> Its about intellectual property rights.

Only if you believe one version of the story and dismiss the other version. Does this mean you know already which version is true?

> you are simply copying anything from it you find appealing.

Licensing the source code of a specific version of a software product and attempting to reimplement changes others have made to that source code wouldn't be "simply copying".

> everyone here could not care less, unless they are attacked, ripped off, or abused.

Just for the record: I've been neither ;-)

> You represent the competition

In essence, this statement about AROS is correct ;-)

> you benefit of the work of Deadwood

MorphOS *will* benefit from it, hopefully.

> JIT-benchmarks comparing non-X86 platforms with X86/X64 or even smartphones

OWB for MorphOS/OS4 doesn't have any JIT, so there are no JIT benchmarks of OWB on these platforms to compare with anything.

> It is really a silly discussion popping up every couple of months now.

Indeed, and therefore it would help to clarify once and for all whether the source code MUI4/5 for OS3/OS4 is based on was acquired in a legal or an illegal way. We already know Henes' and Maus/Böckelmann's conflicting versions of the story. Now only Stuntz must come out of hiding (or biking) :-)

Quote:

bingo!
We just need a statement from the individual this team claims they licensed the code from.

Quote:

The fact he hasn't could be interpreted by some to mean he really doesn't give a shit what we think ergo he doesn't care about Morphos or its users.

Fair enough if that is the case.

[ Edited by Intuition 09.09.2016 - 19:21 ]

@Andreas

User do not care why a platform has no JIT, they simply want to use modern websites

so of course you can compare platforms even if some have no JIT, of course the results are not beneficial for those

>>> JIT-benchmarks comparing non-X86 platforms with X86/X64 or even smartphones

>> OWB for MorphOS/OS4 doesn't have any JIT, so there are no JIT benchmarks
>> of OWB on these platforms to compare with anything.

> User do not care why a platform has no JIT [...]

Absolutely, I said nothing to the opposite.

> so of course you can compare platforms even if some have no JIT

Of course you can compare platforms, but it should be obvious that you can't compare JIT benchmarks of OWB on MorphOS or OS4 when there's no JIT. You simply cannot benchmark something that doesn't exist.

IMHO, as far as the general public is concerned, it's entirely a naming issue.

Copyright issues is down to the involved parties to sort out, and if they don't care to protect their IP or if they decide to share sources or whatever, it's entirely their call.

But naming confusion concerns people in the "user space" (like developers in this case). Naming this "MUI5" is like releasing MorphOS or AROS using the "AmigaOS4" mark (registration aside) in parallel to Hyperion's published OS. Although many similarities in API, there are differences that makes them *not* directly interchangeable, even incompatible. It's not the same thing. So using the same name is indeed confusing, and a rather dicky thing to do, when done so deliberately as in this case. Same when MorphOS devs shared SFS sources to open up for an updated Workbench 3.x port, and off they ran to create an incompatible OS4 port, released using the same name. There are many documented cases of confusion (and possibly lost data?) because of this.

And maybe you should meditate a bit over jacadcaps statement above (which is only a confirmation to several hints by other MorphOS developers, in this thread and others): "The fun part is that the '5' isn't about MUI itself at all."

Maybe the joke will be on Böckelmann & Maus expense in the end...?

Quote:

Yes, a browser running on a 2016 (or 2006 for that matter) x86 platform using JIT will perform way, way better in JS than a non-JIT browser running on a by comparison decade older PPC platform. No need for benchmark on that one, I'd say, or even debate...

Quote:

That's a rather odd way to frame IP theft.

[ Edited by redrumloa 09.09.2016 - 19:36 ]

Quote:

I think he doesn't care much about this.cycling shifts other interests (speaking off own experience). If I read right (albeit my bike preferences (i prefer asphalt and thin tires) are different from his (thick tires and rocks, Stones and mud) i pretty much enjoy his bike touring Blog), he should be home (or very close to home) now after cruising the Alps again for the last few weeks. Maybe there is a Chance to ask him about mui now.

>>>>> JIT-benchmarks comparing non-X86 platforms with X86/X64 or even smartphones

>>>> OWB for MorphOS/OS4 doesn't have any JIT, so there are no JIT benchmarks
>>>> of OWB on these platforms to compare with anything.

>>> of course you can compare platforms even if some have no JIT

>> Of course you can compare platforms, but it should be obvious that you can't
>> compare JIT benchmarks of OWB on MorphOS or OS4 when there's no JIT. You
>> simply cannot benchmark something that doesn't exist.

> Yes, a browser running on [...] x86 platform using JIT will perform way,
> way better in JS than a non-JIT browser running on [...] PPC platform.
> No need for benchmark on that one, I'd say, or even debate... ;-)

Yes, JIT is obviously faster than non-JIT, yet you can't compare JIT benchmarks of OWB on MorphOS or OS4 because there's no JIT there.

> IP theft

Which IP in particular?

Quote:

Well, obviously if the use of early MUI4 code was unauthorized, its theft.

>>>> Today it is only violating "honor" of MorphOS fans

>>> That's a rather odd way to frame IP theft.

>> Which IP in particular?

> obviously if the use of early MUI4 code was unauthorized, its theft.

There is no "if" in his comment. Does that mean it's already obvious that the use of MUI4 source code has been unauthorized and Jens Maus is lying?

Quote:

Well, maybe its one too many business classes, but that "if" is absolutely required or you might be libeling the OS4 MUI team.

Quote:

Source code to MUI4, autodocs and version number not enough for you?

Per MorphOS Team members, the actual owners of MUI, "certain people" were given access to MUI3.9 sources. Those "certain people" responded to this kind gesture by stealing MUI4.0 code they were not authorized to have. These people then go on to pretend they are the rightful owner, expanding their bastardized fork making it incompatible, but as a poke in the eyes give it the same name and version number as the real product.

This is black and white, no grey area. Ownership if MUI IP is with the MorphOS Team, no one else. The MorphOS team states their version is not authorized, therefore it is not authorized.

At one point Windows NT was released on PPC. Let's imagine for a moment the team who ported NT were an outsourced group, and they inadvertently received access to WinXP sources while no longer involved with Microsoft. If this group took XP source, bastardized it into an incompatible product but started distributing it as Windows 10, wouldn't that be IP theft?

Quote:

...and going to the trouble to update the MUI5 version number so everyone knows it's ideologically-driven.

They never got over their butthurt that MorphOS recreated the AmigaOS API. They've always believed in Haynie's bullshit that it was based on stolen source. So, they steal the source for MorphOS's UI and do the same back. But this time, they're going to 'purify' it by returning it to AmigaOS.

Childish, nasty, puerile. Exactly what you'd expect from a bunch of ass-burgers syndromers.

>>> IP theft

>> Which IP in particular?

> Source code to MUI4

That's one version of the story. The accused say they have a valid license for 2009 MUI4 source code. How do you, of all people, know who tells the truth?

> autodocs

Is that still the case with the MUI 5.0-2016R1 archive?

> version number

No, a version number is no IP.

> not enough for you?

Depends on the Autodocs issue.

> Per MorphOS Team members, the actual owners of MUI

...of MUI4 for MorphOS beginning with the first non-Stuntz commit and of MUI5 for MorphOS.

> "certain people" were given access to MUI3.9 sources.

...as well as, per the accused, to 2009 MUI4 source code by Stuntz himself, the actual and only owner of that 2009 MUI4 source code.

> Those "certain people" responded to this kind gesture by stealing
> MUI4.0 code they were not authorized to have.

Again, that's one version of the story. The accused say they got a license for 2009 MUI4 source code from Stuntz himself. How do you, of all people, know who tells the truth?

> These people [...] pretend they are the rightful owner

Owner of what exactly?

> This is black and white, no grey area.

Correct. But so far, public information doesn't suffice to know which one it is. I'm not sure how you *know* (as opposed to 'believe') which one it is.

> Ownership if MUI IP is with the MorphOS Team, no one else.

Ownership of 2009 MUI4 source code up to right before the first non-Stuntz commit is with Stefan Stuntz, no one else. This is the source code the accused claim to have a proper license for.

> The MorphOS team states their version is not authorized, therefore it is not authorized.

The accused state their version is authorized, so is it authorized? Only Stuntz can know whether he licensed his very own source code to them, no one else from the MorphOS team.

> they steal the source for MorphOS's UI

They say they didn't. And the only one who really knows has remained silent so far.

Quote:

And so we circle right back to that point, only Stuntz can clarify this.
So far he's made no comment, which WOULD tend to indicate that he is on board with this.

And guys, they're still paying per user for keys for this.
AmigaOS has to be the only operating system I'm aware of where you buy it, then you need to add to it, then pay for new video drivers, and enhancer packages...

I'd originally stated I might install OS4 as part of a multi-boot system on an X5000.
I'm a lot less inclined to do so now.

Plus, if I wanted to use MUI under OS4 I'd have to pay an additional fee for it.

Quote:

I don't believe for one minute that they are buying new keys en masse. There have been pirated keys floating round the net for ~20 years. I've been told by more than one person that they are using pirated keys to ”stick it back to those MorphOS bastards for stealing the Amiga OS source” etc.

There's no reasoning with these people, it's cult mentality.

Quote:

;) Yeah, well that seems to be the case all over, they are just one step further along on that road.

> they're still paying per user for keys for this. [...] if I wanted to use MUI under OS4 I'd
> have to pay an additional fee for it.

No, they or you wouldn't. See comment #177.

http://www.amiga-news.de/de/forum/thread.php?id=35714#368124

Oh my.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm beginning to feel a little hostile towards Stuntz by now.
Maybe its unjustified, but it isn't if he gave them the right to use MUI4.
And his lack of commentary is more than a little dicky.

Quote:

I had only few contacts with him but I think he does not see as religious as many others here. His main interest are his journeys today, I do not know how he earns his living or if he has enough savings but I do not think that he is selling many MUI keys today.