Video of Vampire board

[polyp2000]

Indeed I do not respect choices, I reserve my respect for _people_, and how much I respect people, depends on their choices. So, when people keep doing silly choices, I respect them less. Just because someone wrote some good code, does not make them good people, there are brilliant coders who are really terrible people and who do a lot of bad choices. I have little respect for them.



What I am saying is that authors who care about their work, better come out and show it, and do it themselves and not by proxy of people they barely have any contact with.

Remember how copyright laws started? It was all about what is beneficial for _society_ in general. Same with patent laws. This original agenda has long since been hijacked by people with much sinister agendas.



Nonsense. Opening up the platform is what can actually help people support it. The level of hypocrisy in Amiga community is staggering, how so called "piracy" is "ok" as long as it doesn't happen in the "open". Look at Cloanto, when you buy AmigaForever 2016 it comes with loads of cracked games and even "illegal" firmware for CSPPC for OS4.1SE to work. Look at Reaction aka ClassAct, now the official OS4 "toolkit"... how pleased are Caldi et al these days about how that "deal" went through? Who is screwing over who here??



I was never in the P96 "club", I always used CGFx whenever possible, and it is in a much healthier state than P96. For example, the CGfx3 SDK is where such SDKs should be - on aminet.
 


I am blaming them for picking a really bad business model for developing such software, as in doing "bad choices" (see above).




I work for a non-profit to bring Internet to higher education institutes in Norway, I am paid to design and implement solutions that enables and allows research and education to take place in ways and locations where it has not been possible before. Like in the Arctic areas for example. We pick open source over closed source whenever possible. We pay people to write open source, we even sometimes take "dead" open source projects and revive them.



Because I do a good job, matching their expectations. Coding, hacking, chewing gum and glue, so that students and researches can have working internet access wherever they go, in my country and beyond.

Most importantly - I do work that actually matters to my society, and no strings attached, hence society pays me.



I do that too, I got more projects than I have time for, doing stuff for free. It happens that I volunteer for work that I find satisfying.



My conclusion is that since the authors chose to not care, why should anyone else.



Software that is locked away and not maintained _is_ worthless. For example, how much worth is the P96 SDK right now? How useful is it _right this moment_? Tell me, so I can pay for it in hard currency, and liberate it.

This is precisely the problem with binary only software. Once a software developer decides to cease support and development , what precisely are you paying for? By opening it up for others to continue developing you are allowing your work to grow , mature and potentially have the support of a community.

What precisely does the license grant you ?
1) Entitlement to future updates ? - No , development is stagnant
2) Support when things go wrong ? - Doubtful why would an inactive developer care?

What does this grant the developer of P96?
Given the above. possibly some pennies every now and again.

No-one  benefits from this , least of all the Amiga community.

What we should be doing is supporting ACTIVE developers and projects that have some sort of long term future.

We know all this though - when the final nails were in the coffin of commodore
development stopped , there were no more machines, no new hardware. The OS development continued, but the current developer has decided its better to target high priced PPC hardware for no relevant reason. The community stepped in - we now have mature alternatives such as AROS, which has been ported to different architectures - and the OS will have a future even if AmigaOS4 development stopped altogether.  Sneer all you want about Open Source but without it and alternatives AmigaOS dies when Hyperion dies.

There is no problem with closed source software however - but developers should really think hard why they shouldnt open up the code when the doors are closed for the last time.

[Acill]

You know what, lock this damn thread now. You all have turned a thread about an awesome new product into the typical argumentative hate crap this small community is known for driving people away. Just knock it off and get back on topic!

As far as P96 and payment goes, where is the payment system so those that want to send in something can? I have never seen it, and I have bought two Picasso IV cards.

[polyp2000]

I see no hate  -
I see some good discussion about the drawbacks and benefits of different development models.
Theres no mudslinging or hate that i can see.

Either way perhaps you are right about going a bit off topic!

[psxphill]

I am paid to design and implement solutions that enables and allows research and education to take place in ways and locations where it has not been possible before.

So if you did a design and your company decided to not pay you but use it anyway, you'd still have the design so you wouldn't mind not being paid?

[guest11527]

As far as P96 and payment goes, where is the payment system so those that want to send in something can? I have never seen it, and I have bought two Picasso IV cards.

P96 wasn't licensed like that. You - as the end user - got a license from the vendor, in your case VillageTronic (the maker of the Picasso IV). VillageTronic licensed the product from Tobias and Alex, and for that you already paid for P96. Thanks for that!

The problem with Elbox was is that they shipped P96 drivers without licensing the product from the developers.  

For the vampire, I hope it can be arranged similar to VillageTronic, namely selling the product (the vampire) along with the license to P96. The fee for the later goes to the developers and maintainers.

Sounds like a fair deal to me...

[nicholas]

Look, all this arguing really makes me sad. IANAL, but: If the authors ask for money for the SDK, I believe it is really fair to comply with that.  

You're just stating "arguments" to go cheap. No, sorry. P96 was good work, and it deserves some monetary feedback if the authors ask for it.

Consider how you would feel like: You created a piece of art, and all you hear from your neighbours how to get hands on it without paying. Do you see what's wrong here?

Don't release something as GPL if you don't want people to use it according to that licence, it's simple really.

PS I paid for P96 when I bought my PIV.

[guest11527]

This is precisely the problem with binary only software. Once a software developer decides to cease support and development , what precisely are you paying for? By opening it up for others to continue developing you are allowing your work to grow , mature and potentially have the support of a community.

The question, at this point, is not what you like or dislike. The point is that Tobias and Alex, at their time, made a particular choice for licensing their product. I believe it is fair to respect this.

Apparently, this already seems to be too much for some people.

What precisely does the license grant you ?

P96 was licensed to hardware developers. Not to end users. It grants access to the SDK of P96 and hence the ability to develop rtg graphics hardware.

If the hardware vendor goes out of business, this grants *you* as end user nothing. But this goes for every hardware, not only computers, does it?  

No-one  benefits from this , least of all the Amiga community.

What we should be doing is supporting ACTIVE developers and projects that have some sort of long term future.

We know all this though - when the final nails were in the coffin of commodore.

What exactly do you expect? That idiots like me write software for free? I have no problem with "work for money". There were not enough users for a sustainable development, so CBM went bankrupt. To a good degree on their own fault because they simply lost contact to the market and failed to modernize their product.  

The OS development continued, but the current developer has decided its better to target high priced PPC hardware for no relevant reason.  

Probably for the reason of hoping to make some money? That's a fair deal. Luckily, I never jumped on this particular bandwagon as I did not believe in this market in first place...  

The community stepped in - we now have mature alternatives such as AROS, which has been ported to different architectures - and the OS will have a future even if AmigaOS4 development stopped altogether.  

This is precisely were we differ. AmigaOs does not have a future. The Os is to a major degree a mis-design not ready for the requirements of at least a half-way decent computer. AmigaOs is a retro-Os for outdated machines - which you use for the joy of it. I would be glad to fix up a couple of loop-holes and bugs, fix the worst problems that are show-stoppers for many users, but that's not "a future".  

If you want a "fixed AmigaOs", go get Linux. It does everything AmigaOs did, just better, faster, on modern hardware, and it is Open Source.  

There is no problem with closed source software however - but developers should really think hard why they shouldnt open up the code when the doors are closed for the last time.

I've certainly nothing against that and it would be a kind move. It's however not always so easy as the rights are rarely directly at the developers. So for example, if you develop software for a company, and the company goes bankrupt, the software is then owned by the liquidator. The priority is then to pay the debts of the company by selling the software to interested parties, and not to open it up. Or to put it like this: If you invested money in the company, you would also be irritated if the properties of the company would be given away for free instead of returning your investment to you...

However, as it seems, this is not the case for P96. The software is, as far as I read it, solely owned by Tobias and Alex, so my hope is not lost.

[polyp2000]

To a good degree on their own fault because they simply lost contact to the market and failed to modernize their product.
Sounds like you agree with me here.

... Probably for the reason of hoping to make some money? That's a fair deal. Luckily, I never jumped on this particular bandwagon as I did not believe in this market in first place...
Money for old rope springs to mind here.  

If you want a "fixed AmigaOs", go get Linux. It does everything AmigaOs did, just better, faster, on modern hardware, and it is Open Source.  

Dont need to tell me that - been feeling the benents for some years now.

[Terminills]

I'm not sure how the UAE component came into being and who created it and whether this was done under license from Tobias and Alex, but at least one manufacturer (Elbox) reverse engineered the P96 interface without paying for the license, very much to the dislike of Alex and Tobias. Which, in one way or another, let to the halt of development. Thank you, Elbox!

Brian King created it...

http://amiga-news.de/en/news/AN-2001-10-00276-EN.html


/*
 * UAE - The U*nix Amiga Emulator
 *
 * Picasso96 Support Module Header
 *
 * Copyright 1997 Brian King Brian_King@Cloanto.com>
 */

[SamuraiCrow]

Re:P96 vs. CGX3
If P96 has significant barriers to entry, the AROS implementation of CyberGraphics 3 could be used via a hybrid entity like AfaOS.

Re:MMU
The most likely option for big-box Amigas will be an MMU that is designed around Amiga's usage of an MMU rather than the complex beast of an MMU required for Unix or Linux.

[yssing]

This thread was initially really great, but turned into crap.

What is the big deal with paying for stuff you use? I honestly have no issue paying for things I use.
Stealing is why we can't have nice things.

[SamuraiCrow]

This thread was initially really great, but turned into crap.

What is the big deal with paying for stuff you use? I honestly have no issue paying for things I use.
Stealing is why we can't have nice things.

Who said this is about money?  People can be paid to work on open-source code just like they are for closed-source.  The difference is the business model.  The former is paid for as labor covered by programming bounties and the like while closed source is paid for by selling a product.  Either way people get paid.

[guest11527]

Who said this is about money?  People can be paid to work on open-source code just like they are for closed-source.  The difference is the business model.  The former is paid for as labor covered by programming bounties and the like while closed source is paid for by selling a product.  Either way people get paid.

No problem with that either - it is a choice you can make as an author. However, this choice hasn't been made by Tobias and Alex. Like it or dislike it, but that's where we are.

Now look at Kolla's approach. He's suggesting just to take the source and ignore the choice the authors made. I'll call this asocial.

[nicholas]

This thread was initially really great, but turned into crap.

What is the big deal with paying for stuff you use? I honestly have no issue paying for things I use.
Stealing is why we can't have nice things.

 How is using the GPL licenced uaegfx driver in full accordance with the terms it is licenced under "stealing"?

[guest11527]

How is using the GPL licenced uaegfx driver in full accordance with the terms it is licenced under "stealing"?

I do not know. I haven't licenced it. Ask Tobias and Alex whether this is a legimitate driver or not. And, as I said before, the uae part of the uaegfx component (written in C) is only the end-point of the 68K P96 endpoint of the driver. Whether *that* has been licensed and by whom I do not know.


As a side note, no, you cannot built a graphics card driver from the UAE C component. That doesn't depend on the SDK. It only depends on the 68K interface part that, more or less, just traps into UAE. The SDK comes with a full definition of stuctures and components, and those are not part of the GPL'd source - mostly because they are not needed by UAE in first place.

Just for your information: If I'm the author, I can of course decide to change the license of some components under GPL if I like to. Or sub-license them.

So please, could you please stop to try to construct a case that P96 is under GPL, or its SDK is under GPL? It isn't. Or if you don't believe me, go get a lawyer to clarify.

Until then, could you just please be so kind and respect that Tobias and Alex did not want to put P96 under GPL or OpenSource? That was clearly their intention. Even if you do not like that.

[nicholas]

I do not know. I haven't licenced it. Ask Tobias and Alex whether this is a legimitate driver or not. And, as I said before, the uae part of the uaegfx component (written in C) is only the end-point of the 68K P96 endpoint of the driver. Whether *that* has been licensed and by whom I do not know.

Just for your information: If I'm the author, I can of course decide to change the license of some components under GPL if I like to. Or sub-license them.

So please, could you please stop to try to construct a case that P96 is under GPL, or its SDK is under GPL? It isn't. Or if you don't believe me, go get a lawyer to clarify.

Until then, could you just please be so kind and respect that Tobias and Alex did not want to put P96 under GPL or OpenSource? That was clearly their intention. Even if you do not like that.

 The P96 uaegfx driver *is* licenced under the GPL whether you like it or not. This is a fact and as long as it is used in full accordance with the terms it is licensed under there is nothing you nor anyone else can do to stop someone using it whether you like it or not.  I have not made the claim that P96 itself nor its SDK are licenced under the GPL, nor has anyone else. Please stop making false claims to win an argument, stick to facts and you can't go wrong.  The uaegfx driver was licenced from Tobias and Alex by Cloanto and written by Brian King. It is as "official" as any of the other p96 drivers (with the exception of the Elbox driver).