc in the first place.  What?

Well basicly many former CBM/escom greedy marketing guys created a bunch of empty shells, better known over here, as ghost companies, to resell the remaining assets of CBM/Escom. In a certain point in time, they claimed they had legally acquired all the Amiga´s remaining IP. And suddenly Amiga Inc appeared shouting they own those IPs.

There is not a single proof that any of such IP was transferred.
It really seems that the real Amiga IP owner, now probably some big dog that absorved Gateway, doesnt give a rat ass about the Amiga both as a brandname, and regarding the IP it holds.
So whoever shouts louder now and has plenty of money to spend with lawyers can claim that brandname and IP.

[orb85750]

Well basicly many former CBM/escom greedy marketing guys created a bunch of empty shells, better known over here, as ghost companies, to resell the remaining assets of CBM/Escom. In a certain point in time, they claimed they had legally acquired all the Amiga´s remaining IP. And suddenly Amiga Inc appeared shouting they own those IPs.

Where is this possible scenario documented?  And if it's really so unclear who owns the OS, then why is Cloanto paying, and others (such as Natami) paying attention to copyrights?

[Gulliver]

Where is this possible scenario documented?  And if it's really so unclear who owns the OS, then why is Cloanto paying, and others (such as Natami) paying attention to copyrights?

Where?
It is history, just take a look at it, use google, or the wayback machine. Or ask an old enough really involved Amiga user.

Why?
Simple, they have a business to run, and as such they dont want to have troubles with lawyers, they only want to make money with products, not with lawyers.

Besides, Cloanto has a license way before the dreaded Amiga Inc. days.

No one, that is expecting to have a business these days, wants to risk troubles with their corporative image.

[orb85750]

Where?
It is history, just take a look at it, use google, or the wayback machine. Or ask an old enough really involved Amiga user.

Why?
Simple, they have a business to run, and as such they dont want to have troubles with lawyers, they only want to make money with products, not with lawyers.

Besides, Cloanto has a license way before the dreaded Amiga Inc. days.

No one, that is expecting to have a business these days, wants to risk troubles with their corporative image.

You are telling me to use Google because you don't know where such a history exists?  (That is a question, not a statement.)   Also, it seems that repeatedly paying somebody for something that they don't actually own is even worse than dealing with lawyers.  And dealing with Amiga Inc.? -- well, you be the judge of that.

[Gulliver]

You are telling me to use Google because you don't know where such a history exists?  (That is a question, not a statement.)   Also, it seems that repeatedly paying somebody for something that they don't actually own is even worse than dealing with lawyers.  And dealing with Amiga Inc.? -- well, you be the judge of that.

I wont try to change your views. I not only suggested google (There is also http://www.amiga.com old executive updates, Amino, Itec, Gateway, and Escom bankrupcy and lot more entities involved in this history. Plus ask an old enough Amiga user that was really living those times, and they will tell you), but then if you are keen on believing something else, it is of no use for me to try to tell you otherwise, so that you understand the story is not so simple and straightforward.
So really if you want to know, investigate for yourself, with an open mind.

Bottomline, if you think Amiga Inc. is/was the legit owner of the Amiga IP/brandname, then it is upto you.

[orb85750]

So far, everything I've found online indicates that the full Amiga IP was transferred from Escom to Gateway, then from Gateway to Amino.  Maybe I don't know where to look for the dirty details indicating ambiguity with the overall OS ownership.

EDIT: I certainly have not made up my mind.  My mind is open, but where specifically is some of the info to which you refer?

[Gulliver]

The ambiguity is that there is no factual proof that the "full" IP was transferred to Amiga inc. There are only claims made by Amiga Inc (which of course are biased, being the interested party).

[Iggy]

The ambiguity is that there is no factual proof that the "full" IP was transferred to Amiga inc. There are only claims made by Amiga Inc (which of course are biased, being the interested party).

Absolutely, which Amiga Inc. were you guys refering to? The west coast or east coast corporation?
Who says Amiga Inc. owns  anything? Bill M cEwen and you all trust him, right?

[cha05e90]

Like I always said just release KS/WB 0.9-3.1 into public domain and leave the beautiful legacy of Amiga to RIP in the hands of the retro fans who love and cherish

Very optimistic view on what's left of *really* talented coders who could have brought OS3.1-OpenSource into a modern shape. I'm happy with my OS3.9 machines, working stable with very few "updates" (99% from the original OS3.5/3.9 developers). That's it. What followed was mostly a big bang of half-geared wannabe optimizations that renderd my machines unusable. If this is what you meant with "loving and cherishing retro" people fiddling around: No, thanks.

[wawrzon]

@cha05e90: at least you are free to choose your best fit from a variety. not to speak of being left dependent on mercy of few spare time developers furtherly limited in what they do by a probably questionable buisness decisions. see olsen.