Unofficial CyberGraphX v4 bug fixes

[Oldsmobile_Mike]

Reading between the lines, @itix says "I remember this bug. Long ago".  That sounds to me like this bug has existed for years, possibly even decades, during which the original author could have addressed it.  If they cared about the Amiga, at all...  

When is the last time an official release came out, anyway?  phase5.a1k.org says 2005.  The official website cybergraphx.de is offline.  Aminet has an update from 2008.  Does development on this application continue, outside of what hobbyists and enthusiasts like Cosmos push forward?  'cause 7+ years with no release sounds like abandonware, to me...

[utri007]

Few weeks ago? CGX v5 is part of MorphOS

[Bugala]

@Topic

First of all, thanks Tobias Richter for bringing this point of view up, for I havent actually even thought about that at all, and I think you are right that it should first be asked from the original author.

I would like to point out another thing too however, mainly regarding these "no answer" comments.

For when dealing with NCB, Nordisk Copyright Bureau (the one that follows the rights of all the songs together with other similars) one of the things is that if I would like to make a cover of someone elses work, I first have to contact the author.

However, If I have reasonably tried to contact the author, and this is thought to be as little as having sent the original author a letter to snail mail address that is registered in NCB for that author, or official contact address (probably even email) of authors record company/manager, supposing that is handling this authors stuff, then if i receive no reply, NCBs rules then state that I would have gotten the approval to use that song then.

I think that is quite sensible rule, although there is of course difference to this one, since when that original author first signed to NCB, he agreed to this rule, wether he himself realised it or not, unlike in this cybergraphx case, in which the author have not agreed to anything.

Just thought to point that out for this discussions sake.

[Oldsmobile_Mike]

CGX v5 is part of MorphOS

#Facepalm.  That helps classic users, how?

[guest11527]

However, If I have reasonably tried to contact the author, and this is thought to be as little as having sent the original author a letter to snail mail address that is registered in NCB for that author, or official contact address (probably even email) of authors record company/manager, supposing that is handling this authors stuff, then if i receive no reply, NCBs rules then state that I would have gotten the approval to use that song then.

I think that is quite sensible rule, although there is of course difference to this one, since when that original author first signed to NCB, he agreed to this rule, wether he himself realised it or not, unlike in this cybergraphx case, in which the author have not agreed to anything.

It's a sensible rule. Whether that would withstand in court is another business, but that's probably not even my point.

All I'm saying is: Please be nice to developers. Make at least an attempt to contact them, and give them a chance to react. That's really not asking for too much. It is a minimum matter of respect that should be shown.

If contacting the author fails, well, one can still start patching. It puts the one uploading the patch into a somewhat dangerous position, though, but that's then at least not my personal risk...

If the answer is, "please do not touch my work", well, then that's also an answer, maybe not the one you'd like to hear, but even then, please respect this. In many if not most cases I've observed, this was - however - not what I received as a response from the authors, so I wouldn't take the worst possible outcome as a motivation to start an unauthorized patch.

[LoadWB]

Does development on this application continue, outside of what hobbyists and enthusiasts like Cosmos push forward?  'cause 7+ years with no release sounds like abandonware, to me...

There is no such legal construct.

I'm job less and I have no money to give, sorry...

This is a woefully facile argument, one I tire of reading over and over again.  With the number of community-funded bounties, Kickstart and IndiGoGo projects out there, not having money for a particular project is a non-starter.  In fact, repeating it every time someone criticizes your work*  seems like you are fishing for sympathy.

If Developer X wants $Y for someone to take over his or her rights to a particular product, there is no reason not to run over to Amiga.org, EAB, AA, and others to put up a post saying "Hey, I want to improve Product X, and the developer wants $Y for the rights.  If you want to see this great product supported by a great active developer, please donate here!"

If Developer X ignores you or is otherwise not open to your advances, then a public post about the issue could elicit others to step in and advise or assist.  At the very least it could open an underground of support for your project.

* To be sure, I understand your work to be heartfelt and by many accounts very good; a true labor of love.  I, for one, appreciate you are willing to tackle the problems, though I believe, as others have mentioned, a better approach exists to disseminating your work.

[guest11527]

When is the last time an official release came out, anyway?  phase5.a1k.org says 2005.  The official website cybergraphx.de is offline.  Aminet has an update from 2008.  Does development on this application continue, outside of what hobbyists and enthusiasts like Cosmos push forward?  'cause 7+ years with no release sounds like abandonware, to me...

Maybe it has been abandoned. However, wouldn't it be much nicer to hear this statement from the author that (apparently) abandoned the project? And then post that answer here? At least that would help everybody else to make a decision which product to pick (P96 is not quite that abandoned, for example) or how to handle the software.

So for example, if we hear from the authors "year, do whatever you want with it", then at least this could possibly motivate another group to pick up the project and start working from it.

Just guessing... well, I don't know. It seems *likely* that you are correct, but I believe there's only one person that should decide. Hint: None of us here.

[guest11527]

Well, why not just release the patch as a separate executable that applies the patch to the original CyberGraphX V4, that would be legal no ?

Look, I'm not a lawyer. Maybe. Most product licenses have a clause that forbids reverse engineering. Whether that's a valid clause I do not know either... So please don't ask for a legal advice here.

One way or another, that's really not my point here. I'm really p*ssed by the overall attitute. "Oh well, this project was not moved forward in the last X years, so just let's patch it up how I like it and publish it".

Folks, that's not how you approach authors. Yeah, it is *probably* ok, but hey, what is so damn hard just to write a short email and simply *ask* about it, right? That hurts nobody, just be nice and act professional.

If there is no reply, or a negative reply, one can *still* get angry. But that's really a bit premature at this point, isn't it? I mean, I personally also never liked P5 overly, and I was also not treated nicely by them, but that *still* does not mean that I'm simply taking their work and hack it up and post it somewhere. It's not how I would like this world to function.

[Rob]

@amigakit

Ok, please delete this thread...

How much work would it be to make an executable that patches the original binary?

[itix]

If contacting the author fails, well, one can still start patching. It puts the one uploading the patch into a somewhat dangerous position, though, but that's then at least not my personal risk...

It would be better use SetPatch() to patch this library vector to save D2 before calling original function and restore D2 on return. However, developers knowing said function clobbers D2 can work around it without resorting to tricks (IIRC the result is D2 = D2 + width).

Anyway, CGX is not abandonded, it is part of MorphOS, and the latest update was just few weeks ago. It is copyrighted stuff and Cosmos has no right to release "new" CGX4 versions.

[Oldsmobile_Mike]

Maybe it has been abandoned. However, wouldn't it be much nicer to hear this statement from the author that (apparently) abandoned the project? And then post that answer here?

That sounds very reasonable and all, I just don't see the world working in that way.  While we're at it, can we get Holger Kruse to post up publicly that he's abandoned Miami?  Stefan Stuntz to stop skiing for a moment to come to Amiga.org and post that he's abandoned MUI?  Etc.  It seems to me, and granted this is just my experience and all, but when a person abandons something, they don't come out and make some grand statement that we can all reference later.  Usually they just walk away.  Sometimes they die, or whatever.  And occasionally, very occasionally, they're kind enough to release all their code to Aminet for the world.  But that's pretty rare.  

I don't even use CGX.  I don't care and have no dog in this fight.  I found P96 works much better for my purposes.  But if I was a classic user running CGX and hadn't seen an update in 7+ years, I'd be glad as he** for someone like Cosmos to come along and release a bugfix version.

[Jose]

"How much work would it be to make an executable that patches the original binary? "

Pretty easy, specially considering it's just a few asm instructions to save/restore the register.

[motrucker]

I am in the process of buying a new (old) graphics card for my Amiga A2000. Guess I get to wade through all of this quite soon. So far, I only have v3, so I need to upgrade to version 4 where?

[Kronos]

 Cosmos.

+

bugfix

Oxymoron detected

[Iggy]

No, lousy work. Really, guys. There is no reason to applaud. There's a reason to be mad about it. It's another sad example how the "community" (or absence thereof) threads its developers (or ex-developers).

It would have been just so easy: Simply ask the author (Frank?) about the bug, ask him kindly to fix it, or provide ideas what to do about it, or for permission to fix it. Nothing is easier than that!

Consider you've created a painting or a building (as an architect) and somebody else comes along and repaints the eyes or puts another roof on top. That's simply not how you treat people that invested quite some time and had a hard job completing the building or painting in first place. You just damn ask them, that's the absolute minimum I would expect.

As an architect, you are even protected by law from third-party modifications on your creation, I believe it's not asking for too much to show the same level of respect to software architects.

If the answer of the architect would be "go, p*ss off!", you can still react on that, but in most cases, it was not when I tried (with exceptions, of course). And, on the plus side, it keeps such developers motivated to invest time in their work.  

Stuff like that - pirating other's people's work and messing with it in the way they may or may not have intended - is not going to help! Actually, it may seem to help on a short time scale, but it will motivate nobody to invest some time into their old projects. Bug reports, on the other hand, or hints for improvement, may! Yes, it takes longer, but yes, it may be worth at least giving it a try.  

I'm not even commenting on the correctness of the patch. I don't know. It's not my work, and not my bug. But the form of communication, and the way that some people even applaud on this is just something that makes *me* mad.

Folks, if you want to be part of a serious community, act professional!

I doubt Frank Mariak would have much interest in repairing something he wrote that long ago.
Besides, even if he still has an Amiga, he already has his hands full developing for MorphOS.

[kamelito]

Why not just use the Aros version ?
Kamelito