"Hyperion and Cloanto allegedly close to finalizing settlement"

[kolla]

Same as for many other commercial operating systems and no need to complain about.

Care to name one?

Windows(tm). Valid for one installation. With an EULA much longer than this.

tl;dr? Microsoft has many different licensing schemes so that you can buy one that fit your needs, covering both physical and virtual instances and more. The Windows license(s) uses clear language and is not ambiguous and does not come with ridiculous conditions - for example it allows the OS to exist on several computers and allow it to be transferred over networks, for example for backup.

http://download.microsoft.com/download/2/D/1/2D14FE17-66C2-4D4C-AF73-E122930B60F6/Windows-10-Volume-Licensing-Guide.pdf

Hyperion only offer one license, and it is ridiculous, ambiguous and extremely limiting.

* This license allows you to install or operate the AmigaOS only on a computer system that had a version of AmigaOS installed on it at the time you acquired such computer system, which was especially prepared for running AmigaOS through the use of a dedicated (flash)rom or similar mechanism or for which a legitimate version of AmigaOS was or is available.

Well, the sentence has an *or* in it, right?

Yes, ONE or - 1, 2 or 3 - which can be either 1 or 2 or 3, or it can be 1 and 2 or 3?

My FPGA systems did not come with any AmigaOS installed, nor were they specially prepared for AmigaOS when I acquired them (exception being the MiST), but Cloanto are selling AmigaOS and licenses to anyone willing to buy, and FPGA systems like the MiST have been distributed with OS 3.1 kickstart and license from Cloanto, so if Hyperion considers whatever Cloanto are selling as legit legal AmigaOS installations, then _any_ computer system is a legit target for OS 3.1.4.

So, be happy.

I am happy, but this is not about happiness, it is about finding out what the f Hyperion are trying to communicate, and what potential consequences there are.

Do Hyperion consider licenses bought from Cloanto a valid installation? Because the license suggest that Hyperion only considers their own products valid incarnations of AmigaOS, and hence OS 3.1.4 is not an update to any OS 3.1, but only a valid legal (according to the license) option for people who specifically have bought OS 3.1 from Hyperion.

That is a rather big issue, don't you think?

Personal attack again. Classy.

No, your post is a true "Kolla". Find reasons to complain about something on the premise that you do not like the product, or in this case, its vendor. Find reasons to distract a discussion on completely irrelevant topics that are quite obvious for everyone else.

Blablabla, more personal attacks saying that it is me who is trolling, rather than admitting the flaws in the license, a license you apparently have not even bothered to read.

So your suggestion is that people stop making backups of their OS installations,

Make *one* copy, store it.

And then delete the original ADFs or floppies so that there is only two copies of the Os, one installed and one copy of the installation?

Why on earth should people not be allowed to make backups of their installations?

At least Microsoft do not care how many backups you make of an OS installation, and allow you an extra backup of the installation media.

Probably? So you don't really know what the license mean with "AmigaOs"(sic) and you are the lead developer, and come here all the time to defend "the situation"?

Exactly. Developer. Not marketing, not product management, not legal department. What do you actually expect from me? Write licenses? Prepare the binder? Copy the disks? Deliver it do your home?

I don't expect anything from you, no-one asked you to come on this thread and spread nonsense - you could give Hyperion a nudge that they should perhaps contact some properly educated lawyers to review and validate their software licenses and make their services GDPR coherent etc.

So, does this plainly say that there is only one AmigaOS, and that is whatever that is distributed by Hyperion, and Hyperion only?

It says, it is licensed from Hyperion. From whom else?

It says "AmigaOS" is defined as the software licensed from Hyperion, and then goes on to say that a valid "target" for OS 3.1.4 is any computer system which there already exists a legal "AmigaOS" - ie AmigaOS licensed from Hyperion, not from Cloanto, not from Amiga Technologies, not from Amiga International, not from H&P, not from Commodore - but from Hyperion themselves.

Essentially rendering OS3.5, 3.9 and anything from Cloanto _not_ AmigaOS?

Where does it say so?

In the damn license, which I more and more understand you have not read.

1. License.  The software, documentation and any fonts accompanying this License whether on a physical medium such as CD or DVD, in read only memory (ROM) or provided to you by download using an electronic communication network (the "AmigaOS") are licensed to you by Hyperion Entertainment CVBA ("Hyperion").

See? The "AmigaOS" as mentioned in the rest of the document, is the software, documentation and any fonts accompanying this License - and this License is Hyperion only.

Again, you want to find something to complain about, then find a formulation which, with a lot of bad feelings, could be possibly misunderstood, then make a rumble about it. Trolling, as trolling goes.

Blablabla, personal attacks again. License agreements should not use language that can easily be misunderstood, and in this case it is not even easily misunderstood, it is more likely worded specifically to have multiple interpretations.

All kinds responsibilities are waived fully at the bottom of the license - have you not read it?

No, I have not, I am a *developer*. It is not my job to create licenses, read them, or check them.

I see, that figures - so then, why can you even possibly make the claim that it is not the license that prevents me from buying more copies of OS 3.1.4, and possibly the future OS 3.2?

Was it because it was *I* who wrote it, and you have a certain soft sport for me?

I am deeply flattered.

In 1992 perhaps, but today?

Yes, perfectly. I suppose, you check for Windows, or MacOs?

And more often than not, there are no specifications that deal with the problems that users need to solve.

As in? There are the RKRMs, the Autodocs, and *gasp* even people you can ask. RKRMs are even online. For example here. Surprise!

Yes, I have all those, I even host quite a few them online myself, and have for decades.

For example, with locale catalogs being incompatible between OS 3.9, a user may wish to keep OS 3.1.4 locates separate from those of OS 3.9, and binary edit the OS 3.1.4 ones to use a different directory than "sys".

Os 3.9 selected to have catalog identifiers messed up. 3.1.4 stayed with the catalog IDs from 3.9. So, if you use the 3.9 preferences, you use the 3.9 catalogs. If you don't - you don't. The 3.9 perferences are not part of 3.1.4, nor do we have its sources, nor any rights on it, so they are not part of 3.1.4.

Blablabla technobabbel - I perfectly know *why*, sheesh.

Install one, or the other, but the hex editor is not a recommended solution.

It is nevertheless a solution. If it makes you feel any better, I typically use CygnusEd for these tasks, fully paid and registered - I find Olsen a much more pleasant person to communicate with that you

Many edit all prefs programs to use a different font than topaz/8 - what scum they are, breaking the license!

Right, and this is correct this way. This is not for you to edit. It will mess with the design, and this is the clearest way to tell people to keep their hands off, and waive any responsibility for such activity.

Oh your precious design, which so often is broken anyways, thanks to utterly low quality of locales, sometimes the whacky translations don't even fit into the gadgets were they are supposed to fit - something that can be fixed by binary editing both catalogs with better and more correct strings, and change the font in the program in question.

I had a program in the beta testing to replace the topaz font by some other font. Some people did not understand that the font size must match, and reported bugs. We did not deliver the program.

Dumb question - why did your program _allow_ people to chose fonts in different size then?

Also - I thought you had a policy of not delivering something that already exists as a third party tool on Aminet?
It is almost a shame you did not release it though, would be ironic if the OS came with a program specifically there to break one of the conditions in the license.

3.2 will have gadtools with scaling capability, so you'll get the freedom.

Not if the license stays at it is.

Care to name an example?

Windows, MacOs... you name it. You received *one* license, for *one* system. It is not supposed to be copied.

The companies for those operating systems have well qualified people who manage to put together coherent licenses using clear and precise language. They also offer users with multiple licenses, allowing for example multiple copies of the OS to be installed on the same machine multiple times, either under one license or individually - this is all specified in the licenses.

Can you install OS 3.1.4 under UAE on an Amiga running OS the very same OS 3.1.4?
Can you install an instance of OS 3.1.4 to run under WHDLoad to be launched from the very same OS already running on the very same hardware?

The Hyperion license does not mention how this work, it only refers to "computer system" without specifying what they mean with "computer system".

I see no mention of any "target" in any of the licenses, Microsoft speak of "devices" which they in the license define (as both physical and virtual), and Hyperion licenses only mention "computer systems" without specifying what they mean by that.

Oh, and "device" is more clear than "computer system"? Is your washing machine a device?

Not by the definition Microsoft uses, but with the Hyperion license it is not clear. My washing machine does have a computer in it, and so it is indeed a computer system too - potentially powerful enough to run an incarnation of UAE, and hence a possible target for AmigaOS.

More casual and relevant "devices" are gaming consoles, FPGA systems, other consumer computers etc.

Is all this really unreasonable?

Your whole post? Yes, very. Laughable.

No, the user scenario I described, which was straight out describing how one easily can be in violation of the license.
But by all means, go on laugh, ridicule and patronise...

Maybe you have not read it?

Nope, what for? Not my job.

Then perhaps you should also stop being obnoxious with those who have read it.

Maybe you are such a cool person that such mundane issues are below your radar?

Once again, I do not mind about the license of the product, this is not my problem. Why do you believe that this is one of my issues? I'm not even employed by Hyperion (luckely). You seem to prefer to pick me as a contact person for Hyperion, which apparently you don't like, and then instead attack me in person.

Excuse me - it was *YOU* who wrote "Nope" when I stated that the license prevents me from buying any more copies of OS 3.1.4 - it was not Hyperion, it was YOU. I only WISH it was actually someone from Hyperion who could bring answers here - you are clearly NOT the right person - not that it ever stops you though.

Now, does anyone wonder *why* I don't like AmigaOs open source? Because of people like you, Kolla, exactly that. In a commercial enterprise, one has "customer support" to avoid that developers have to care about the type of people you find in this forum, and to let developers do their job, and let other people care about it (and probably ignore them...). This is pretty much what would be necessary in any sane product development. If I would be Hyperion - yes, ignoring your questions is probably the best strategy to use.

Once again, *I AM NOT YOUR CUSTOMER SUPPORT POINT* and *NOT YOUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT* and *NOT YOUR COMPLAINTS DEPARTMENT*.

So why do you feel the need constantly jumping in to act like Hyperion's complaint department - all you have to do is... nothing!

Is your ultimate goal for replying me, to have me banned from here? Is that all you want?

Btw - the ATAPIMajik module works great on all systems so far.

And is ARexx' DATE(CENTURY) noted on the bug tracker? It still counts from 1900, not 2000.

[Matt_H]

@ cgutjahr

I guess to summarize my thinking:
1. We already have a mess.
2. We are at risk of losing critical mass to sustain the platform as a whole.
3. We don't currently have the systems and structures in place for successful open-source governance.
4. Therefore, open source risks further fragmentation.
5. Further fragmentation exponentially increases the risk of a fork losing critical mass--including the "official" fork.
6. Therefore we might end up with an even bigger mess.

To reiterate: I'm not against open source in principle, just worried that in our current circumstances it could make matters worse. Project management is extremely complicated, and open-source project management even more so. If it's not done right the result is chaos.

If we can somehow solve #3, then choo choo, I'm all aboard the open-source train. In the meantime I just want this legal foolishness to end so that someone can deliver products for me to buy.

[Matt_H]

@ kolla

Hey, man. You. Need. To. Relax.

It's an unenforceable software license. No one cares what you do with the copy you bought. No one is even going to find out unless you broadcast it on a public forum. Here's the short version if you want to make sure you're ethically in the clear:
1. Don't make copies that you then give away or sell.
2. For however many machines you're going to use it on, buy that many copies.

Enough, please!

[klx300r]

@ cgutjahr

I guess to summarize my thinking:
1. We already have a mess.
2. We are at risk of losing critical mass to sustain the platform as a whole.
3. We don't currently have the systems and structures in place for successful open-source governance.
4. Therefore, open source risks further fragmentation.
5. Further fragmentation exponentially increases the risk of a fork losing critical mass--including the "official" fork.
6. Therefore we might end up with an even bigger mess.

To reiterate: I'm not against open source in principle, just worried that in our current circumstances it could make matters worse. Project management is extremely complicated, and open-source project management even more so. If it's not done right the result is chaos.

If we can somehow solve #3, then choo choo, I'm all aboard the open-source train. In the meantime I just want this legal foolishness to end so that someone can deliver products for me to buy.

+1 

[Tygre]

@Matt_H @Thomas Richter

Don't feed the Troll

[kolla]

It's an unenforceable software license. No one cares what you do with the copy you bought.

If it is unenforceable, it is meaningless and should not exist. Thomas who is otherwise obsessed about rules and regulations (not to mention settlements) being followed to the letter, has not even bothered to read the license that software he is writing himself is distributed under. You are pretty much saying that the license as it is now, can be ignored.

No one is even going to find out unless you broadcast it on a public forum.

There is a thread here about how people do backups, it should be obvious now that making backups of OS installations are in violation of the license. But the license is unenforceable and to be ignored.

Here's the short version if you want to make sure you're ethically in the clear:
1. Don't make copies that you then give away or sell.
2. For however many machines you're going to use it on, buy that many copies.

Then just define “machine” as any instance of a computer, hardware or virtual, capable of running “the AmigaOS” and permit multiple copies to exist on multiple systems for backup purposes, no crazy restrictions on doing backups over networks, nor requirements regarding locales etc, and you are golden - Hyperion should hire you as their license lawyer.

If OS 3.2 comes under a license this simple, I have no problem buying licenses to cover somewhere between 10 to 20 installations, and have OS 3.2 on all my systems. Isn’t this how things should be?

[Minuous]

Well, these kind of EULAs are not enforceable in most jurisdictions anyway so stressing about what it says is probably not worthwhile.

[kolla]

Well, these kind of EULAs are not enforceable in most jurisdictions anyway so stressing about what it says is probably not worthwhile.

Another AmigaOS developer stating that the software license is to be ignored.
Thanks, duly noted.

[guest11527]

Hyperion only offer one license, and it is ridiculous, ambiguous and extremely limiting.

Apparently, only for one guy.

Yes, ONE or - 1, 2 or 3 - which can be either 1 or 2 or 3, or it can be 1 and 2 or 3?

In my English, a sentence that goes "A,B or C" lists three alternatives.

I am happy, but this is not about happiness, it is about finding out what the f Hyperion are trying to communicate, and what potential consequences there are.

No, Kolla, it is not. It is about "finding reasons to complain". You know that, I know that. There is no problem with the license as such, just the usual legal glibberish, read it with common sense, same as a court would, and there is no problem at all.

That is a rather big issue, don't you think?

No, I do not think so.

No, I have not, I am a *developer*. It is not my job to create licenses, read them, or check them.
[/quote]

I see, that figures - so then, why can you even possibly make the claim that it is not the license that prevents me from buying more copies of OS 3.1.4, and possibly the future OS 3.2?
[/QUOTE]
Because, Kolla, I know you. Nothing prevents you from buying. You just find reasons to for you to complain about to claim that something is preventing you - that is the true reason, not some license that is quite clear.

If I read this license, I'm quite sure what I'm able to do or not to do. It boils down to "one license per hardware, for systems which are designed to execute AmigaOs, no copies in the internet, do not share the stuff, do not mess with the binaries, use the right language setting, we waive responsibility to the degree possible", that's it.

Was it because it was *I* who wrote it, and you have a certain soft sport for me?

Yes, apparently. Everybody else, I would have taken serious. But this is just hillarious.

Blablabla technobabbel - I perfectly know *why*, sheesh.

Well, then why make a rumble.

It is nevertheless a solution. If it makes you feel any better, I typically use CygnusEd for these tasks, fully paid and registered - I find Olsen a much more pleasant person to communicate with that you

Works for me if stop pestering me.

Many edit all prefs programs to use a different font than topaz/8 - what scum they are, breaking the license!

Yup, so don't use programs that modify the binaries that come with the Os. Guess why that rule is there. To keep customers away from doing stupid things, then come back and argue that their Os broke.

Dumb question - why did your program _allow_ people to chose fonts in different size then?

All of this was/is experimental, and no, it is not for the public.

It is almost a shame you did not release it though, would be ironic if the OS came with a program specifically there to break one of the conditions in the license.

It did not break the license because it did not modify binaries. Besides, a tool that would be delivered as part of the Os can hardly break a license.

Not if the license stays at it is.

What? Scalable prefs break the license? I'm sorry, I must be in the wrong movie. The license says "do not mess with the binaries". It does not forbid an Os component to provide a scalable GUI.

Not by the definition Microsoft uses, but with the Hyperion license it is not clear. My washing machine does have a computer in it, and so it is indeed a computer system too - potentially powerful enough to run an incarnation of UAE, and hence a possible target for AmigaOS.

No, it is not. It is not designed for executing AmigaOs, so installation of AmigaOs on it is excluded. That's what the license text says, quite clearly. Does not fall into 1), 2) or 3).

Then perhaps you should also stop being obnoxious with those who have read it.

The point is not the reading part. The point is that you make such a big noise about something completely harmless, and not because you don't understand it - I consider you smart enough.

Excuse me - it was *YOU* who wrote "Nope" when I stated that the license prevents me from buying any more copies of OS 3.1.4 - it was not Hyperion, it was YOU.

Correct. It is not the license that stops you from buying, Kolla, I say that again. The license is ok, it is you, trying to find reasons to complain, that is the reason. I know that from the very beginning - you just try to pick some fake arguments, that's all.

I only WISH it was actually someone from Hyperion who could bring answers here - you are clearly NOT the right person - not that it ever stops you though.

As licenses go? No, I'm not the right person, definitely. But you don't need that person either. You have made your decision to dislike Hyperion, and now you try to find reasons. it's quite obvious that nobody from Hyperion is willing to explain the license to do you either because the case is clear.

So why do you feel the need constantly jumping in to act like Hyperion's complaint department - all you have to do is... nothing!

I develop. That's it.

Is your ultimate goal for replying me, to have me banned from here? Is that all you want?

I admit that this would be a relief.

Btw - the ATAPIMajik module works great on all systems so far.

Not here at the betatesters side, so it will not ship.

And is ARexx' DATE(CENTURY) noted on the bug tracker? It still counts from 1900, not 2000.

I don't know what you mean by "still", but the problem there was is that it required some additional research to find out what exactly the Rexx specifications say before attempting a fix. There was some "wannabe" fix in one of the inofficial boing bags I looked at, but it also got things wrong. In some cases, it requires a bit more time to find out what exactly is right, and leaving a bug in is sometimes better than making a premature fix.

[guest11527]

1. We already have a mess.
2. We are at risk of losing critical mass to sustain the platform as a whole.
3. We don't currently have the systems and structures in place for successful open-source governance.
4. Therefore, open source risks further fragmentation.
5. Further fragmentation exponentially increases the risk of a fork losing critical mass--including the "official" fork.
6. Therefore we might end up with an even bigger mess.

That is pretty much it, indeed. Thank you. Item #3 is really a big issue. The big problem I see is a suitable moderation to create a climate within which development can proceed in an orderly fashion.

[kolla]

And is ARexx' DATE(CENTURY) noted on the bug tracker? It still counts from 1900, not 2000.

I don't know what you mean by "still", but the problem there was is that it required some additional research to find out what exactly the Rexx specifications say before attempting a fix. There was some "wannabe" fix in one of the inofficial boing bags I looked at, but it also got things wrong. In some cases, it requires a bit more time to find out what exactly is right, and leaving a bug in is sometimes better than making a premature fix.

Other Rexx implementations have agreed, and show value according to language specification - ARexx does not.

https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSLTBW_2.1.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r1.ikja300/date.htm

Century
the number of days, including the current day, since and including January 1 of the last year that is a multiple of 100 in the form: ddddd (no leading zeros). Example: A call to DATE(C) on March 13, 1992, returns 33675, the number of days from 1 January 1900 to 13 March 1992. Similarly, a call to DATE(C) on November 20, 2001, returns 690, the number of days from 1 January 2000 to 20 November 2001.
Note: When used for date_format1, this option is valid when input_date is not specified.

[kolla@bergum] :> echo 'SAY DATE(C)' | regina
7354

and this the number of days from first of January 2000.

Minimig:> rx "SAY DATE(C)"
43878

and this is closer to the number of days from first of January 1900.

[OlafS3]

What "critical mass" can we loose? 

for commercial software development? When yes what commercial software development?

Most software developed right now are games and those bang the hardware and do not use the OS

For commercial software you must offer some kind of future, new chances

"preserving" the old platform is not enough

[guest11527]

Other Rexx implementations have agreed, and show value according to language specification - ARexx does not.

Please note that my formulation used "was", not "is". There is a v47 rexxsyslib which fixes this according to the language specs, but not only for the 20th and 21st century, as the BB fix did. It should hopefully be ok for the years the Gregorian calendar is valid. It is this type of research that was missing.

[kolla]

In my English, a sentence that goes "A,B or C" lists three alternatives.

of which one is "[a computer system] for which a legitimate version of AmigaOS was or is available"

My current laptop is an old macbook, and there are several versions of UAE available, for which I can buy (and have bought) kickstart and operating systems from Cloanto. So clearly, this is a computer system for which a version of AmigaOS is available. Or perhaps the products from Cloanto are not defined as "AmigaOS". There is even AmiKit, a commercial product, that exists solely for such computer systems - sold explicitly to be used with emulators and based on OS 3.1.4:

https://www.amikit.amiga.sk/amigaos314

Legal? Illegal? What gives.

Not by the definition Microsoft uses, but with the Hyperion license it is not clear. My washing machine does have a computer in it, and so it is indeed a computer system too - potentially powerful enough to run an incarnation of UAE, and hence a possible target for AmigaOS.

No, it is not. It is not designed for executing AmigaOs, so installation of AmigaOs on it is excluded.

* "designed for executing AmigaOs" is also not listed as a condition in the license - the closest you get is the one, out of three requirements of which only one must be met, about a "[a computer system] which was especially prepared for running AmigaOS through the use of a dedicated (flash)rom or similar mechanism", a point that is made redundant by the next point "or [a computer system] for which a legitimate version of AmigaOS was or is available", unless Cloanto's versions of AmigaOS are not considered legitimate.

* UAE is explicitly designed for executing AmigaOS.

That's what the license text says, quite clearly. Does not fall into 1), 2) or 3).

This only makes sense if you also say that there exists no legitimate AmigaOS to be used with software emulators.

[guest11527]

For commercial software you must offer some kind of future, new chances

Which "future"? Amiga is a retro-platform, it needs to run the old software, while getting rid of some of the problems the previous releases had, and getting rid of the patches people installed to improve experience.
I do not consider that there will be any big vendor of a big software house that may be interested in developing for such a platform. It is too small a niche, and too uncapable as a system. But I do see the need to maintain the system.

"preserving" the old platform is not enough

It's certainly more than enough for me, and more than enough work left for it. AmigaOs has too many roadblocks on the way to make it fit for something modern. If you want to do that, create something new and avoid all the constructional problems AmigaOs has - this is probably my main point of critique on AROS.

Just to give you ideas, the design of exec to build semaphores around signals, and multitasking coordination on a global Forbid() lock is just "upside down". In a real multi-core system, you build the system around synchronization primitives (semaphores or mutexes), then create message passing on top of that, and not vice-versa. Leave alone such "details" such as memory protection or resource tracking that is intrinsically missing, and the idiocracy of "BPTRs" and the duplication of devices and handlers on top of an almost, but not quite identical message passing system. AmigaOs is very badly prepared for the future. If you want to make it ready, ditch it and create something reasonable. But even then, I wouldn't hold my breath that any software house picks that up as a development target. AmigaDE failed, to name one, and for good reason.

[kolla]

AROS exists solely because AmigaOS has been in constant legal limbo ever since 1994.