Consequences of the AmigaOS 3.1 source code "leak", one year after?

[kolla]

Sure. And if you do that for the WRONG operating system, and release it for sale, IBM will sue your arse off.

No, you are wrong.

Just because Rexx has public versions, doesn't make all of Rexx open source and free to develop for, on any platform.

Rexx is an ANSI standard (X3.274), and Regina is an open source implementation of a Rexx interpreter, since 1992 (and it isn't even the only one):

http://regina-rexx.sourceforge.net

[Pat the Cat]

No, you are wrong.

I'll give you a clue. Try it on a mainframe...

... you ain't got one. Ain't that a shame...

http://regina-rexx.sourceforge.net[/URL]

Yes, Regina is open source. Rexx isn't. If was, It would be somewhat easier to google the source code for it an IBM mainframe.

[kolla]

I'll give you a clue. Try it on a mainframe...

... you ain't got one. Ain't that a shame...

You have no idea what my job is and what I have access to.

Yes, Regina is open source. Rexx isn't. If was, It would be somewhat easier to google the source code for it an IBM mainframe.

What - are you googling?

Again - just like with C, Rexx is the language, for which there are multiple implementations, some commercial, some not. IBM have their implementations, but they do not stand in the way of others doing theirs. It is quite common for them all to name the interpreter available in the command path "rexx". IBM has a long history with Rexx, since the language was born at their turf (by the hands of Mike Cowlishaw), and IBM has used it through-out their products, on mainframes as you say, and on OS/2 and elsewhere. They also have worked closely with and contributed to the Rexx Language Association, with funding of development as well as source code of their own development.

http://www-01.ibm.com/software/awdtools/rexx/opensource.html

And what a surprise (not), William S. Hawes took part in the standardisation, his name is in the technical committee...

http://www.rexxla.org/rexxlang/standards/j18pub.pdf

[Pat the Cat]

You have no idea what my job is and what I have access to.

Yeah, sure, and you take the mainframe home with you in your backpocket at the weekend. I don't care whose mainframe it is, I don't care if the it's the NSA backbone machine, it's not yours.

What - are you googling?

Again - just like with C, Rexx is the language, for which there are multiple implementations, some commercial, some not. IBM have their implementations, but they do not stand in the way of others doing theirs. It is quite common for them all to name the interpreter available in the command path "rexx". IBM has a long history with Rexx, since the language was born at their turf (by the hands of Mike Cowlishaw), and IBM has used it through-out their products, on mainframes as you say, and on OS/2 and elsewhere. They also have worked closely with and contributed to the Rexx Language Association, with funding of development as well as source code of their own development.

http://www-01.ibm.com/software/awdtools/rexx/opensource.html

Yes, and hell will freeze over before they release their mainframe source. Or rather, they will have a highly evolved replacement before they release it as open source. In the meantime, please stop repeating the same assumption, that because there is a "free and open" version, all versions are "free and open".

[kolla]

Yeah, sure, and you take the mainframe home with you in your backpocket at the weekend. I don't care whose mainframe it is, I don't care if the it's the NSA backbone machine, it's not yours.

What does that have to do with anything? Do I have an IBM S/390 in my apartment? No. Why would I, I prefer to not bring work with me home.

Yes, and hell will freeze over before they release their mainframe source. Or rather, they will have a highly evolved replacement before they release it as open source. In the meantime, please stop repeating the same assumption, that because there is a "free and open" version, all versions are "free and open".

I notice that things are tipping over for you, gone is the polite tone - maybe because it so hard for you to admit that you are wrong?

Again - Rexx is a _language_, for which there are _many_ implementations, not just the ones - plural- that IBM had for their various mainframes, AIX and OS/2 up through the years. IBM never chased anyone around for doing other Rexx implementations on whatever architectures. IBM released Rexx sources to the RexxLA. These are the sources we discuss here, if at all, not the sources to z/OS or whatever you seem to think. IBM is in general quite active with open source, especially if your field is within HPC/HPN, security and monitoring. They support development of both Linux and *BSD on their hardware, both metal and virtualised, by offering developers hardware. And they also work on bringing features from the mainframe world to Linux and the BSDs.

[kolla]

As pointed out on http://rexxinfo.org:

Rexx is standardized by the 1996 ANSI standard and is not controlled by any one company or individual.

[kolla]

On the topic of Rexx and truthiness...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga

IBM licensed the Amiga GUI from Commodore in exchange for the REXX language license. This allowed OS/2 to have the WPS (Work Place Shell) GUI shell for OS/2 2.0 a 32-bit operating system.

With reference to two links, of which one is just a pointer to the other:

https://web.archive.org/web/20121020022353/http://www.os2bbs.com/os2news/OS2Warp.html

a deal was made with Commodore. Commodore licensed IBM's REXX scripting language for inclusion in their AmigaOS, and IBM took many GUI design ideas from the AmigaOS for their new GUI

True? False?

[Pat the Cat]

True? False?

Completely irrelevent to the Amiga. If you want to write Rexx for the Amiga, I have to point out, it's been done.

If you want to write Rexx for something else, that is also irrelevent to the Amiga.

If you just want to hold up Rexx as an example of something completely and utterly Open Source, I suggest you phone IBM in the morning and ask them how they feel about it. It's theirs, their call. Not mine. As you are a tech working on an IBM mainframe, this should not be a problem for you.

Quite frankly I'd have better things to do with my time, but if you really want to prove a point, I won't stop you. It might be CLM, a Career Limiting Move, professional suicide for you maybe, but that's not my concern. Or you might be correct, IBM mainframe Rexx is completely open source. Amazing. That doesn't mean Arexx is open source though. Oh dear. How sad. Nevermind.

[kolla]

Completely irrelevent to the Amiga. If you want to write Rexx for the Amiga, I have to point out, it's been done.

Yes, several Rexx interpreters have been written for, and ported to Amiga.

If you just want to hold up Rexx as an example of something completely and utterly Open Source

I never did - I just point out that.. sigh... Rexx is a language, today defined by an ANSI standard, for which anyone can write an interpreter, commercially closed source, or open source - it does not matter - and sell, or give away or whatever. And IBM would not care one bit. Would IBM care if someone stole sources for a closed source interpreter they have? Sure. But that was never the issue here.

That doesn't mean Arexx is open source though.

And I never said it is, as I have mentioned so many times now, there are many Rexx interpreters, both commercial closed source and open source ones. ARexx clearly is a property of Willam S. Hawes, and not licensed to Commodore by IBM.

[guest11527]

If you just want to hold up Rexx as an example of something completely and utterly Open Source, I suggest you phone IBM in the morning and ask them how they feel about it.

There seems to be some confusion here. Rexx is a standard, and standards are, by very definition, open. It would be contradiction in terms if a standard would be held closed - the very purpose of standards is that they can be implemented by other parties. What could be the case, though, is that implementing it requires some IPs of its creator (IBM, in this case), and in such a case, one should study under which conditions IBM provides access to its IPs.

No matter what, "Open source" is a term that applies to implementations, not to standards. Standards can have both open and closed source implementations, and open source implementations may follow a proprietary protocol that is not standardized. It's really orthogonal.

Or you might be correct, IBM mainframe Rexx is completely open source. Amazing. That doesn't mean Arexx is open source though. Oh dear. How sad. Nevermind.

Whether IBMs Rexx implementation is open source I do not know. ARexx, certainly, is not open source. That, however, has no implications on the standard (or vice versa). Everyone can implement Rexx, which is probably why IBM has standardized it.

[Thorham]

Anyway, ARexx was a much better choice, in my opinion. An ideal fit for a multitasking OS. Much much much more sensible than any version of Basic. Be able to talk and control between different running applications. That was a much more powerful tool than a programming language aimed at beginners.

It's a pity Lua wasn't around back then.

[eliyahu]

@thread

just to clarify something: if someone wants to create a 'regina' for z/OS, z/VM, or z/VSE, they are certainly welcome to. i can't imagine why anyone would want to replace the IBM environments for REXX on those operating systems, but the company certainly wouldn't sue. you couldn't call it 'REXX/VM' or anything like that, since that term is copyrighted, but nothing prevents anyone from creating a new interpreter. the one thing you wouldn't be able to do would be replace the hooks in TSO/E to use your software, but since that's not something someone outside of IBM can do anyway (for technical reasons), no issue there.

i'm not sure why this is even in question. the company has encouraged REXX development on a variety of platforms for the past three decades. indeed it even released the source code behind the object rexx runtime some years back. as a mainframer, the use of REXX to control applications was a major factor in my deciding to purchase my first amiga. i use it every day.

-- eliyahu

[Lionheart]

Actually, as far as Os 4 is concerned, the situation is quite clear to me. Hyperion paid for it, and had the rights to run a Os 4 development on top of Os 3.1, so it's their source and their product. So no doubts about it. And "held hostage" is not quite the right term - they own it, they sell it. Buy it - or don't.

In the same sense, Windows is "held hostage" by Microsoft. But that's only fair. They produced it, they own it, and they can do with it whatever they like. If you don't need this product, don't get it. Unfortunately, the latter part is much harder to avoid than Os 4.

For Os 3.1, however, the situation is not so obvious. I've seen what Cloanto actually bought from the bankrupt estate of CBM (yes, really), and that are the ROM images (amongst others), but not the sources. So that doesn't give them rights on the source code, IMHO, despite Cloanto claiming the contrary. I don't thrust them either. All they have are just the compiled binary images, as distributed on ROM. As soon as they would stick to selling exactly that, it would be ok, but they don't.

I haven't seen anything like that for Hyperion, i.e. I do not know what exactly they got. The license to base 4.x development on 3.1 does IMHO not cover enough rights on 3.1 as such. So maybe the compromise settlement after the process with Amiga Inc. does give them that, but to be sure, I would need to read it, which I have not.

Hyperion nor Cloanto own the source code for 3.1.  Amiga, Inc. owns the  source code.  Hyperion owns the source code to Amiga OS4 and has a  license, not ownership, to use 3.1.  

Hyperion Entertainment holds an  exclusive, world-wide, perpetual source-code license to the intellectual  property of AmigaOS 3.1 and additional content as documented in the  publicly available settlement agreement between Hyperion Entertainment  and Amiga, Inc. which has taken the form of a stipulated judgement.
~ http://hyperion-entertainment.biz/index.php/news/38-corporate/167-amigaos-31-source-code-leak-official-statement


Cloanto owns trademarks to AmigaForever and Workbench.  They also only have a license, not ownership, to use 3.1 source code and Amiga trademarks in their AmigaForever package.  

In conclusion, Amiga, Inc. is the one pulling the strings.  They're never going to open-source 3.1, as they can still profit off of it through Hyperion and Cloanto. Trademarks and licenses are all Amiga, Inc has to profit off of as Bill McEwen couldn't invent his way out of a paper bag quite possibly due to being mildly retarded.  His whole AmigaDE vision before the dotcom bubble crash was pretty hilarious.  It would be nice to see Bill McEwen try to claim damages from something he himself declared dead.  However, just because something seems morally right, doesn't make it legally right.

[kamelito]

AmigaDE was a nice idea, but the market went to cross platform framework instead of it.
Kamelito

[Rob]

In conclusion, Amiga, Inc. is the one pulling the strings. They're never going to open-source 3.1, as they can still profit off of it through Hyperion and Cloanto.

Amiga Inc can't make a penny from Hyperion since all the licenses granted to Hyperion in the settlement agreement are royalty free.  I don't know what Cloanto's arrangement is and whether Amiga Inc can collect royalties from them.  For the OS to become open source it would require an agreement between Amiga Inc and Hyperion, and possibly Cloanto too.

Amiga Anywhere/DE was Fleecy's idea and not McBill's.  The idea of the same code running on different CPU architectures without recompilation was ProDAD's intention with p.OS.  I wonder if Fleecy ever contacted ProDAD since p.OS was actually intended as a standalone OS compared to TAO's Intent which was simply a media layer.  I seem to recall that either Thomas or Hans-Jörg had told Amiga Inc that Intent was totally unsuitable to be used as a standalone OS.

[guest11527]

I don't know what Cloanto's arrangement is and whether Amiga Inc can collect royalties from them.  

Cloanto paid $1.00 for "all Amiga Copyrights in the Universe" (yes, that's really what the contract says), and there are no regular license fees to be paid. So at this time, we are in the situation that Hyperion has a license agreement on the 3.1 sources, and for the development of 4.0, and Cloanto has (at the same time) a copyright on Kickstart and workbench up to 3.0 binaries, but probably not the sources.

This reads to me as if Amiga Inc at this time does not own anything anymore which would ensure a regular income, all assets have been sold or licensed, and as it seems, probably even sold twice.The only party that could release AmigaOs sources is probably Amiga Inc, but even there I would not be clear because the copyright might have been transfered to Cloanto, even though it does not appear in the asset list, because it is "some copyright in the universe". Oh well.

For the OS to become open source it would require an agreement between Amiga Inc and Hyperion, and possibly Cloanto too.

Correct. Hyperions Settlement agreement includes that Hyperion has to report breaches of Amiga Inc's interests and has to protect the sources. They cannot be made open source by them. Cloanto, on the other hand, does not seem to have rights on the sources anyhow. The list of assets for which copyright is transfered includes "Kickstart ROM Programs" up to 3.0, but not a source code. Whether Amiga Inc could transfer "the entire Amiga copyrights in the universe" to another party while first licensing the souces to Hyperion is another fascinating question.

Amiga Anywhere/DE was Fleecy's idea and not McBill's.  The idea of the same code running on different CPU architectures without recompilation was ProDAD's intention with p.OS.  

Another nonsense that came to an end. It was a "me, too!" product targetting the same market as Java, and was too little, too late. Even Java did not make it. Who is using Java on the desktop these days, anyhow? Successfully killed by Oracle.