New Kickstart 3.9.1 68k on the way

[Oldsmobile_Mike]

It's true that back in the day I ran Kickstart 3.0 from an A1200 on an A500 with a phase vi 14mhz 68000 (I didn't try 3.1 as I bought the a500 upgrade). It's true that they cherry picked different releases for each platform based on which worked at the time they submitted the 3.1 roms to manufacturing (I'm sure that years ago there was an description written by someone at commodore about why they picked each one). it's true that they could have produced one that worked in them all if there was a financial reason to.

I assume you mean you soft-kicked this, because I don't see how you would've gotten the two ROM's from an A1200 to fit in the one socket on an A500.  

3.1 was released after C= went bankrupt.  I think it was by Village Tronic.

I'm dubious of how much "020 optimization" went into any of these releases.  Think that was more on the Workbench software side, than in the ROM's?

[johnklos]

Now, what an irony. Here comes the ignorant of licences, and he's irritated by somebody ignoring "his hard work" he has stolen by ignoring somebody else's hard work... Oh boy...[/LEFT]
[/CENTER]

That's just plain ignorant. When someone takes someone else's work and appropriates it for profit without a word of acknowledgement, that's BAD. Simple.

[guest11527]

That's just plain ignorant. When someone takes someone else's work and appropriates it for profit without a word of acknowledgement, that's BAD. Simple.

Oh, really.... And what's Cosmos doing here?

[Oldsmobile_Mike]

Is he making a profit off it somehow?

[guest11527]

Is he making a profit off it somehow?

That does not matter for legal aspects. It's using somebody's original work and releasing it to the public without having any rights on the work. Exec and Intuition did not fall from the sky. These are copyrighted protected works, owned by whomever has rights on it. Stealing a book from a bookstore and offering it for free for everyone on the street is still illegal, no matter whether he's selling the work or giving it away for free.

But it's really quite simple. If he believes that the owner has no interest in the work - get in touch with the owner and find out. I would consider that at least two parties would be interested here. Did he?

[Cosmos Amiga]

That does not matter for legal aspects. It's using somebody's original work and releasing it to the public without having any rights on the work. Exec and Intuition did not fall from the sky. These are copyrighted protected works, owned by whomever has rights on it. Stealing a book from a bookstore and offering it for free for everyone on the street is still illegal, no matter whether he's selling the work or giving it away for free.

But it's really quite simple. If he believes that the owner has no interest in the work - get in touch with the owner and find out. I would consider that at least two parties would be interested here. Did he?

Why are you so stupid ?

All my releases were for free download ! And my sources are private.

I started since about 4 years now : I got about 300-400 € donations.

So, it's 7.30 € per month... Whaou, I'm millionnaire now !!!

AmigaOS 68k is abandonned since many years...

And back in the days, all coders were paid for these libraries : now with copyright & licence, it's money without any works...

[olsen]

The A1200,A3000,A4000 & CD32 versions are 020+ optimized .. not working on 68000.

I did not check the details just yet, but the use of '020 specific code is rare in the bulk of the operating system, which would be components such as intuition.library, graphics.library, workbench.library, etc. The 'C' compilers used at the time were not considered sufficiently mature to produce '020 code suitable for ROM code.

This leaves components written in assembly language, or those which use assembly language subroutines. This would likely include the utility.library which contains integer math routines optimized for '020 CPUs.

The CD32 ROM is peculiar, by the way, because of its size, which like the CDTV ROM includes all the assets of the user interface (sound, graphics, animations, etc.), the CD-ROM file system and game "middleware".

The A3000 is very special .. the ONLY rom with real FPU-code inside !!!

I would expect that this is in "mathieeesingbas.library".

A600/A1200 includes some PCMCIA-code.

Yes, and the operating system auto-detects the presence of the hardware. For example, the A600 ROM is used in the A500+, the A600 and the A2000, if I remember correctly. Of these only the A600 has the necessary hardware to support PCMCIA devices.

A3000/4000 includes "bonus" for onboard fastmem.

Yes, and it may be that this could be safely omitted, or the necessary hardware could be auto-detected. As it is, the "bonus" module is hard-coded to expect the Ramsey chip to be present and acts accordingly.

[kamelito]

The AFA project was supposed to update AmigaOS for 68k but failed at this point it seems, but the idea is actually good.

Kamelito

[guest11527]

Why are you so stupid ?

All my releases were for free download ! And my sources are private.

Because you misunderstand one central point. These are *not* *your* sources. They belong to somebody else. Whether you give them away for free or not is completely irrelevant for the question.  

AmigaOS 68k is abandonned since many years...

That does not make them open source. Just for your information, a "creative work" becomes "public" 70 years after the death of its creator. IOW, we'll still have to wait a long time until AmigaOs becomes "free".

Again, what's your problem of simply approaching the right holders and ask them a very simple question. "Can I use your sources in my hobby project"? The way you're acting right now does violate the rights of these partners. You can either develop from scratch (which you don't), or you can ask for a licence (which you didn't either).  

That's not stupid - that's just what the situation is.

[bloodline]

The AFA project was supposed to update AmigaOS for 68k but failed at this point it seems, but the idea is actually good.

Kamelito

Failed?

[bloodline]

Why are you so stupid ?

Thomas isn't stupid, he's simply stating copyright law... If you don't like the law, you need to take that up with the elected representive for your country's government.

[Pentad]

Because you misunderstand one central point. These are *not* *your* sources. They belong to somebody else. Whether you give them away for free or not is completely irrelevant for the question.   That does not make them open source. Just for your information, a "creative work" becomes "public" 70 years after the death of its creator. IOW, we'll still have to wait a long time until AmigaOs becomes "free".

Again, what's your problem of simply approaching the right holders and ask them a very simple question. "Can I use your sources in my hobby project"? The way you're acting right now does violate the rights of these partners. You can either develop from scratch (which you don't), or you can ask for a licence (which you didn't either).  

That's not stupid - that's just what the situation is.

Let me clear some points up for you:

1.  I'm not sure what you mean by "creative work" but if you are referring to a copyright it is 70 years after the death of the author.  Creator is vague and has different meanings in copyright.

2.  If you mean "Creative Commons" then you are going to be really surprised.

3.  Finally, none of this applies to Cosmos.  He is French. Viva la France!

[olsen]

Thomas isn't stupid, he's simply stating copyright law... If you don't like the law, you need to take that up with the elected representive for your country's government.

The words "stupid" and "copyright law" tend to go awfully well together these days, though. But just because one fails to take the laws seriously it does not follow that they do not apply in this case.

[olsen]

Let me clear some points up for you:

1.  I'm not sure what you mean by "creative work" but if you are referring to a copyright it is 70 years after the death of the author.  Creator is vague and has different meanings in copyright.

2.  If you mean "Creative Commons" then you are going to be really surprised.

3.  Finally, none of this applies to Cosmos.  He is French. Viva la France!

I am not a lawyer. The last time I had a look at how these things play out my impression was as follows:

1) There's the Berne convention, which covers works created by authors and those created for and owned by corporations. Protection covers 70 years after the death of the author, and 120 years after the creation of the work as owned by a corporation.

2) The protection/restrictions given by this legal framework do apply to citizens of the member states of the European Union.

3) Ownership of the Amiga operating system and its components, as well as works created for the AmigaOS updates 3.5 and 3.9 which may be relevant here is rather well-defined.

4) Authors and owners of said Amiga operating system and AmigaOS update 3.5/3.9 components may not want to enforce these rights, or may not be in a position to do so. It does not follow that their rights, in particular the moral rights of the authors, are forfeit if they do not enforce them.

[eliyahu]

@Cosmos

can you please clarify whether you are merely distributing patches to commercial software or the commercial software itself already patched? if the former that's one thing, but if you're actually distributing components like exec.library and so forth, that is illegal. period.

-- eliyahu

[guest11527]

The words "stupid" and "copyright law" tend to go awfully well together these days, though. But just because one fails to take the laws seriously it does not follow that they do not apply in this case.

Unfortunately, and I also believe that an owner should make use of its rights to make them applicable. Unfortunately, that's not the case, and yes, maybe that's truly stupid, but I can't fix it. AmigaOs would, indeed, profit a lot if all the copyright nonsense would not apply and their owners would understand that they could possibly profit from the community by following a more open approach, not even necessarily open source.  

However, in this particular case, all the laws aside, the whole situation could be resolved just by better communication, and a cooperative approach instead of the Guerilla tactics approach to the problem. Heck, it even worked for me.

Cosmos might be a brilliant assembler coder, but he's a lousy negotiator. That goes probably for many of us here (including myself) but at some point you need to realize that talking to people and listening to their motivations might help your project more than just starting to program and throwing your work into the internet - without asking a couple of serious questions and approaching the right people to clear up the situation.