> Paul C Clements proves in his analysis that Amiga Os 3.1 > MAY have not been made on the basis of Amiga Os 1.3
No, he does not. You completely make this up.
> in his conlusion that's why Hyperion has not rights to Amiga Os 1.3.
No, his conclusion is that the sameness of "Software Architecture" between 3.1 and older versions like 1.3 does not give Hyperion a source code and object code license to any older version because the agreement only grants them a source code and object code license to 3.1 and there is no such thing as a source code or object code of a "Software Architecture".
> Paul C Clements is wrong ofcourse.
I don't think so. Wrong are the people who read things into his testimony that aren't there, not even implied.
> If Paul C Clements proves in his analysis that Amiga Os 3.1 MUST > have not been made on the basis of Amiga Os 1.3 he will be right.
You completely miss the point of his testimony.
> In reality 3.1 is based on 2.0 this on 1.3
In real reality, 3.1 is based on 3.0, which is based on 2.1, which is based on 2.0(x), which is based on 1.3(.x).
> 3.1 include 1.3 and 1.3 can be cut off from 3.1.
No and no. As soon as one line of code has been deleted or changed on the way from 1.3 through 3.1, it is no longer included in 3.1 and thus can no longer be "cut off" from 3.1. Your idea that software development means just adding more and more lines of code and leaving old lines untouched is incredibly naive. There are even complete 1.3 components that weren't inherited through to 3.1 like the say/narrator.device/translator.library combo. I'd like to see you cut this off from 3.1.
