[UserReview] Vampire V2-128 received and it's just pure p0rn.

[guest11527]

AROS Cybergraphics is illegal?

As long as it is based on the P96 API, it is. There is likely a native CGfx API, though.

Has Frank Mariak claimed so?

I do not know what the conditions are for a third party to offer a CGfx driver. I can only tell you want the conditions for the P96 API are.

 Currently, the drivers use the P96 API, and *that* is not valid.

[nicholas]

As long as it is based on the P96 API, it is. There is likely a native CGfx API, though.


I do not know what the conditions are for a third party to offer a CGfx driver. I can only tell you want the conditions for the P96 API are.

 Currently, the drivers use the P96 API, and *that* is not valid.

Doesn't P96 implement the CGFX API too?

Did a lawyer who specialises in Western Intellectual Property law tell you that this is illegal or is it just your opinion as a lay person?

[Terminills]

Doesn't P96 implement the CGFX API too?

Did a lawyer who specialises in Western Intellectual Property law tell you that this is illegal or is it just your opinion as a lay person?

[troll]
Yes it does therefore P96 is illegal and should not be used period.
[/troll]

[guest11527]

aros includes cybergraphics which is open source reimplementation of cgx standard since ever. aros native drivers are based on this. do you argue that this is illegal?

No, I do not claim this. I do not know. This is something the AROS team should better check with the CGfx authors.

if so you must argue aros is illegal as a whole because it reimplements amiga functionality.

I do not know what the situation for AROS as a whole is. But my understanding of the situation is the following: Any IPs CBM ever had on the kickstart surely run out by now, and as long as AROS authors weren't stupid enough to copy code from the Kickstart, this should likely be fine.

once again. i dont know details, but i doubt the driver jason wrote consists of p96 .card and .chip files.

That's however how I understand the situation. It is a P96 driver that can be used through the AROS CGfx emulation, which again has a P96 driver emulation. This is *not* legit. It should really go directly through AROS (or, depending on what the situation with the CGfx emulation is, through CGfx).

if its aros driver that just iterfaces to the system in form of another patch as cgx or p96 did, but independently of these, i dont see licensing issues.

Neither CGfx nor P96 drivers interacted with the system through patches. Both have a native interface. The patches are done by P96 and/or CGfx core components.

[guest11527]

Doesn't P96 implement the CGFX API too?

Did a lawyer who specialises in Western Intellectual Property law tell you that this is illegal or is it just your opinion as a lay person?

What exactly do you expect from me? That I give you a legal opinion? IANAL.

My opinion is simply that: If you're basing your work on the work of others, you'll better have an agreement with this other party. If this other party wants payment, and you don't want to pay, then this agreement does not exist, quite the opposite. Full stop, end of story.

[wawrzon]

That's however how I understand the situation. It is a P96 driver that can be used through the AROS CGfx emulation, which again has a P96 driver emulation. This is *not* legit. It should really go directly through AROS (or, depending on what the situation with the CGfx emulation is, through CGfx).

i see. you must be better informed in this respect, so if it is like you say i fully agree with this statement.

Neither CGfx nor P96 drivers interacted with the system through patches. Both have a native interface. The patches are done by P96 and/or CGfx core components.

my understanding is that rtg systems on amiga were implemented patching appropriate functions of graphics library. is that wrong?

[guest11527]

my understanding is that rtg systems on amiga were implemented patching appropriate functions of graphics library. is that wrong?

No, that's completely correct. It is, however, not the driver that patches the graphics.library. It is - for P96 - the rtg.library (core component) or - for CGfx - the cybergraphics.library. The driver goes through a well-documented API of the rtg.library.

[kolla]

No matter what the legal status is, P96 is crap and should be avoided.

[kolla]

This is something the AROS team should better check with the CGfx authors.

Oh my, what rock have you been living under?

As you perhaps know, CGfx merged into MorphOS around 15 years ago, along with MUI etc. MorphOS and AROS have done what "the people with the name" (your side, I presume) never managed - cooperate! The MorphOS team and AROS team have worked together on many things, shell and CLI commands and APIs. The CGfx thing was agreed upon a long time ago.

[grond]

Yeah, so you can't take how fast one program runs compared to a 68060 and infer how fast another program will run.

You never can.

A performance analyser that can show you how full the instruction pipelines are and how much time is spent waiting for memory accesses would be awesome.

They usually don't wait for mem because memory is clocked at twice the core clock and 32 bit wide. The caches prefetch so unless you have a random access pattern, data will be in the caches. The D-cache can provide 8 bytes of data to the ALUs per cycle and accept another 8 bytes from the ALUs in the same cycle. The I-cache can provide 16 bytes worth of instructions to the core per cycle.

As I understand that is a P96 driver for Apollo developed by Jason McMullan. Why does it also exist another P96 driver by Thomas Richter dated 27/12/2015 ?

What happened? I am a bit confused. Two P96 drivers? Why?

The first driver could not be used because of a lacking permission so a second one was written which is not using any knowledge provided by other parties. Jason implemented the driver completely from scratch without inspecting other people's work. The driver works on both AmigaOS and AROS so don't be confused by the "based on AROS" bit.

The only downside I can see with this is that they have been pretty clear that they aren't too bothered with 100% compatibility (especially MMU) and using AROS rather than AOS will make that easier.

Where did you read that? It's bull%&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@!. The fact is that the MMU was hardly used in the Amiga. Most Amiga people don't even know what its purpose is. On the other hand some features of an MMU (address translation, to be precise) make memory access MUCH slower. If anyone wants an MMU, there in fact is a chance that it will be implemented. But there's a catch: with so much work do be done on the core, it's a matter of priorisation. FPU and even 64bit processor modes are more important right now that an MMU that isn't even used for anything. Of course, some UNIX or Atari people could be interested in a fast 68k that also has some MMU. But the project is about Amiga. If there is so much interest in an MMU, there needs to be an incentive for the main developers. This incentive is money (yes, sorry, it's a capitalist world). If there is money to be earned (which may be money to be invested in all this again), there must be some interest in an MMU. So set up some sort of funding and it may happen. If you still only want an MMU because the 060 had one, well, I don't think you really need it.

If they committed to 68060 MMU compatibility then I would be less cynical.

Again, what for? The apollo core is more 68k compatible than any other 68k processor. There never even was a standard MMU for 68k, they were all different. The 68000, 68010 and 68020 never even had one, the 68020 could be provided with an extra chip comprising the MMU (68851). I think there was one (1) Amiga processor board that had the 851 and was intended to be used for UNIX. Some but not all 030s, 040s and 060s have an on-chip MMU. There are like three Amiga programs in total making use of it.

I find it morally annoying that Apollo is and never will be opensource

You probably also find it morally annoying that you don't get free housing and food.

making it incompatible is made easier by the work put into AROS for free.

This is utter bull%&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@!. You can run DOS on an i7. But you can't use the i7's 64bit mode in DOS. That's the same situation as with AmigaOS 3.1 and the apollo core and the reason why only AROS makes it possible...

I suppose one day someone will reverse engineer their FPGA bitstream and fix it.

It will be the day right after somebody reverse engineers the i7 to make its 64bit mode DOS compatible.

No, none of them are legitimate, unfortunately. Gunnar decided against licensing P96, which means that the drivers cannot be used on solid grounds.

This is not true. You make such statements rather frequently only to then point out that you are not a lawyer. I'm a patent attorney by profession (with a background in microchip development) so I am not a lawyer either but I do understand something about the legal situation. And I don't see a reason why a piece of software that was written without relying on non-disclosed knowledge would be illegal solely for the reason that it is intended to interface somebody else's software. If it were, this would be Microsoft's dream come true.

I understand that you don't like the availability of a free RTG driver. BigGun often stated that the original P96 authors deserved payment for their work that meant important technical progress for the Amiga. He wanted to have them get this money. For reasons unknown to me it was not possible to get an agreement with the original P96 authors (in fact it looks like they never even responded to any request for license but I don't know the details). Now it looks like Hyperion bought the exclusive rights to P96. They do not intend to develop it any further. They just want to use it to make more money. While that is legitimate, it is nothing that the apollo team has to accept if there are legal and cheaper alternatives.

Does the apollo core need a patched exec.library or not?

The 128MB RAM in an A600 need some changes in the standard memory map which are not supported by the A600 ROMs without patching. If you want to run the apollo core in its 64 bit mode, obviously you need to patch the context switching mechanism. These are only two of the issues with an unpatched ROM.

Again, Gunnar decided against licensing, so you'll have to use AROS.

Not true either. The user will be able to flash any ROM you want. But in order to run, it will have to be patched for the apollo core.

If the driver implements the P96 API, the problem remains - no license. If it only uses CGfx, I guess they'll have to deal with whether or not this is a legitimate option for CGfx. The latter I do not know. For P96, the situation is quite clear: No license, not legal.

...and not true.

I do not know what the conditions are for a third party to offer a CGfx driver. I can only tell you want the conditions for the P96 API are.

Let me put it like this: it's not a well thought out licensing model. It is circumvented by the mere fact that the apollo team doesn't agree to the license terms offered. As with any contract, you can simply not agree to the conditions and not sign a contract.

My opinion is simply that: If you're basing your work on the work of others, you'll better have an agreement with this other party. If this other party wants payment, and you don't want to pay, then this agreement does not exist, quite the opposite. Full stop, end of story.

No, the story goes on. You can do the same without basing your work on the work of others. And there is nothing that would stop a user from mixing your work with that of others.

[nicholas]

What exactly do you expect from me? That I give you a legal opinion? IANAL.

My opinion is simply that: If you're basing your work on the work of others, you'll better have an agreement with this other party. If this other party wants payment, and you don't want to pay, then this agreement does not exist, quite the opposite. Full stop, end of story.

Does WINE have an agreement with Microsoft for cloning the Windows interfaces?

Do the P96 owners have an agreement with Frank Mariak for cloning the CGX interfaces?

The answer is no in both cases.

"ZOMG! Illegal!"

[wawrzon]

No, that's completely correct. It is, however, not the driver that patches the graphics.library. It is - for P96 - the rtg.library (core component) or - for CGfx - the cybergraphics.library. The driver goes through a well-documented API of the rtg.library.

i think its self explanatory that its not the particular driver client but the main library that patches the system. same way it would have to be implemented if aros cybergraphics was to be used instead of p96.

[guest11527]

No matter what the legal status is, P96 is crap and should be avoided.

How do you come to this conclusion? Or is it just the typical prejudice from your side?

[guest11527]

Where did you read that? It's bull%&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@!. The fact is that the MMU was hardly used in the Amiga.

Excuse me, but apparently, you do not know what you're talking about. You cannot safely transmit data via DMA on an Amiga system without some MMU magic. This is an issue with the cache of the 68060 and 68040 CPUs. The only other alternative is to disable the cache completely while a DMA is running.

Most Amiga people don't even know what its purpose is.

So, people as you, I suppose?

On the other hand some features of an MMU (address translation, to be precise) make memory access MUCH slower.

As in, how much, for example? It creates actually no additional wait states for the 68040 or 68060, and even needs to be enabled for handling DMA correctly, as stated above. It introduces one additional cycle for the 68030, but there also the MMU avoids an issue/a defect of the 68030 cache.

Look, it's ok if you don't know, but please don't make such statements then.

There never even was a standard MMU for 68k, they were all different. The 68000, 68010 and 68020 never even had one, the 68020 could be provided with an extra chip comprising the MMU (68851). I think there was one (1) Amiga processor board that had the 851 and was intended to be used for UNIX. Some but not all 030s, 040s and 060s have an on-chip MMU. There are like three Amiga programs in total making use of it.

There are certainly more than three. Let me count: MuForce, MuGA, MuFastROM, MuFastZero, MuFastChip, MuEVD, MuScan, MuRedox, COP, any device driver going through CachePreDMA and CachePostDMA, the virtual memory hacks I've seen, Enforcer for sure, the series of Cyber-Tools such as CyberGuard and CyperPatcher, the 68060.library and the 68040.library, also the 68030.library. While I haven't counted, that's more than four.

I understand that you don't like the availability of a free RTG driver.

No. I don't like taking other's people's work for selling my own work, even more so when first coming to an agreement with them ("We only use this for testing and come and pay you as soon as we make profit") and then later on run away as soon as it involves payment.

Excuse me, you haven't been involved, so you cannot know, but again, please do not make statements if you do not know.

BigGun often stated that the original P96 authors deserved payment for their work that meant important technical progress for the Amiga. He wanted to have them get this money. For reasons unknown to me it was not possible to get an agreement with the original P96 authors (in fact it looks like they never even responded to any request for license but I don't know the details).

Excuse me, I've been a bit more involved in the whole process. Gunnar didn't want to license. There was an offer on the table by Hyperion, in fact.

Now it looks like Hyperion bought the exclusive rights to P96. They do not intend to develop it any further.

Excuse me, that's neither correct. That's just Gunnar's interpretation of the answer.

They just want to use it to make more money.

And why exactly is that a problem?

While that is legitimate, it is nothing that the apollo team has to accept if there are legal and cheaper alternatives.

Which, by pure coincidence, also use the P96 API? Ok, if they want to go for free, go for AROS completely and do not rely on the P96 API in first place.

The 128MB RAM in an A600 need some changes in the standard memory map which are not supported by the A600 ROMs without patching.

Yes, they are. It's called autoconfig and supported by the Os ROM. Expansion, to be precise. Again, you do not seem to know, but here I am and tell you that it's all possible.

If you want to run the apollo core in its 64 bit mode, obviously you need to patch the context switching mechanism. These are only two of the issues with an unpatched ROM.

No, there are no issues with the original ROM. You just have to know how and why. Guess how an 68060 can work in an original unmodified system? It also requires a change in the context switching mechanism, yet I do not need a custom ROM.

Let me put it like this: it's not a well thought out licensing model. It is circumvented by the mere fact that the apollo team doesn't agree to the license terms offered. As with any contract, you can simply not agree to the conditions and not sign a contract.

It's entirely the choice of Gunnar to sign or not sign a contract, based on personal observations that might or might not be real. But if you do not sign, then you cannot use the work of others. Full stopo. I cannot offer a P96 driver if I don't want to pay for P96. I cannot offer a patched Kickstart if I do not pay for the kickstart. It's really quite simple.

No, the story goes on. You can do the same without basing your work on the work of others.

If that is what would happen, then yes.

And there is nothing that would stop a user from mixing your work with that of others.

Yes, there is. It is called "Copyright" and "licensing conditions". There is "normal use" of a work, i.e. I use the binary as intended. What I cannot do is simply take the binary of somebody else, patch it up and deliver it as part of my product. Or base my product on an API of a closed product that, as intended by the authors, requires licence payments.

If Gunnar wants to go for AROS, that's completely fine. But then, please stick to the AROS work and do not depend on P96 or a (patched) Kickstart.

[guest11527]

Oh my, what rock have you been living under?

I don't *care* for AROS or CGfx. That's why I said "they probably need to check with the CGfx authors". Is this a wrong statement? No.

As you perhaps know, CGfx merged into MorphOS around 15 years ago, along with MUI etc. MorphOS and AROS have done what "the people with the name" (your side, I presume) never managed - cooperate!

Wait a minute! Just because my software isn't your flavour of "free", you call that "lack of cooperation"? Actually, there have been quite some cooperation in the Amiga land from my side. Look at MuForce, for example. This thing wouldn't have come to life without cooperation with Mike Sinz.

Os 3.9 wouldn't have come to life without cooperation with Haage and Partner, and people like Olaf Barthel.

The MorphOS team and AROS team have worked together on many things, shell and CLI commands and APIs. The CGfx thing was agreed upon a long time ago.

Then that's reluctant to know for AROS and Gunnar's team. I never stated the opposite. I just said "it needs to be clarified".

[AJCopland]

No, that's completely correct. It is, however, not the driver that patches the graphics.library. It is - for P96 - the rtg.library (core component) or - for CGfx - the cybergraphics.library. The driver goes through a well-documented API of the rtg.library.

I'm confused about the whole P96 situation, as I'm sure 90% of the people are on here.

Is "rtg.library" the P96 dynamic interface library? Like a Windows ".DLL" or Linux ".so"?
If so then what's stop anyone from writing an "rtg.library" with the same function signatures & addresses as the P96 version?

Any 3rd party software will see the "rtg.library", load it, map the functions and run without ever using your code or libraries. Why would a license for P96 be required?

I'm asking as I'm genuinely interested since this is a very common case software that doesn't require a license of any kind.
If they did use P96 code, or libraries then of course that's completely different and would absolutely require a license to do that.

Thanks,

Andy