> Dave's contention that somehow the MorphOS team
> has improperly used AOS3.1 source code. It's an echo
> of sentiments voiced by Ben Hermans years ago

I believe it might be the other way round. AFAIK Haynie posted his accusations the first time in early November 2001 to the TeamAmiga mailing list. And now look when Hermans chimed in:

http://www.biclodon.com/misc/amigafarm/benhermans/

Coincidence? Maybe, but probably not. I tend to believe that actually Haynie started it and Hermans "just" blindly followed and blew it out of proportion and context because it came in useful to him (btw, Haynie was announced as technical consultant for Hyperion's OS4 project in January 2002). However this doesn't mean I come to Hermans' defence here, of course.

> I hope he gets an answer

He did, about a week ago. See CISC's posting #14 here in this thread or Haynie's reply on AW.net.

Wow Andreas, that doesn't look like he's addressing Harry's concerns. It just looks like a different snipe.
I'm liking Dave Haynie less by the minute.

BTW - What has he done recently?

> What has he done recently?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Haynie#Robots_and_radios

Wow, his own Wikipedia page. Bet that stokes his ego.

But, essentially, since Amiga nothing particularly successful?

> since Amiga nothing particularly successful?

I don't know as I'm not well versed regarding the markets Nomadio is in.

Good point. And I should avoid sounding judgmental (just because I've found Dave's opinion offensive).
He's had some fairly cool near misses anyway.

Jim,
Quote:

Sorry for ranting but I have to get this of my chest. Please read on and read the message twice as I will try to do more than ranting :(

Please guys, if anything is stopping cooperation it is you guys. I think the rest of the amiga world is ready to leave the past behind. I regret that is does not seem to be the case for some of the MorphOS guys.
Taking a step back. A guy who was once a big Amiga person but is out of the scene for a very long time makes some comment on a forum; a guy who no longer has any amiga connection except that he was working for it when Commodore went bust; a guy who has just sold his last Amiga remnants. That guy makes a comment about the legality of the Exec code of MorphOS.
After this several fora are filled with messages with how Ben Hermans is the devil, that this guy above has to retract his statements, how Amiga Inc. doesn't own the Amiga IP rights etc, etc. This all without a single comment from guys currently linked with AmigaOS4 etc. All posts are made by people linked to MorpOS or supporters of the platform.

All this gives me the impression that one the main reasons of existence of MorphOS is to be anti-AmigaOS4 and anti-Hyperion. In my mind not a very good basis to develop an OS on.

It is true that some people at Hyperion and Amiga Inc. believe the C Exec code - developed at H&P I think and on which the MorphOS Exec is based - is illegal. They do believe they have prove for it and not just hearsay. Also Amiga Inc. is the owner and is the only company to be able to take legal action.
It is also true that the MorphOS devs believe they have made a clean room implementation and all code is legal. With that the case it should be possible to move and leave the past behind.
Would you guys think about the following: make site on morphos-team documenting your stance - something along the line: "Some people claim MorhpOS code is illegal. Using our development practices this ... and this ... we do believe everything is legal. If somebody disagree he can contact us with proove or take other actions."
Then if somebody make a comment somewhere just post a reply with a reference to the page and move on.

I also fail to see how Amiga Inc. being a valid owner of Amiga IP rights or not is relevant. Either the MorphOS code is OK or not OK, independent of Amiga Inc. owning the IP.

Each of the parties is convinced of their own stance; so one party asking the other party to retract their stance is just a road block to possible cooperation or even peaceful co-existence.

Even if Amiga Inc. would once come out of it's shelter and start to sue I don't think there is much to worry about; given their track record of past court case that is. At that time it would be a good occasion to test the validity of their claim for Amiga IP ownership. I personally don't see that happen, so IMO one reason the more for MorhpOS to just to move on.

Also the 'probably illegal' comment of Evert in a legal court filing has long been discussed off-the-record by me with him. I notified afterwards the AROS devs that I don't feel any reason to be worried and we (AROS) moved on. We don't need other guys taking a stance for AROS and beating on dead horses.

I already feel a little bit guilty of posting this but I do think you guys needed a mirror to see how the outside world (outside of MorpOS) can perceive you.
Most people will know I am a main AROS developer but I would like to use the open source AROS code to bring the whole Amiga world closer together in the future. As AROS dev I try to refrain from commenting on AOS4 or MorhpOS (especially bad things) but as this legacy seems to interfere with my other goal I could not stop posting this message.
Also want to let you know it does not change anything with my plans for MorphOS etc. as I sincerely hope some perseverance from me will help to get this bad blood out of the amiga community.

greets,
Staf.

PS: Saw Jim's reply to my post on Ric Elias; feel even a little more guilty now...


[ Edited by Fats 27.04.2011 - 21:48 ]

Don't sweat it Staf. You know I'm usually a little more even tempered. The fact that this stuff still gets posted had me burned up.
I had hoped for some time to see some reconciliation amongst all Amiga related camps, so my use of inflammatory posts is counter productive.
Please don't take offense with the rest of the MOS community over my recent contributions.
Harry's original request is quite valid.
If someone thinks there's proof, show it (or shut up).

And I'm not helping by diverting attention from that request.

Sorry Piru.

> messages [...] that this guy above has to retract his statements

...or provide proof.

> All posts are made by people linked to MorpOS or supporters of the platform.

Not surprising. Or why should people not linked to MorphOS be concerned by accusations regarding the legality of MorphOS?

> All this gives me the impression that one the main reasons of
> existence of MorphOS is to be anti-AmigaOS4 and anti-Hyperion.

Not likely. MorphOS very much predates Hyperion's OS4.

> some people at Hyperion and Amiga Inc. believe the
> C Exec code - developed at H&P I think and on which
> the MorphOS Exec is based - is illegal.

I think this is nonsense on multiple levels:

1. I don't think that anybody at Hyperion or Amiga Inc. considers the C Exec code illegal. Why should they?
2. I don't think the C Exec code was developed at H&P.
3. I don't think the MorphOS Exec is based on anybody else's C Exec code. Do you realize you take Haynie's and Hermans' line here?

> They do believe they have prove for it

I doubt they really believe that.

> Amiga Inc. [...] is the only company to be able to take legal action.

According to the settlement agreement Hyperion is able to take legal action as well.

> it should be possible to move and leave the past behind.

Yes, but reiterating the old claim that MorphOS uses stolen AmigaOS source code is quite the contrary to leaving the past behind, don't you think?

> one party asking the other party to retract their stance

I think you're confusing stance with public statement here. You can have a stance about something without ever uttering it anywhere (in public). Likewise, you can make public statements that don't present your true stance on the matter.

> Even if Amiga Inc. would once come out of it's shelter and start to
> sue I don't think there is much to worry about; given their track record
> of past court case that is :-)

I don't think so. A litigation is always consuming resources, even if the other party's accusations are completely unfounded. Just see Hyperion's statements on how the court case against Amiga Inc. slowed down development of OS4.

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 06.09.2011 - 07:46 ]

|||




[ Edited by Velcro_SP 06.09.2011 - 07:38 ]

> he has in past years occasionally made this allegation, IIRC never
> clearly and openly explaining his basis for it [...]
> Hazydave then finally explained himself clearly (he says Andy Finkel
> said Andy Finkel saw some of Andy Finkel's own code and comments
> from classic Amiga OS "Exec" in assembly language in "C Exec" in C
> by Phase 5 which employed Ralph Schmidt who would go on years later
> to found MorphOS). [...] it was decent of hazydave to finally explain himself
> clearly and publicly.

I think that's basically the same story he told in 2001 already:

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

@fats

I think difference is that Evert Carton dropped his empty threats against AROS while Dave Haynioe continues to play his broken record.

Dave Haynie being PCB layout guy at some ex-toy company doesnt make him any special.

[ Edited by itix 28.04.2011 - 14:35 ]

> I think this just says when the transaction of the Amiga patents and title
> occurred, the contract didn't make reference to OS 3.1.

Yes. To quote the web page where this document is originally linked from:

"a German appeals court (Oberlandesgericht Celle, judgment 13 U 97/97), after a review that included the contracts between the "Commodore-Amiga Group" and ESCOM AG, and while recognizing that for example patents were transferred between Commodore-Amiga and ESCOM, also concluded that there was no indication that any copyrights for the Amiga operating system itself had been transferred to ESCOM."

> Now did the lawyers in 1997 just FORGET to put that in there,
> or was there a REASON they didn't put that in there?

I guess you mean 1995 here, not 1997. Taking into account that Hembach acted as the bankruptcy trustee during both the transaction from Commodore to Escom (1995) and the transaction from Escom to Gateway (1997), and further regarding the fact that he was the one who in 1998 (after the Celle court findings) drafted and signed those nifty $1 contracts in order to subsequently repair the mess for Gateway, we *may* conclude that the omission of the rights to AmigaOS in the contract between Commodore and Escom was just an oversight. If someone can come up with a plausible conspiracy theory I may change my opinion though ;-) What's not making things easier however is that nobody can ask Hembach anymore since he passed away in August 1999.

> should OS 3.1 be naturally included as patent rights, whether
> or not it is expressly named?

Probably not. Else Hembach wouldn't have considered his $1 contracts necessary in 1998.

> I think there were later legal attempts by entities seeking the OS
> rights to fix this situation, and I don't know about those.

Yes, see link there:
https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=3&topic_id=7824&start=27
(it's where the court judgement you linked to is originally linked from)

So, to sum it up, we have Dave Haynie quoting hearsay evidence from Andy Finkel related to a project Ralph Schmidt worked on before MorphOS.
In a US court, without adding qualifiers, Dave's statements would be considered libel.

I wouldn't call that libel. For me it's just pure bullshit. I completely agree with Itix's opinion.

Bullshit can be libel if it hurts your reputation or costs you sales. The real question is why Dave's still spouting this crap almost ten years later. "My friend say this..."Not admissible in even the most biased courts.

[ Edited by Jim 29.04.2011 - 15:59 ]

> Dave's still spouting this crap over ten years later.

November 2001 was less than ten years ago. At least I'm not aware that Haynie uttered those accusations prior to this.

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 06.09.2011 - 07:34 ]

> You're saying Hembach was 1) the bankruptcy trustee for Commodore-Amiga,
> and 2) subsequently the bankruptcy trustee for Escom

Yes, exactly.

> and 3) at the time of the three $1 transactions from Commodore-Amiga to
> Escom he was *concurrently* the trustee for *both* bankrupt companies?

While he *acted* as the trustee for both companies in 1998, I'm not sure if he did legitimately so considering that Commodore-Amiga (and probably Escom as well) had already been liquidated (and thus ceased to exist) before. So the questions to be asked are: 1. Can someone act on behalf of a non-existing company which he had been the trustee of back when it still existed? 2. Can a non-existing company transfer assets to another (existing or non-existing) company?
The notary public in 1998 acknowledged Hembach as attorney for both CBM and Commodore-Amiga, based on their May 1995 contract with Escom, and as attorney for Escom, based on Hembach's July 1996 constitution as Escom's trustee.

> I looked at the three $1 transactions and I didn't see it there either
> (however I may have overlooked it!). Did you see it in there?

Quite to my surprise I don't. They mention "Amiga Kickstart ROM version 1.3" and "Amiga Kickstart ROM version 2.04" but quite shockingly nothing about "3.0" or "3.1". I really don't know what to make of this. Nicely spotted. Now what are the implications?

> one reason that Commodore-Amiga might not have transferred the 3.1
> and prior Amiga OSs to Escom is because the rights to those may possibly
> have been partially encumbered to third parties, say through licensing or
> IP claims by contributors. Candidly, I don't know though exactly who such
> parties might be. Villagetronic? The narrator.device people?

Interesting thought.

"Commodore discontinued licensing the Amiga's speech software from SoftVoice, Inc., so (officially) beginning with this release, the "Say" program, DEVS:narrator.device, and LIBS:translator.library were no longer included on the Workbench disks. According to Matt Sealey, the guys who designed translator and narrator had a spat with Commodore, much like William Hawes did (ARexx), so Commodore had to withdraw it from the OS distribution."
http://www.gregdonner.org/workbench/wb_21.html

"Michael C. Battilana of Cloanto notes that: '[...] In the early 1990s we had also done some operating system improvements, e.g. to printer drivers and DataTypes, among others. This resulted in our code being included in the 3.1 release. So, technically (and legally), we are co-authors of 3.1.'"
http://www.gregdonner.org/workbench/wb_amigaforever.html

"Cloanto Italia srl, being [...] a co-author of the operating system, obtained multiple licenses over different versions and components of these original ROM and operating system files [...]. This licensing process began before the initial publication of Amiga Forever in 1997 (the first operating system distribution licenses date back to before the 1994 Commodore liquidation, by which time Cloanto already was both a co-author and a license holder)"
http://www.amigaforever.com/kb/13-122

"William Hawes is no longer involved in development of Amiga programs because of quarrels in the past with Commodore about the licensing of ARexx"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARexx#History

IIRC Commodore included ARexx in AmigaOS 3 without Hawes' permission. That might indeed have been an issue for the sale of the rights to software containing this component.

>> Dave's still spouting this crap over ten years later.

>November 2001 was less than ten years ago. At least I'm not aware that Haynie uttered those accusations prior to this.
'
OK, changed 'over' to 'almost'.

Also, i still regret bringing IP issues into this.
No recent negative comments have been issued by Hyperion or Amiga Inc. executives.
As there is no valid party left to challenge their rights, its a subject I should have left alone.

|||



[ Edited by Velcro_SP 31.08.2011 - 08:51 ]

Quote:

His following post is more important, this is what he's really talking about:

HazyDave:
Quote:

I replied with the following where I've tried to give my interpretation of the situation.

Minator:
Quote:

I once asked did they use any AmigaOS code and was given a clear no. I've no reason to doubt this.

The point he's making is about "IP pollution". Has anyone working on MorphOS seen the AmigaOS source? If so, then there is a potential problem.
It's not about if someone has copy-pasted code. It's if they've ever even seen the AmigaOS code. If so, under what conditions was it seen? Was any code produced referencing it and did any of this make it into MorphOS?

It's much more complex than it first appears and it's certainly a valid question.

While some people are writing off Dave as some old dude, it's clear to me he's one of the smartest people who ever worked on the Amiga and given the clarity of the comments he makes, still is. Quite why he is so negative towards MorphOS I don't know, but I suspect it's all a misunderstanding, a very old misunderstanding.

However, I think this can be finally cleared up by answering the questions he posed:
I believe the first part has been answered. What about the second?

Quote:

> His following post is more important

Yes, that's why CISC referred to it in comment #14 and I linked to it in comment #33.

> I believe the first part has been answered. What about the second?

CISC in comment #14 says he thinks that those questions are addressed on the web page cheesegrate linked to in comment #3.

minator,
Quote:

That was not what I was saying. What I was saying is that Dave is irrelevant to the current Amiga community, he is not a stakeholder anymore in it. As a consequence, his stance should not allow to tear open some old wounds.

greets,
Staf.