New improved intuition.library version from the Kickstart 3.1

[guest11527]

Yeah right. No, I do not pay for Amiga software other than to have sources released  - enough is enough!

Whether it is open or closed source I do not even mind. What I would mind is that it is maintained.  

No matter what you think, "Open Source" does not mean unpaid work. I currently participating a little bit in the linux intel driver development (only very minor), yet you find that people there *are* getting paid by the big players that have some interest in the platform.

You seem to believe that everything that needs to happen is to make the source publically available, and the problem will be solved. That's not the case. It will replace one problem by another problem unless somebody "wears the hat" as we say here, i.e. has the final say what goes into the repository and what won't. No, I don't think that the average Amiga hacker is disciplined enough to accept a "no" in case it is a "no".

Then, in the end, it does not matter whether the sources are released or not as long as somebody cares. Currently, they are closed, and I frankly say that nobody cares, at least not for the 68K branch. Sad enough. There are enough things that could be done if there would be a way to do that without actually causing irritiation by anyone.  

But may lose all support and guarantees once your company goes belly up, or is bought up by people who do not give a damn. Yes, I do know that part of the IT industry quite well.

And how does that change with Open Source? It is just the same, as soon as the development team just considers the old software obsolete, you may have the source, cool, but you cannot really do anything about it because it's just a big pile of code you do not know how to work with. Projects got abandoned, and nobody picked them up. Open Source code is very volatile - whether your source still compiles with the latest version of libIdoNotcare.so you never know.

I worked in both ways, each has its advantages and its drawbacks, but just throwing the code into an OpenSource repository is not going to help much - unless somebody really cares about the result.  

I also work for a living, in the IT business, your way of talking was the mantra 10+ years ago, luckily times have changed.

Not really. In the end, somebody has to pay the party. Even for OpenSource if you care about quality or consistency. Again, I'm not against it. I'm against leaving it unmaintained.

[OlafS3]

Whether it is open or closed source I do not even mind. What I would mind is that it is maintained.  

No matter what you think, "Open Source" does not mean unpaid work. I currently participating a little bit in the linux intel driver development (only very minor), yet you find that people there *are* getting paid by the big players that have some interest in the platform.

You seem to believe that everything that needs to happen is to make the source publically available, and the problem will be solved. That's not the case. It will replace one problem by another problem unless somebody "wears the hat" as we say here, i.e. has the final say what goes into the repository and what won't. No, I don't think that the average Amiga hacker is disciplined enough to accept a "no" in case it is a "no".

Then, in the end, it does not matter whether the sources are released or not as long as somebody cares. Currently, they are closed, and I frankly say that nobody cares, at least not for the 68K branch. Sad enough. There are enough things that could be done if there would be a way to do that without actually causing irritiation by anyone.    And how does that change with Open Source? It is just the same, as soon as the development team just considers the old software obsolete, you may have the source, cool, but you cannot really do anything about it because it's just a big pile of code you do not know how to work with. Projects got abandoned, and nobody picked them up. Open Source code is very volatile - whether your source still compiles with the latest version of libIdoNotcare.so you never know.

I worked in both ways, each has its advantages and its drawbacks, but just throwing the code into an OpenSource repository is not going to help much - unless somebody really cares about the result.  

Not really. In the end, somebody has to pay the party. Even for OpenSource if you care about quality or consistency. Again, I'm not against it. I'm against leaving it unmaintained.

Open Sourcing is not solving everything, you still not only need someone for coordination you need developers contributing at all. There are lots of amiga sources on sourceforge, aminet or elsewhere that nobody develops on (ignition just one example that comes to my mind). But at least it is theoretical possible in opposite to many closed software where developers have vanished and any bugfix or adding features has become impossible. That is what Wawa meant. In my view Aros 68k is the only realistic path for 68k platform because there are people who care, f.e. Aros 68k automatically benefits of changes on the big brothers (X86...) on the other hand these benfit too because Aros can be tested against real working software. So a win-win. AmigaOS 68k will never be developed again because sticking between Hyperion and AmigaInc. and both are not interested in it.

Who will pay developers for coordinating development on AmigaOS 68k?

[buzz]

Then, in the end, it does not matter whether the sources are released or not as long as somebody cares. Currently, they are closed, and I frankly say that nobody cares, at least not for the 68K branch. Sad enough. There are enough things that could be done if there would be a way to do that without actually causing irritiation by anyone.    And how does that change with Open Source? It is just the same, as soon as the development team just considers the old software obsolete, you may have the source, cool, but you cannot really do anything about it because it's just a big pile of code you do not know how to work with. Projects got abandoned, and nobody picked them up. Open Source code is very volatile - whether your source still compiles with the latest version of libIdoNotcare.so you never know.

opening the source does not guarantee anything, but there are still skilled programmers out there that could pick up the source and contribute improvements, and there are examples of open sourcing stuff being a success on the Amiga. Had the OS3.x sources been released years ago, I am sure I would have got involved (and I know others that would have also)

I work for a living with open source (as well as in my spare time), and it works very well for me. I have also picked up projects that have been abandoned and have continued to develop them (along with setting up a bugtracker and development site etc). It does happen, and is made possible because the source was available.

Your comment regarding some library dependency is not specific to open source. If an old project doesn't compile, you have the opportunity to fix it, which is certainly a lot more useful than trying to get a 15 year old binary running.

[psxphill]

But the kind of reverse engineering that is going on here in Amigaland is explicitly legal.

Can you point me to where it is explicitly stated that it's legal?

[guest11527]

But the kind of reverse engineering that is going on here in Amigaland is explicitly legal.

IANAL, but the only case where reverse engineering is legal I know about is where you need compatibility of your product with an interface of another product, though that interface is not documented. In such a case, you may reverse engineer the other product for obtaining information how it works, then program against the interface you obtained. Even then, you're safer when following an approach where the engineer that does the reverse engineering is not the same that then finally implements the interface.

Taking the other product, disassembling it, then publishing the result as new work is certainly not legal. Providing patches for a second product... Well, I don't know, again IANAL, but it's at least something that's a bit critical. Problems start when the derived product from the patch violates third party rights. As it happened here for my BenchTrash project. With the patch applied, it says (c) 2014 Amiga, and *that* is certainly not correct. Of course, one cannot know as an outsider the details of the license agreements made back then, and thus cannot know that - in fact - it is again my copyright, and nobody elses, but at least it means that one shouldn't really touch it in first place being not aware of such touchy details.

In the end, I'm not p*ssed because it was assigned to Amiga. Details, maybe. Amiga would have known, and I know, too, so why bother so much... I'm upset because instead of patching it, a bug report would have helped, and that's the first thing that should have happened. Failing that and all other means, one can still try alternative means of resolving a problem.

[kickstart]

@psxphill

Years of x-copy on amiga land and now you are here crying for non sense, enjoy the library and shut up.

[wawrzon]

Then, in the end, it does not matter whether the sources are released or not as long as somebody cares. Currently, they are closed, and I frankly say that nobody cares, at least not for the 68K branch. Sad enough. There are enough things that could be done if there would be a way to do that without actually causing irritiation by anyone.

but as soon as nobody cares anymore, then its usually too late and the sources will not be released anymore. the project is then abandoned for good.

we know very well that whoever claims to own the sources do not care for 68k. why should that ever change? but maybe its better this way, since none can be completely sure about the legal status of this ip. clean start is imho better to steer clear of the whole torrent of intriques that has plagued the platform.

[psxphill]

Years of x-copy on amiga land and now you are here crying for non sense

 I'm not crying, I'm discussing facts not opinion. I'm not going to ignore facts just because they are inconvenient.
 

enjoy the library and shut up.

I don't do requests.

[Minuous]

however all this is void talk, since there is no chance in hell any sources were going open one way or the other.

Perhaps we should start a bounty to open source OS3.9? That has happened with various Amiga applications but curiously not with the operating system itself.

[warpdesign]

Perhaps we should start a bounty to open source OS3.9? That has happened with various Amiga applications but curiously not with the operating system itself.

OS3.9 contains various components from various companies (ie: Haage&Partner iirc). I guess you'd better off starting with OS3.x if you would like to open source something.

And seeing it's still been sold by Cloanto I'm afraid you'll have a hard time convincing anyone to open source it.

Releasing for free OS1.x (binaries only, except say/narrator stuff) could be possible though, and would be a good start.

[OlafS3]

I don't really think so. I believe if you'd know whom to ask and what to ask for, it should be very well possible to obtain them if you'd want them. Of course, this requires approaching people politely and having a reputation as software engineer (not as hacker), so I would assume that Cosmos is out.  

But anyhow, it's not my problem.  

I, however, believe they are. There are always methods to interact and approach the right people to get what you want. Not as open source, for certain. The guerilla type approach of course does not work. It is pretty much a matter of thrust.

It would be great if a developer with such experience like you would contribute and help on Aros 68k because I think it is not that far away from fully replacing AmigaOS, in UAE it is already (in my view). I am not more interested in a future with the ghosts of the past who are just doing their own politics and attacking each other instead of cooperating. The old sources should rest in peace we now have a new and open OS and a open Rom. In my view the parties involved have no interest in 68k, why should they support the development and I have no interest to be dependent on the grace of others.

[OlafS3]

OS3.9 contains various components from various companies (ie: Haage&Partner iirc). I guess you'd better off starting with OS3.x if you would like to open source something.

And seeing it's still been sold by Cloanto I'm afraid you'll have a hard time convincing anyone to open source it.

Releasing for free OS1.x (binaries only, except say/narrator stuff) could be possible though, and would be a good start.

It is a illusion to even think they could open source it. The sources would potentially speed up development on both AROS and MorphOS (regarding compatibility) and that would not be in the interest of everyone. Then the legal situation is (politely) a little "uncertain" so with whom do you want to negotiate? AmigaInc.? Hyperion? Both? And then there is still some money made with it so even if all problems would be solved how much money do you think the bounty should reach? 6000$ would certainly not be enough and the sums I think of are out of any reach today. And I personal think we now have a good replacement already that is open (Aros 68k) so instead of wasting money for old sources it would be better to invest in Aros 68k.

[warpdesign]

It is a illusion to even think they could open source it. The sources would potentially speed up development on both AROS and MorphOS (regarding compatibility) and that would not be in the interest of everyone. Then the legal situation is (politely) a little "uncertain" so with whom do you want to negotiate? AmigaInc.? Hyperion? Both? And then there is still some money made with it so even if all problems would be solved how much money do you think the bounty should reach? 6000$ would certainly not be enough and the sums I think of are out of any reach today. And I personal think we now have a good replacement already that is open (Aros 68k) so instead of wasting money for old sources it would be better to invest in Aros 68k.

While I agree AROS 68k has made great progress and may now substitue Amiga ROM in some cases (emulation), it still needs a lot of polish, optimisations and stability fixes to really replace it. The small WB replacement app for example (I'm not talking about the MUI one but the one written by Jason) is real slow and is missing lots of functionalities for example (and hasn't been updated for what.. a full year ?).

It seems AROS lacks focus: lots of things are started but never really finished. And it hasn't changed.

[warpdesign]

It is a illusion to even think they could open source it. The sources would potentially speed up development on both AROS and MorphOS (regarding compatibility) and that would not be in the interest of everyone. Then the legal situation is (politely) a little "uncertain" so with whom do you want to negotiate? AmigaInc.? Hyperion? Both? And then there is still some money made with it so even if all problems would be solved how much money do you think the bounty should reach? 6000$ would certainly not be enough and the sums I think of are out of any reach today. And I personal think we now have a good replacement already that is open (Aros 68k) so instead of wasting money for old sources it would be better to invest in Aros 68k.

It's true for the sources. Releasing 1.x 68k ROM images only for free wouldn't be that impossible though. And seeing how old it should have been released for free for non commercial use for a long time if you ask me.. But I'm not the sharks being Amiga

[Minuous]

OS3.9 contains various components from various companies (ie: Haage&Partner iirc). I guess you'd better off starting with OS3.x if you would like to open source something.

Well, it would be H&P that the bounty would be directed to, of course. AFAIK they are the only ones who actually have the OS3.9 source code. Hyperion certainly don't, and I doubt Amino has it either.

And seeing it's still been sold by Cloanto I'm afraid you'll have a hard time convincing anyone to open source it.

Well, the OS Cloanto provide is actually OS3.1 with a few bits of OS3.5+3.9 thrown in, it isn't the proper OS3.9, there is a page at their site admitting this. I don't think their permission would be required in any event, they don't hold the rights to OS3.9 source code.

Releasing for free OS1.x (binaries only, except say/narrator stuff) could be possible though, and would be a good start.

I agree, but that's an entirely different issue and wouldn't solve this problem.

[OlafS3]

While I agree AROS 68k has made great progress and may now substitue Amiga ROM in some cases (emulation), it still needs a lot of polish, optimisations and stability fixes to really replace it. The small WB replacement app for example (I'm not talking about the MUI one but the one written by Jason) is real slow and is missing lots of functionalities for example (and hasn't been updated for what.. a full year ?).

It seems AROS lacks focus: lots of things are started but never really finished. And it hasn't changed.

What exactly do you mean by "WB replacement app"? You mean the desktop? It has not been updated for years. It is in the process of being updated as far as I know but I do not know when. But (at least on 68k) it is not really important because you can use Magellan and Scalos (Scalos only works with certain older MUI classes so I do not support it). Icaros desktop 2.0 will be using Magellan too.

I must admit that it sometimes lacks focus in development. Priority should have been (from day one) 68k integration, stable and modern desktop, MUI on at least 3.8. and others. The priorities of Aros devs were different so people did not use it. But on 68k you can integrate 68k components like on MorphOS or AmigaOS (propably even better), so I have replaced Zune with MUI38 and Wanderer with Magellan. And that is only two examples. What is missing is optimizations and more support for classic hardware.

Next Icaros desktop sounds very promising but of course 68k still works as a blackbox and that will stay the same in future.