> I'm pretty sure the AmigaOS XL package was just insult to injury and
> the alleged lack of royalties date back further to OS3.9 itself.

This may be true or not, but doesn't change the fact I'm not aware of AmigaOS 3.9 been declared illegal by McEwen. If it was, there must have been a (public?) declaration, right? And if it wasn't, AmigaOS 3.9 should be considered a legal non-pirate AmigaOS release (the Genesis/AmiTCP issue notwithstanding).

> didn't even Bill Buck buy a stack of OS3.9 CDs that he was originally
> going to distribute with Pegasos I / MorphOS 1.3 to fill in the gaps?

OS3.9 and 3.5, yes. These were MorphOS 1.4 times, and OS3.5/3.9 was to be bundled at buyers' request.

http://anna.amigazeux.org/comments2.php?show=1061267806&category=forum&number=78#comment

> Didn't he ultimately not do this because of OS3.9's legal status?

I don't remember any statement from him as to why he didn't. Maybe it wasn't needed any longer? If there was a legal problem with 3.9 he could simply have offered his stack of 3.5 CDs.

> they claim this is the first updates in over twenty years in their PR. 20 years
> puts us 3 years before OS3.5. I know you will try splitting hairs stating
> first OS3.1 update in 20 years, but don't go there. You know better ;-)

...or maybe it's just that Hyperion knows better than you, which is reflected in their exact choice of words.

> Now if H&P were still producing 3.9 and dealers were still buying new stock
> and reselling it today, it would be seen bad.

This would be flat-out illegal as H&P's licenses for producing and distributing AmigaOS 3.5 and 3.9 have long expired. But that doesn't mean AmigaOS 3.9 per se is an illegal pirate product. The AmigaOS 3.9 CDs produced during the time H&P had a valid license contain a legal non-pirate AmigaOS release (the Genesis/AmiTCP issue notwithstanding).