Quote:

It's a claim rather incompatible with some of their antics so far, i.e. removal of credit from what is unarguably other people's work.

Quote:

I never argue with anyone about their religious beliefs. In fact, discussion with others belonging to different faiths can be quite enlightening.
That analogy is old and tired.
This is about ethics and intellectual property.

And we have a divide here between us and the OS4 community.
Their claim, completely unsubstantiated, is that Ralph had access to OS3.1 source code, when everything needed to clone the API was already documented.
From my point of view, they are relying on a very shifty individual, Ben Hermans.
For the most part, I don't feel that hostile towards the rest of the OS4 community (except for taking to exception their gibes and attacks).
If Hermans' firm didn't own the rights to OS4, I might actually find it attractive.
After all, the contributions Aeon has made (or sponsored) to the OS are rather impressive.
More so than the glacial pace of Hyperion's development.
Radeon HD drivers, Warp3D Nova, OpenGL ES 2, all pretty neat (and not developed by Hyperion).

But it appears apparent that Stuntz IS a part of the adoption of MUI by OS4 users.
Yes, we have no firm proof, but the silence speaks for itself.
AND, there is absolutely NOTHING we can do about that.
Early MUI code belongs to Stuntz, so we are going to have to get over it.

Right now, maybe we ought to focus on improving our support in the areas the OS4 community has been working on.
Better video drivers, OpenGL support, etc.

[ Edited by Jim 11.09.2016 - 15:15 ]

The 2009 codebase contains not just Stuntzi's work, but also code by laire, Piru, kiero or me (and probably others). And yes, there was a time that other people had access to the source (fact that I have then contested). I personally have never licensed any of my code to be used outside of MorphOS. So yes, the unofficial fork most likely contains my unlicensed work.

Quote:

This is a very good conclusion, Jim. It really makes no sense to waste more time on this.

If any of you want to show your support: don't use YAM.

Quote:

if that is true and it not seems like real news why the MorphOS devs never have done anything against the use of the unlicensed sources?

Quote:

Maybe because Jacek, Harry, and the others don't feel its worth the trouble?
Hey, I trust these guys, and they've face some pretty serious abuse in the past.
I think jacadacaps has put it pretty succinctly, its time to move on.

> Their claim, completely unsubstantiated, is that Ralph had access to OS3.1
> source code, when everything needed to clone the API was already documented.

Back then, everybody and his dog had access to the AmigaOS 3.1 source code.

http://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7824&forum=3&start=1

The claim is that he actually used AmigaOS 3.1 source code in MorphOS.

> The 2009 codebase contains not just Stuntzi's work, but also code
> by laire, Piru, kiero or me (and probably others). [...] I personally
> have never licensed any of my code to be used outside of MorphOS.
> So yes, the unofficial fork most likely contains my unlicensed work.

So does this mean that your MorphOS team colleague Stuntz issued a license for source code that's not his IP to a 3rd party? Or are you in line with Henes in that Stuntz never issued a MUI4 license to Maus/Böckelmann?

> If any of you want to show your support: don't use YAM.

How's the email client of MorphOS 3.10 coming? :-)

Quote:

Indeed - he had access to something far more useful than source: the AmigaOS 3.1 autodocs. Much easier to work backwards than to try to untie all that un-compile-able weird non-ANSI C and 68k ASM. That's why OS4 did exactly the same and like MorphOS went through the same years of "lamerising" their functions to match undocumented bugs to get that compatibility. The OS4 core devs just won't admit it, but they know it.

Has the same thing happened in MUI4? No. They clearly had the source. Which brings this circular argument back to the beginning: they either were given it, or they stole it. However, that isn't what the recent furore is about - it's why they think they have the right to call it MUI5. MorphOS did not call itself AmigaOS 5...

(...although I've always thought it should.)

Quote:

I'd be really surprised if they had an actual license, but you'd have to ask the two parties of such an agreement.

Quote:

It's been on hold as I was working on the technology that it's going to be based on.

Quote:

Yes, the situation is f*cked up, but don't feel hostile against Stunzi (better known as Alpenzorro today). Since a couple of years he literaliy lives biking. I guess he just does not care very much about MUI, MorphOS and Amiga anymore. As said earlier, biking shifts the focus of interest. If on a great trail or winding up an evil ramp you couldn't care less about computers - there's only you, the bike and the environment..

> they either were given it, or they stole it.

As per jacadcaps' testimony, there's even a third possibility.

Quote:

But under what conditions/license did Stuntzi give MOS coders access to MUI so that they could port/fix/enhance it? I find it strange that he would intentionally give up full control over MUI if code contributed to MUI by "outside" coders (MOS Team) all of the sudden means that he no longer is able to do with MUI what he wants (like license it to others, or allow others access to it, even if other contributers don't like that). If I make some software and allow others source code access to it so they can port/enhance it I want to keep control of it and if they fix/enhance/add stuff I want that to be under my control, too.

Is each and every thing in MOS itself contributed by MOS Coder X "owned" by MOS Coder X, too? So that he for example in theory could decide that he does not like it to be ported to "MOS x86" and will not allow it, because he "never gave permission for usage outside of MOS PPC". And the rest of MOS Team can do nothing about it.

What about stuff in MOS which came from external places? Like the AROS repositories. Not everything in there is APL. And theoretically (!) I guess one could say creators of some of this stuff never gave permission/license to use it outside of AROS, either, if one were to find some stuff in there where it is not 100 % clear that it is APL.

> Is each and every thing in MOS itself contributed by MOS Coder X
> "owned" by MOS Coder X, too?

There's been some indication of that:

http://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=3&topic_id=11650&start=36

Quote:

You can find those in the Sources section of our downloads. We haven't synced anything with the AROS tree for about 15 years.

Quote:
It already happened and not only once. OS3 users blamed the MorphOS team to not offer MUI4/5 for 68k, so their argument is that Maus/Böckelmann offering a confusing MUI version in the end is the MorphOS team’s fault. See a1k forum and maybe others to find out about this.
Quote:
That is true and not debated.
Quote:
Only that part of the sentence is true but not the following one:
Quote:
This is wrong. The most prominetnt examples are OWB and MUI-MPlayer which were ported to AROS and OS4 (I think MUI-Mplayer was maybe not ported to AROS but only to OS4, that’s not the point, anyway). There are also several OS4 applications in the meantime that use their version of MUI4 leading to not being portable to OS3 or MOS by simple recompile. Examples are the zTools. There may be others as well. Plus there is at least one developer who asked for a feature implementation in MOS after it was done incompatibly in OS4MUI. This was rejected. So this OS4MUI has already lead to incompatible software. Without it, if would have been compatible.
Quote:
You are ignoring the problem even years after it came up. Already OS4MUI4 was incompatible. Otherwise developers like zzd10h could have created versions of their programs for OS3 and MOS easily.
I use all four flavours of Amiga: OS3, OS4, AROS, MorphOS and like all of them. So how could I feel superior over myself? Can you explain that to me?
The biggest mistake, sorry stuntzi, was to ever give M/B access to MUI sources, no matter by whom and in what way it happened. Because this just generated all these issues about incompatibilities, copyright issues, name mimics giving false promises.
It was maybe meant as a sign of good will for cooperation but as M/B prove it ended up in uncontrollable incompatibility and additional work for everyone.

Quote:

Personally I don't know, but for example it might have been already part of the contract/licence Stefan Stuntz signed mit Thendic France at the Aachen show in 2002 (I was standing next to them by chance when they did so, vaguely thinking to remember the sum even, although no details of course).

@connor

to me it sounds like if the MorphOS team would control everything around MUI there would be no problem regarding compatibility... that is even true because MUI4/5 would be exclusive to MorphOS. Not a perfect solution either. And yes if MorphOS team would have supported other platforms by creating specific binaries there would be no competing development (except on Aros perhaps because of needing open sources). Are they to blame? I would say they missed a chance. Yes OWB and MPlayer... both from the same source. Anything else? I am not aware of any application, system components are closed anyway. Regarding MUI4 on 68k, without the mentioned OS4MUI4 nothing would exist on 68k, except 3.8 and Zune (when using Aros68k). I remember one discussion with one core team member about using one of his application on Aros 68k, it not worked because of Zune problems, I asked him answer was it is not his problem if it not works. That is the wrong attitude, at least if you want that your software is more widely used. But finally most software is exclusive to one platform so it is not important if there are compatiblity issues. A-eon f.e. are using Reaction for GUI so finally it is only for AmigaOS 4.X and (to a lesser degree) 3.9 on 68k (what is not used by everyone in the 68k community). On MorphOS what software is ported to f.e. AROS except OWB and mplayer?

Regarding using unlicensed code (or not), that can only be answered by copyright owners active and involved at that time. If the code was stolen (like some claim) then they should have gone after them and forced to use correct sources. If they do not want to do that because it would not be worth the trouble then the users should join and also go on. The discussions lead nowhere except creating negativity in sll camps.

[ Editiert durch OlafSch 13.09.2016 - 12:52 ]

Quote:

Typical of the dismissive attitude held by the other camp.
Hope you enjoy OWB, since TimberWolf is dead in the water.
And Mplayer is a great package.

As to porting anything else, why would anyone feel compelled to do that?
There has never been any reciprocation. Just negative BS.

And if members of our development team believe that part of the MUI4 repository that was used contained work from developers other than Stuntz, then it seems quite likely.

OlafSch is an AROS user.

But I wonder why it's anyones duty to help it's competitors with anything? Should Coca Cola give their recipe to Pepsi as their cola is more successful?

Quote:

I think that has been mentioned before, my bad.
Sorry Olaf, but it is really hard to just "step over it", even if that is what I have suggested myself.


[ Edited by Jim 13.09.2016 - 10:52 ]

Quote:

both mplayer and OWB are from Fab as far as I know

anything else? Hope you enjoy fixes by Deadwood from Aros camp. Fortunately not all deva are thinking like you

Quote:

No they do not...

but then no reason to moan if your software is not used or problem is solved in a way you dislike

the comparation with Coca Cola is not valid because GUI toolkit is a base component when porting software from one platform to another. So we end now with a number of different incompatible implementations of MUI. But as I wrote... interest in porting software to other platforms is limited anyway, even open source projects are forked now so it not important anymore today.

Success and Amiga NG in 2016?

In what sense? Anyone winning lots of users now? The only project right now with a certain degree of success is a retro project (or classic how people here call it). None of the NG projects are successful now, the limited developer resources are splitted in different sub markets and also the user base (that is in the low thousands propably). Hardly attractive to anyone.



[ Editiert durch OlafSch 13.09.2016 - 15:45 ]