> Is Stuntz responsible for the release of those sources?

That's the core question here I'd say. I'm still caught between the reasoning from the old MorphZone thread (i.e. they received the 2006 MUI4 source code in a legal way) and the new (at least for me) claims from KennyR here (i.e. they didn't get any MUI4 source code and instead reverse-engineered MUI4).
It would be helpful if the MorphOS team publicly communicated which of the two (or a third option maybe?) represents the truth.

> When Piru first discovered what they were doing, he contacted Stuntzi directly.
> Apparently, he [Stuntzi] was surprised to hear about it. [...] he responded quickly.

Didn't you just say that "Stuntzi only became aware some weeks after they released their hack, having had no idea of it beforehand"?

> Occam's Razor would assume someone had been naughty and leaked the source,
> as several developers did work on OS4 and MorphOS alike.

Who for instance? And wouldn't this someone have given something a bit more up to date?

> If Stuntzi gave them the source, wouldn't he have given something a bit more up to date?

Not if he wanted to make sure to not violate the copyright of others who started contributing only at a later point.

> Wouldn't he have made sure to add the shareware registration in that source,
> or at least stipulated that it should have one?

Maybe he did but it was removed from / not incorporated into the first release nonetheless.

>>> it was believed, MUI was buggy crap

>> As far as I remember, the main argument against MUI (true or not) was that it
>> was slow, not buggy.

> Slow, buggy, and a memory hog.

As I said, I can't remember that "buggy" was ever a widely used point against MUI.

Update:

> It would be helpful if the MorphOS team publicly communicated which of the two
> (or a third option maybe?) represents the truth.

A MorphOS team member has answered this eventually. Seems it's indeed option #3:

http://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=11416&forum=3&start=31

Pirate MUI4.0 updated.

> Pirate MUI4.0 updated.

...several times last year:

http://amigaworld.net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7322
http://amigaworld.net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7456
http://amigaworld.net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7527

I don't like getting involved in all this, but those against OS4 using MUi have a good point. If you followed the entire drama of this from the beginning OS4 wanted NOTHING to do with MUI. They stated it numerous time. MorphOS owes them nothing at all now. The fact they are scrambling to get it ported and working as well on OS4 just shows they were wrong in that.

On the other side, I HATE the damn bickering and fighting. I use all three versions now. I still agree that MOS is built much better, is more advanced and more "Amiga" like over the other, but having the teams compete is stupid and will get us nothing. Work together and help attract new users and developers.

Quote:

The problem is elsewhere. This is an unauthorized branch using the same naming scheme. MUI 4.0 is a core piece of MorphOS. The bastardized and unauthorized clone on OS4 detracts from the real thing. The unethical behavior and the constant middle finger on that side is pathetic.

Compatibility is not the problem. If Zune ends up with a clean room implementation of MUI4 and keeps calling it Zune, there is no issue. That's not what happened here. We all know what happened here. I just wish there was the will and the means to litigate against these dirtbags.

> This is [...] using the same naming scheme.

That's because it's based on genuine 2006 MUI4 source code.

> MUI 4.0 is a core piece of MorphOS.

MUI 4.0 hasn't been a piece of MorphOS for years. Current version is 5, and before it was 4.2.

> If Zune ends up with a clean room implementation of MUI4 and keeps calling
> it Zune, there is no issue. That's not what happened here.

Indeed, what happened here is no clean room implementation but a development based on genuine 2006 MUI4 source code.

> We all know what happened here.

Yes, since Henes did us the favour to tell us two months ago (link in comment #129).

Quote:

I do not think that MUI4 is really important for AmigaOS now. On MorphOS it is used for Odyssey and expecially for Ambient. AmigaOS is based on Reaction. The old Odyssey is already running, a new port not in sight. What else do you need MUI4 on AmigaOS for? To me it seems more like a private competition with the MorphOS camp, for that they also use the naming.

> [...] MUI4 [...]. On MorphOS it is used for Odyssey and expecially for Ambient.

MUI for MorphOS is at version 5 since MorphOS 3.8.

>> Current version is 5

Did I miss something? Mui 5?

>> Current version is 5

> Did I miss something?

Yes, comments #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #14, #17, #21, #25, #30, #33, #49, #60, #64, #76 and #125 :-)

Quote:

But the S/W they are releasing isn't the genuine MUI4; from that early beta they have developed it into someterhing slightly different and slightly incompatible, a bastard fork, a "frankenMUI" that despite being different is using the same name.


Quote:

Again, there is nothing "genuine" about this, it's a "dirty room", the reult of violating good faith by being granted access to the source tree in order to port a 3.9 version but took newer sources and used this as a base for an unofficial "MUI4" fork that is incompatible to the *real* MUI4, thus rendering an incompatible line S/W developed for it will be incompatible to MUI4 as well (making potential porting more difficult, etc), and still they call it "MUI4" and they call themselves "The MUI4 development team", falsely posing as the official developers of MUI. Similar to what once happened when Ralph S allowed access to SFS sources for an updated 3.1 port, only to see how they took it and created an unofficial and incompatible fork for competing OS4 using the same name. Not only confusing but also an example of abuse of good faith. In addendum, the "MUI4 development team" demonstrated their lack of respect on several occasions, first by removing the need for license key, then by repeatedly violating copyright. FrankenMUI is bad blood all the way through.

>> what happened here is [...] a development based on genuine 2006 MUI4 source code.

> there is nothing "genuine" about this

Don't twist my words. What I called genuine is the 2006 MUI4 source code that is being used as base.

> they call themselves "The MUI4 development team"

No, they call themselves "The MUI for AmigaOS Development Team", as you still knew some months back:

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=3&topic_id=11372&start=43

> posing as the official developers of MUI.

...for AmigaOS.

> the "MUI4 development team"

...is now the MUI5 development team :-)

Quote:

Surely SASG are the "Official Developers of MUI for AmigaOS"?

>>> posing as the official developers of MUI.

>> ...for AmigaOS.

> Surely SASG are the "Official Developers of MUI for AmigaOS"?

I corrected what "they" are "posing" as. And given that SASG's latest version of MUI for AmigaOS is 19 years old I guess that SASG is not developing it anymore.

Quote:

Acknowledged.

Quote:

Windows 95 isn't developed anymore but Microsoft are still it's official developers no?

> Windows 95 isn't developed anymore but Microsoft are still it's official developers no?

Acknowledged :-)

As consequence to the permanent license breaks by the MUI for AmigaOS development team and the relucting respect to the work of others, the MorphOS/MUI team should withdraw all aceess and licenses from Mr. Maus and Böckelmann and declare their "work" globally illegal.

Quote:

OR...they could do the mature thing (as they have been doing) and ignore it.
It is a dead end anyway, and is wreaking havoc with the 68K users that try to get it working.

They only wanted something that would allow a quick port of Odyssey.

Why encourage the idea that things are adversarial?

Your answer is like "they robbed my purse, so what? keep going".

Quote:

Sure, because if it is an early version of 4.0 its Stuntz's 'purse' not ours.
And, as we are at MUI 5.0, yes, so what, let's keep going.

I have not read any comments from the red camp like "that will show the MOS users!" or "our MUI is better!" or anything. Mostly they just thank the developers or complain about it's problems or bugs. Sure, they way development got started may have been ugly, but I don't think it will make a dent in the universe.

Quote:

I don't know if it is right to say they ignored it. Publicly they aren't saying a ton, that is true.

Also I wouldn't make light of "wreaking havoc with 68K users". That is one of the major concerns here. OS4 <> Amiga, even though they pretend to be, just like their pirate MUI4.0 <> MUI4.0 even though they pretend to be.

68K users OTOH = Amiga users, actual Amiga users. Even in 2016 there will be some Amiga users who don't know or care much about NG Amiga-like solutions. This bastard pirate fork being represented as MUI4.0 is doing damage to the Amiga market. Those users who aren't versed on NG will just get disgusted with "MUI4.0", and will likely solidify their reason not to move on to MorphOS ever, since MUI is a core component of the OS.


Quote:

No, they wouldn't have taken the actions they took if they only wanted to pot Odyssey. AW can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the OWB port and bounty were paid before this pirate MUI4 was released.

Quote:

Because things ARE adversarial, all in one direction. They used dirty room code, in bad faith, removed/replaced copyright, and even initially released without keyfile requirements. There is no happy coexistence here, just unethical behavior.

Quote:

My personal worry is that if that "MUI4" gathers any developers on the 68k side and they use the incompatible functions there... the result will be that those 68k programs won't work under MorphOS anymore.

Those developers are unlikely interested to port their software specially to MorphOS, because they think they're using the common standards. On paper 68k+MUI should work as it is on MorphOS, and has worked till today, but now when there's an incompatible branch available, that may change :/

So, in the worst case program ports gets leeched to MorphOS -> OS4/68k direction, but due the present and future incompatibilities programs coming the other way get blocked.

It really would be nice to have a common standard without separating branches. The best would have been that official MUI4 would have been ported to other platforms, but at least the different versions should have remained compatible... but as usual, the things go the worst way in the Amiga land.