> The "agreement" is *anything but* clear. The "agreement" and
> its terms are heavily contested, the entire ongoing dispute
> *is because* of the unclearness of the terms.

Yes, see comment #56 and many more where I stated exactly this while others in this thread kept insisting that Cloanto's position was clearly backed up by the wording of the agreement.

> Cloanto [...] could most certainly present a complete and detailed list of their
> owned Copyrights down to single files

See comment #391 for a link to the purchase agreement between Amiga Inc. and Cloanto, revealing what Cloanto bought "for the sum of One Dollar (US$1.00)". It's the same old list of copyrights that was already included in the copyright purchase agreements between Commodore, Escom and Gateway, with anything beyond "2.04 kickstart ROM" notoriously missing. No trace of anything 3.x, any disk-based releases let alone anything "down to single files".

> Hyperion *can not* provide similar paper-work describing what they
> may have actually licensed

Quite to the contrary, the low level of detail is eerily similar.

> they have to make sweeping definitions like "3.1"

So far, no party has contested the meaning of the term "AmigaOS 3.1" in the settlement agreement, unless I missed it.

> a proper contract should *absolutely* have had an appendix listing
> every single item in "3.1" that the parties meant should be included
> in the agreement

By this requirement, none of the copyright purchase agreements between Commodore, Escom, Gateway, Amiga Inc. and Cloanto was a proper contract. I think that yes, there's no harm in having it broken down to file level, but I also think that this shouldn't be necessary and obviously wasn't necessary with the mentioned copyright transfers.

> and especially using *the proper* version number scheme! Don't forget
> that "3.1" was only a term used for marketing [...]

How can I forget when I was the one who needed to remind you of this fact several times in this very thread?

> The sweeping marketing term "3.1" can mean too many different things in
> practice to be relevant in terms of Source Code. There are several confirmed
> versions of Kickstart in the 40.xxx branch [...]. [...] So the marketing term "3.1"
> can in practice really mean components from 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 3.5, 3.9 and 3.X, and it
> can also mean specific OS code for several specific machines. This is why "Object
> Code and Source Code for 3.1" is impossible; Source Code of a certain version can
> only be compiled into binaries of *that specific* version, this is why you must
> specify what you mean in a contract using *the proper* software version
> number scheme, and not using *a for the context nonsense marketing term*.

I see no issue with this. (The source code and object code of) "3.1" can easily mean (the source code and object code of) all and any components sold together as "3.1", regardless of "real" version numbers and machine-specific code. The fact that some components of "3.1" were also included in prior or later releases does not matter one tiny bit. And as mentioned, it wasn't a real issue with the other copyright transfers apparently.

> much of the post-Commodore Amiga OS development is also based
> on [...] the Olsen port and rewrite of the sources

Yes, the "Boing Ball branch" as you like to call it.

> These *new* post-Commodore "3.1" sources does obviously *not* compile
> into the corresponding "Commodore 3.1" binaries [...]. So [...] the actual
> Source Code and Object Code [...] also exists in *two different incarnations*,
> one prehistoric Commodore version, and one *usable* version.

You are trying to create issues where there are none. Hyperion obviously also has a license to Olsen's rewritten components, else he wouldn't work on 3.1.4 and beyond for them. The fact that Hyperion has a license to "Commodore's 3.1" doesn't mean they must use its components and aren't allowed to use Olsen's rewrites instead as they see fit. Hyperion also has always had a license to use his rewritten source code for OS4, btw.

> So the "3.1" product mark is utterly worthless to determine any particular
> source code or object code; [...] There is no such thing as "3.1" source code

So far, not even Cloanto shares this imaginative interpretation.

> It all comes down to interpretations of "the Settlement Agreement".
> [...] you seem to think it's all crystal clear.

No, see above, quite to the contrary. I can seek out the names of those who objected to my stance by saying that everything was crystal clear (and in support of Cloanto's position), if you like.

> The text above is merely an example of how you could argue regarding
> the source code

Let's wait for Cloanto and/or the Amiga Parties to adopt your line of argument ;-)