Quote:

I always assumed they were forced into it by the court, under the threat of any party refusing to settle losing the case.

It’s not so much about wether the contract was signed or not, but about interpretation about what it means, what the agreement covers. Hyperion want it to mean *a lot* more (and different things) than their counterpart ever intended when signing the contract, which is a fact already established in another filed document, while *this* expert testimony speak volumes about what the agreement factually *can* mean, and more importantly, what it *can not* mean. And the conclusion is not drawn from one point but from many points together, and it’s not about version numbers either. Hyperion wants it to be about apples, but the basis in the agreement for their reasoning about this is a confused (and erroneous!) stipulation about oranges. This is what the testimony sets straight.

> I always assumed they were forced into it by the court, under
> the threat of any party refusing to settle losing the case.

I'm sure they were allowed to point out the actual flaws to the court and have them corrected or provided a corrected proposal prior to signing. To me it seems that the Amiga Parties did not actually read *and* understand what they were signing, probably because nobody got paid by Kouri any longer for doing so.

> It’s not so much about wether the contract was signed or not

Signing it in its known wording has entailed the disaster unfolding only years later. The flaws should have been apparent to a competent person and the agreement should have been redacted prior to signing.

> *this* expert testimony speak volumes about what the agreement
> factually *can* mean, and more importantly, what it *can not* mean.

Indeed, the testimony clarifies that the "Software" term as defined in the agreement really just means AmigaOS 3.1 and no other version (despite the nonsense about its allegedly documented "Software Architecture"), so that it's just AmigaOS 3.1 that Hyperion has obtained an object code and source code license to.

> the conclusion is not drawn from one point but from many points together

As said, it's drawn in reference *to* a very specific point, i.e. the agreement's definition of the "Software" term.

> it’s not about version numbers either.

It's about the source code and the object code of a specific AmigaOS version released with a specific version number.

> Hyperion wants it to be about apples, but the basis in the agreement for their
> reasoning about this is a confused (and erroneous!) stipulation about oranges.

A better analogy is that Hyperion wants it to be about fruits, but it's just about apples (or oranges).

> it's going to hurt Monard in the pocket if every potential client can google them and find
> what they've been up to. He never should have gotten Hyperion and Monard mixed.

Indeed.

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=11939&forum=3&start=12

2009 agreement leaves A inc games which is big part of amiga market.
They are pathetic idiots because instead of earn milions on amiga in a joystick, they waste time on fight with H.

3.1 was not made from scratch. It is obvious that 1.3 is included in 3.1.
And Hyperion has rights to sell 1.3.

> 2009 agreement leaves A inc games

This would require proper licenses from the copyright owners of the games.

> they waste time on fight with H.

The Amiga Parties had no choice because they were drawn into the litigation by Hyperion. Or do you mean Cloanto and C-A Acquisition?

> 3.1 was not made from scratch. It is obvious that 1.3 is included in 3.1.

Many components were completely rewritten between 1.3 and 3.1, for instance almost all BCPL-based components.

> Hyperion has rights to sell 1.3.

I don't think so. Hyperion's source code and object code license for 3.1 does not entail a license to the 1.3 source code or object code.

before batiliana start this court crap a inc sell him assets.
They are idiots because instead of earnings milions on amiga in a joystick, they hook with batiliana.

1.3 is used for games only. Nobody use 1.3 for productivity software.
What is used ? exec and maybe trackdisk.
Sources of 3.1 leaked few years ago. Everybody may check that exec and trackdisk where almost not changed since 1.3.
everything for what 1.3 is used is still in 3.1

> exec and trackdisk where almost not changed since 1.3.
> everything for what 1.3 is used is still in 3.1

You are mistaken if you think that a license granted/obtained for a specific version of a software automatically extends to prior versions of that software, just because the licensed code is built upon the older code. That's not how copyright works, at least not in EU and US. And if it's "almost not changed", as you say, then why not simply use exec library and trackdisk device of licensed 3.1?

Quote:

Nonsense. exec.library v40 is completely different to exec.library v34. Just look at the autodocs.

1.3 is included in 3.1
some has problems with reality, but sad true about C= is they don't care about os and large part of 1.3 is still in 3.1
Hyperion may do what they want with 3.1, cutting 1.3 from 3.1 also.
What Hyperion do is full compliance with the agreement and perfect legal.

Quote:

1.3 was written in ECL, 3.1 in C. They aren't even close.

When 2.04 came along, a few 1.3 function calls were emulated as functions with the Old prefix to stay compatible with software written for 1.3.

> 1.3 is included in 3.1 [...] , [...] large part of 1.3 is still in 3.1

No, it is not. There may be some components that didn't change at all from 1.3 to 3.1, but these would be countable on the fingers of one hand. I suggest you name those components and let me and others verify by comparing the binaries. Exec library did definitely change. Trackdisk device may be the same, will have to check.

> some has problems with reality

I suggest a look into the mirror.

> Hyperion may do what they want with 3.1, cutting 1.3 from 3.1 also.

I doubt that the 1.3 source code is a true subset of the 3.1 source code. This wouldn't make sense. As said, used programming languages changed for many components. You can't cut ASM source code from C source code, for instance.

> What Hyperion do is full compliance with the agreement and perfect legal.

In my opinion, Hyperion distributing 1.3 is compliant neither with the agreement nor with EU or US copyright law.

> 1.3 was written in ECL

Never heard of this. Any links?

It was BCPL actually, not ECL. My mistake - just a faulty memory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AmigaDOS

Quote:

> It was BCPL actually

Yes, see comment #907 :-)

Quote:

I missed it somehow.

The way you asked for a link just made me think you didn't believe it wasn't in C...

> I missed it somehow. The way you asked for a link just made me think
> you didn't believe it wasn't in C...

Well, sometimes (I'd say most of times) it's more productive to just read what's actually written there than trying to read between the lines ;-)

Quote:

Assuming it's actually there when I post.

> Assuming it's actually there when I post.

...which it was.

Some here has problem with reality.
Facts are:
1. 1.3 is used only for games
2. majority of games use only exec, trackdisk, audio
3. h may modify and sell 3.1 as they want
4. 1.3 is included in 3.1

Many overvalue Commodore contribution to amiga os.
exec 3.1 is as a whole in assembler as in 1.3
trackdisk 3.1 is as a whole in assembler as in 1.3
audio 3.1 is 80% in assembler as in 1.3

changes in trackdisk, audio from 1.3 to 3.1 are only bug fixes.
litte better is in exec, but exec 3.1 is still only a set of patches to exec 1.3

> Some here has problem with reality.

Indeed.

> Facts are: [...] 1.3 is included in 3.1

This is only a fact in some people's head, like yours and Ben Hermans'.

> exec 3.1 is as a whole in assembler as in 1.3
> trackdisk 3.1 is as a whole in assembler as in 1.3
> audio 3.1 is 80% in assembler as in 1.3
> changes in trackdisk, audio from 1.3 to 3.1 are only bug fixes.
> [...] exec 3.1 is still only a set of patches to exec 1.3

Even if the programming language hasn't changed for these three specific components, they do not make up 1.3. If they didn't change from 1.3 to 3.1, a factually correct statement to make would be that exec library, trackdisk device and audio device of 1.3 are included in 3.1. But as they did change in fact (as you admit), even this is not true.
As said, a license for a specific version of a software does not automatically extend to prior versions of that same software, no matter how few or minuscule the changes might have been.

Quote:

The majority of games in the 1.3 era didn't use the OS at all, except to load a bootloader.

Quote:

Wrong, as pointed out.

Quote:

Wrong. And irrelevant, as ported out.

Look, if you can't even bother to google 10 minutes for what you claim, please don't spam the forum with bad guesses.

Your problem is You do not accept reality.
In Your imagination large part of 3.1 was made from scratch.
But in reality important parts of 3.1 are 1.3 plus small set of patches.
I know it is sad, but this is ugly truth.
My advice: accept things as they are.



[ Edited by ppcamiga1 18.06.2019 - 18:34 ]

> Your problem is You do not accept reality.

The problem is that you make up your own reality.

> In Your imagination large part of 3.1 was made from scratch.

No, 3.1 is based on 3.0 with most components almost unchanged. What we're talking about is the level of accumulated changes from 1.3 to 3.1, which is another dimension.

> important parts of 3.1 are 1.3 plus small set of patches.

These alleged "small set of patches" is what makes the difference between licensed and non-licensed distribution.

> My advice: accept things as they are.

I will follow your advise and accept these facts:

1. Exec library, trackdisk device and audio device do not make up 1.3 or 3.1.
2. Almost all components have changed from 1.3 to 3.1.
3. 1.3 is not included in 3.1, neither technically nor legally.
4. With respect to the agreement, the granted license to 3.1 is distinct from a license to 1.3.
5. So far, you failed to name any component that went unchanged from 1.3 to 3.1.