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.
So? If you wanted, you could run the DMA on the apollo while keeping the cache updated. Some old SCSI stuff isn't relevant here.
As in, how much, for example? It creates actually no additional wait states for the 68040 or 68060
Since you are the resident MMU guru, you know better than this. There is a thing called translation look-aside buffer which has a finite size. There are many scenarios when an address translation cannot be done transparently which then can require a table walk of the translation table. And you probably also know that it's the TLB that is the most important constraint on overclocking an 060. This shows that the mem access had to be slowed down on the 060 in order to allow address translation.
Look, it's ok if you don't know, but please don't make such statements then.
You frequently do the same about legal issues.
No. I don't like taking other's people's work for selling my own work
Nobody takes other people's work here. Money would have been paid to the people who actually did the work but not to some company buying the rights and using 68k Amigas to milk some money for their main business.
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.
So you were involved. How about you tell the story and then I tell it as I heard it and we all compare?
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.
Yes. And it was ridiculously overpriced and clearly a desperate attempt to make some money for a company facing economic doom.
Excuse me, that's neither correct. That's just Gunnar's interpretation of the answer.
How can you know better?
Which, by pure coincidence, also use the P96 API?
No, by design and intention. Just like the NTFS driver for linux, for example. Again, what do you think is illegal about this?
Ok, if they want to go for free, go for AROS completely and do not rely on the P96 API in first place.
That is kindergarten reasoning not worthy of a person as intelligent as you are.
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.
Thank you for telling me. How does it work in detail?
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.
Yes, I can. It doesn't become true just by repeating it.
I cannot offer a patched Kickstart if I do not pay for the kickstart. It's really quite simple.
I agree for the kickstart under some circumstances because it involves patching (and thus deriving the patched kickstart from the original copyrighted work). However, there is a thing called "exhaustion of rights" which basically means that you don't need to pay a second time for something you already bought. That's also why it is perfectly legal to patch and flash the kickstart already owned by the customer.
Yes, there is. It is called "Copyright" and "licensing conditions".
I think I know more about copyrights in western legislations than you do. As for the licensing conditions, this is just an offer for a licensing contract. The apollo team did not accept that offer so no licensing contract was made. It's as simple as that. If you think about the GPL, it's precisely how it works: it is an offer for licensing which is accepted by the person using and modifying the source code ("konkludent", as we call it in German, or something like "implied by action of the party"). Licensing conditions are not like a law that you yourself made for a specific item you created. They are an offer for a licening contract. And such offers can be accepted or declined.
There is "normal use" of a work, i.e. I use the binary as intended.
That's what users of the vampire RTG subsystem will do.
What I cannot do is simply take the binary of somebody else, patch it up and deliver it as part of my product.
That is true. But not relevant for the picasso drivers as nobody took somebody else's binary.
Or base my product on an API of a closed product that, as intended by the authors, requires licence payments.
And here you are wrong again. I did my best explaining the legal situation. Perhaps I'm not good at it. My experience is that many engineers are not very good at understanding law (and lawyers not good at understanding technology) which is why we patent attorneys are such a rare breed.
