> I think the scenario is completely clear.

Not to me. I claimed that the MorphOS Team would port MorphOS to ACube hardware if ACube paid for the port, which is a statement that is supported by Fab's and CISC's past insinuations (quoted above). To this ASiegel replied that it was incorrect and that it had not been only about money but also about "a number of helpful conditions" which obviously couldn't and/or wouldn't be met by ACube (else there would be a port by now). So far, only the outcome is clear to me, not the complete scenario.

> I'm curios why you insist in knowing those hypotetical details

Either have these "helpful conditions" been for real (i.e. non-hypothetical), as ASiegel suggests, or they've not been for real (i.e. hypothetical).

> Are you trying to get some light on something you already suspect?

Yes, I am. And I'll tell you: I can imagine that one of those "helpful conditions" would have been that ACube must refrain from compulsively bundling their hardware with OS4, which would be a very reasonable condition (just imagine that someone who wants a Sam440 primarily for running MorphOS and is not interested in OS4 at all would have to purchase a copy of OS4 nonetheless and thus economically benefit Hyperion).
But as I said, that's just a suspicion from my part. I hope that ASiegel will shed some light.