Yokemate of Keyboards
Posts: 4977 from 2009/1/28
From: Delaware, USA
Quote:
takemehomegrandma wrote:
...Cloanto are the registered owners of Commodore Copyrights, 0.7-3.1. They do what they want with it, as they have been doing with ”Workbench 3.X” since... what, 1.5 decade? Longer? Currently 3.X is largely what AmigaOS 3.9 was.
What Hyperion has been using (with permission) is Olsens ”3.1” sources, whose main feature is that it largely is a port/rewrite for more modern programming languages and toolchains. Just like AROS and MorphOS it provides 3.1 API using source code and toolchains that *does not* compile the Commodore 3.1 binaries, but is cleaned and more suitable for further development. Main difference is that MorphOS/AROS is clean room while Olsen had access to the Commodore sources while writing/porting it, which ”polluted” it with Commodore IP. The implications of this is yet to be seen.
But please be aware that there are two ”3.1”; the ”Checkmark Branch” and the ”Boing Ball Bramnch”.
Cloanto fully owns the first one.
Olsen and Cloanto owns the second one.
Amiga Inc owns nothing.
The original settlement made no mention of multiple OS3.1 variants.
And if 'Olsen's' 3.1 variant is a cleaned up version of the original, then Cloanto's claim to IP control may violate the basic terms of the 2009 agreement.
IF it could be determined which source the agreement references.
If its the original Commodore version, Cloanto would stand to lose even more by pushing this.
And if its 'Olsen's' code, even compromised by some legacy 3.1 code inclusion, it would be better to leave that to Hyperion.
SO, let me guess, Cloanto uses Olsen's work for its 3.x variant...right?
Looks like BOTH parties have erred.
Herman's never should have included Kickstart 1.3 with OS4, and Cloanto should never have assumed that their purchase of assets from AmigaInc. negated the IP rights assigned to Hyperion.
BTW - Copyrights, at least in the US, are generally for intangible assets of value (names, trademarks/logos, audio, video, other IP, etc.) distributed by tangible or intangible means.
That definition does cover computer software, but in no way would a prior licensing agreement be voided by a copyright transfer.
And if the assignee in the first agreement was given a license to exclusive use of source code before Cloanto obtained said copyrights
from the SAME source, but later, then Hyperion would appear to have a good position to fall back on.
So far, the only major point I can see in Cloanto's position is the clear violation of their IP rights to Kickstart 1.3.
Their IP rights to 3.1 were already limited by AmigaInc's past obligations.
Cloanto probably does have the right to distribute
unaltered versions of 3.1, but new one?
Nope.
Should Hyperion care to, they could realistically enhance their current work and relabel it OS4 for the 68K.
Then the controversy would be even more threadbare.
[ Edited by Jim 04.01.2018 - 16:22 ]"Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
