Yokemate of Keyboards
Posts: 10648 from 2003/5/22
>>> It seems some Wikipedia author
is attempting to rewrite history
>>> "CommodoreUSA originally claimed the intention of developing AROS to be bundled
>>> with their Amiga systems, however this plan was later publicly discarded by CEO Barry
>>> Altman, due to litigation issues with Amiga Inc. who as legal licensors of the closed
>>> source Amiga Workbench interface did not like the idea of AROS (being open source)
>>> being developed for Commodore USA's x86 range of computers, in particular the
>>> Amiga range.
>>> And he even gives a posting of yours as alleged source for this nonsense:
>>> As far as I can see, your posting says nothing like what's claimed in the quoted part from
>>> Wikipedia. It wouldn't even make sense to not be allowed to ship AROS due to its open
>>> source nature but then be allowed to instead go to another open source OS that is
>>> Ubuntu. That's really a contradiction in terms.
>> Fortunately, someone with a sense of reality has removed
the stupid claims.
>> It now reads only:
>> "Commodore USA originally claimed the intention of developing AROS to be bundled with
>> their Amiga systems, however this plan was later publicly discarded by CEO Barry Altman.
> that was also as I recall them happening
Really? You recall litigation issues between CUSA and Amiga Inc. because Amiga Inc. not liking the idea of AROS being developed for CUSA's "Amiga" computers due to its open source status? If yes, I'm quite sure that you and that confused Wikipedia author are the only people recalling that.
> with the difference that it was Hyperion bringing up the clause
Exactly. And with the further difference that it had nothing whatsoever to do with AROS being open source. Hence my Ubuntu example for an open source OS that is allowed to be distributed with CUSA's "Amiga" computers.
> where Amiga couldn't have a computer running a similar OS to AmigaOS
...when that computer is named "Amiga", yes. I'm well aware of that clause. In fact, I was the first one to bring up the exact wording of the clause
in this very thread. So no need to lecture me about it, really.
> which in practice would exclude AROS and not UBUNTO for example.
Yes, this is exactly what I've been saying. So what is your point? AROS and Ubuntu are both open source, so in contrast to what that Wikipedia author was claiming, being open source can't be the reason why AROS isn't allowed.
> This clause exists, and it's in the final agreement between Hyperion and Amiga Inc
I know that. My whole argumentation is based on that fact. It's that Wikipedia author who was pretending the clause wouldn't exist, not me. So your point being?
> so it was expected.
What that Wikipedia author was claiming was *not* expected, and it's also not what happened.