Just some discussions on this from back in time for those who are interested but missed them:

http://www.ann.lu/comments2.cgi?view=1061210784&category=forum
http://moobunny.dreamhosters.com/cgi/mbthread.pl/amiga/expand/89963

As for the claim of the circulating AmigaOS 3.1 source code:

http://pl.attitu.de/gioshome/deutsch/mekaartikel.html (Google translation)

Ralph's response to Mcewans claim of source code theft from 2001

[ Edited by cheesegrate 18.04.2011 - 18:03 ]

> Ralph's response to Mcewans claim of source code theft from 2001

Thanks. And those were the relevant discussions on this in 2001:

http://www.ann.lu/comments2.cgi?show=1005061810&category=forum
http://moobunny.dreamhosters.com/cgi/mbthread.pl/amiga/expand/62149

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 20.04.2011 - 06:12 ]

Here is an update from Dave...

Posts from D. Haynie on AW.net


Uhmmm... popcorn for everyone !




[ Edited by ZB 21.04.2011 - 11:41 ]

Just quikly read them. Really Linux is running on more computers than Windows. That smells like bollocks to me or has Windows market share really decreased that much.

He probably means devices like routers, possibly smart phones and such like, not desktop/laptop PCS thingys.

[ Edited by stephen_robinson 21.04.2011 - 13:24 ]

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 06.09.2011 - 07:49 ]

I'm still not happy with it however. He is still repeating the old heresay (someone once saw some comments in some unrelated code). I haven't received any evidence that would warrant such statements.

He has no basis for his claims. MorphOS does not, and never has contained any content from AmigaOS, code, comments, documents, graphics, fonts, sounds or otherwise.

Also, I'd like to add that US laws (thankfully) don't apply globally. In sane parts of the world reverse engineering for the purposes of interoperability is allowed.

[ Edited by Piru 21.04.2011 - 17:44 ]

Piru,

So, is Andy Finkel lying to Dave Haynie about seeing the comments within the MorphOS source code?

I am more interested in this so I can refute the claims made by mostly un-informed zealots that use the argument to try to talk users out of using MorphOS2.x, or developing for it. I have seen plenty of dirt thrown about by both sides of the conflict and I believe enough of it to know that there are no "innocent" parties that have never done any questionable, or objectionable deeds over the last 16+ years since Commodore went under. Up to this point in time I have believed that the group behind MorphOS2.x to have acted more professional (most of the time) and doubt there is anything anyone could tell me, or show me that would change my mind about using MorphOS2.x as my hobby OS of choice.

Edit: Why is the "quote" function on the forum now only putting the name of the poster you want to quote in bold at the beginning of the new message?

[ Edited by amigadave 21.04.2011 - 10:00 ]

@ amigadave

Quote:

You misunderstood. Andy Finkel has never seen the MorphOS source code. Nobody said otherwise.

What Mr. Haynie claimed was that Andy Finkel once evaluated a piece of software that Phase5, a now defunct German company, provided to Amiga Technologies, which was owned by the defunct company ESCOM and former owner of all Amiga rights. This piece of software allegedly contained source code comments made by Andy Finkel.

Since the founder of MorphOS, Ralph Schmidt, used to do software development for Phase 5, Mr. Haynie is convinced that Ralph Schmidt is a crook just because of his former affiliation with Phase 5.

Quote:

Of course, his statement makes about as much sense as saying that Mr. Haynie should in no way be trusted because he used to work for the infamous company Merlancia Industries... and the equally infamous Metabox.

(Unlike both of these companies, Phase 5 actually produced products that were of value to Amiga users and available to buy.)

So, to clarify:

Is MorphOS Exec totally code-independent of the Phase 5 exec in question? If so, that would put this to bed once and for all.

(PS - Nice to have finally traced this back to the root of the allegations.)

It's pretty pathetic that Haynie has stooped to the level of wannabe-lawyer henchmen instead of being constructive these days...

On aw.net he did however clearly state that he'd shut up if core MorphOS members swore in public there's no AmigaOS code in MorphOS; well, he's in luck then as Ralph Schmidt himself did so many years ago, maybe someone should point him to the link cheesegrate provided earlier in this thread?


- CISC

> if core MorphOS members swore in public there's no AmigaOS
> code in MorphOS; well, he's in luck then as Ralph Schmidt himself
> did so many years ago

Did he? Really?

"An oath [...] is either a statement of fact or a promise calling upon something or someone that the oath maker considers sacred, usually God, as a witness to the binding nature of the promise or the truth of the statement of fact. To swear is to take an oath"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath

;-)

Back in the day, I had as much respect for Dave Haynie as any other mad-keen Amiga user but now... At the very least, he seems out of touch with what has become of the once great Amiga - which is kind of understandable.

But he must be aware that MorphOS, like AmigaOS 4, is inspired from the classic Amiga api yet, in his mind, MorphOS has the same appeal as Windows but at the same time he holds this notion that MorphOS is built on stolen source code...

I don't get it Dave - Is MorphOS as alien to the classic Amiga as Windows or is it, albeit partially, a direct copy of the original? I don't get how anyone can think it is both of those things.

.


[ Edited by takemehomegrandma 22.04.2011 - 01:53 ]

@ASiegel,

Yes, I could have worded my question more carefully and added the question "does the MorphOS Exec contain any code that was part of the Phase5 Exec, which is claimed to have copied comments within it?"

@Piru

Quote:

Piru are you sure this is the case?

As the local legal statement says here (copyright act implementing relevant EU Directive):

(...) (...) reverse engineering is allowed (...) as long as this is for the purpose of interoperability (...) but as long as this does not yield producing a program of signifficantly similar form.

Besides, I myself wish US copyright regarding programs (patents n stuff) was implemented in EU. Saying no (like yourself) is a typical consumer attitude (or the attitude that shows not seeing why that was implemented that way). Anyway I claim my attitude is the ony one supporting commercial programmers or parties.

And espacially damn those who do not possess $$$$$$$$$$$ for making it a 'whatever' case.

And you seem quite one, at least until MorphOS gets freeware...

@DiskDoctor

Quote:

The actual quote from the Council Directive 91/250/EEC (May 14, 1991) is as follows: "to be used for the development, production or marketing of a computer program substantially similar in its expression, or for any other act which infringes copyright."

From a legal perspective, it apparently takes quite some effort to produce something that is considered "substantially similar in its expression." There are many examples for applications and even operating systems that contain parts that were developed using reverse engineering techniques to achieve interoperability. (OpenOffice.org & Microsoft Office, etc.)

Just as a reminder, the original software in question would be Commodore AmigaOS 3.1, which was released in 1994, or an even older version of it. Just based on screenshots alone, the difference between a default installation of AmigaOS 3.1 and MorphOS should be rather obvious.

Quote:

I would like to point out that there are thousands and thousands of professionals out there who develop software for a living, yet completely disagree with you for a variety of different reasons. This is a highly complex topic and should not be trivialized by separating opposing viewpoints into "consumer" (always looking for a free lunch) and "commercial" (just trying to make a living) categories.

>Just as a reminder, the original software in question would be Commodore AmigaOS 3.1, which was released in 1994, or an even older version of it. Just based on screenshots alone, the difference between a default installation of AmigaOS 3.1 and MorphOS should be rather obvious.

Living in the US and dealing with US regulations, I'm still of the opinion that MorphOs breaks no copyright laws even under US legislation
MorphOS is not AmigaOS and US regulations do not prevent another OS from running software intended for a different operating system..

@Andreas_Wolf
Quote:

Pft. ;)

@amigadave
Quote:

Well, if the alleged comments were indeed in the phase5 exec, they would have been there legitimately (due to Petro as several have mentioned earlier), however I strongly doubt there are any parts of phase5's exec in the MorphOS exec. Though I haven't seen neither phase5 nor AmigaOS code, I have had access to MorphOS code since the 0.x days, and I haven't seen any comments, or code (which would have been really surprising) for that matter, in exec that looked like it originated elsewhere (and with laire's style you can tell ;) ). Additionally, since then large parts of exec have been rewritten by Emm, Piru, Zuikkis and myself to name a few, so whatever remains of ancient code is fairly simple stuff...

Anyway, too much time wasted on yet another rehash of unsubstantiated claims, next time point to the relevant thread (in this case; this one) with answers and demand a put-up-or-shut-up (and an apology would be nice as well).


- CISC

The part of this disagreement that particularly irritates me is that we know AOS4 was developed directly from AOS3.1 source code.
Where is the proof that AInc ever had the right to use any Amiga intellectual property?
Amino was a licensee of trademarks.
Bill McEwen apparent intention (originally) was to use AmigaDE as a basis for new Amigas.

Since then, AInc has tried (and failed) to acquire the intellectual property of both the MorphOS development team and Hyperion.

The contention that the MorphOS team used AOS3.1 source as a basis for MorphOS is not only invalid, it fails to address another major point.
The 'real' AmigaOS that Hyperion HAS developed from AOS3.1 may not be validly licensed.

@Jim,

That argument does not make any sense, besides probably not being true. I think if you try to make that argument with anyone, you are only asking for more flames and hard feelings.

The validity of AmigaOS4.x has been fought in court between AInc. and Hyperion and Hyperion came out on top, so if they did not have the legal right before, they sure as hell have it now and it is clearly stated in court documents to prove it.

I would back away from this argument if I were you. It is a "No Win" situation.

> Where is the proof that AInc ever had the right to use any Amiga
> intellectual property? Amino was a licensee of trademarks.

"Amino Development Corp. [...] has purchased from Gateway (NYSE: GTW) the Amiga trademarks and Amiga computer systems. Terms of the transaction were not disclosed. Peter Ashkin, Gateway senior vice president, said that the company elected to sell the name after deciding to fold Amiga's software engineering function into Gateway's product development activity as part of Gateway's overall strategy to develop and market the coming generation of Internet appliances."
http://web.archive.org/web/20020225145745/http://investor.gateway.com/news/19991228-12782.htm

Note: "purchased" and "sell". To me that doesn't sound like licensing at all. To put it simply, intellectual property can be copyrights, patents or trademarks. The trademark issue is covered in the quoted part of the Gateway press release. The patent issue is covered in the press release as well (patents were retained by Gateway). The only thing that isn't covered by the press release is the AmigaOS copyright. But then, the press release is not a contract. And the contract between Gateway and Amino isn't public so far. So we just don't know what's in there regarding the AmigaOS copyright.

> AInc has tried (and failed) to acquire the intellectual
> property of [...] the MorphOS development team

I'm not sure that is what happened. AFAIR laire said Amiga Inc. wanted to dictate the direction that MorphOS as AmigaOS 4 would have had to take regarding development (e.g. used components). I can't remember that laire said or implied that Amiga Inc. really tried to acquire MorphOS. It was rather the other way round: laire sought to license the "Amiga" name and the Amiga Workbench (Ambient didn't exist back then) from Amiga Inc., but Amiga Inc's terms didn't seem acceptable to him.

> The validity of AmigaOS4.x has been fought in court between AInc. and Hyperion
> and Hyperion came out on top, so if they did not have the legal right before, they
> sure as hell have it now and it is clearly stated in court documents to prove it.

The validity of Amiga Inc's claim of ownership over the AmigaOS 3 copyright (i.e. that Amino/AIW ever owned it) was not tested in that litigation. And it's clear that none of the involved parties strived to do so since a possible finding of non-ownership would have compromised both Amiga Inc. and Hyperion*. So the validity of Hyperion's AmigaOS 4 is based on the non-tested assumption that the AmigaOS 3 copyright is owned by Amiga Inc. To turn that assumption into certainty someone would have to challenge Amiga Inc's claim in court. So far nobody did that.

* While Hyperion challenged the alleged IP transfer from Amino/AIW to KMOS/AID, AIW's ownership of AmigaOS 3 (i.e. transfer to AID was illegal) wouldn't have invalidated Hyperion's right to AmigaOS 4. So for Hyperion it was only essential that either AIW or AID owns AmigaOS 3.