>Just as a reminder, the original software in question would be Commodore AmigaOS 3.1, which was released in 1994, or an even older version of it. Just based on screenshots alone, the difference between a default installation of AmigaOS 3.1 and MorphOS should be rather obvious.

Living in the US and dealing with US regulations, I'm still of the opinion that MorphOs breaks no copyright laws even under US legislation
MorphOS is not AmigaOS and US regulations do not prevent another OS from running software intended for a different operating system..

@Andreas_Wolf
Quote:

Pft. ;)

@amigadave
Quote:

Well, if the alleged comments were indeed in the phase5 exec, they would have been there legitimately (due to Petro as several have mentioned earlier), however I strongly doubt there are any parts of phase5's exec in the MorphOS exec. Though I haven't seen neither phase5 nor AmigaOS code, I have had access to MorphOS code since the 0.x days, and I haven't seen any comments, or code (which would have been really surprising) for that matter, in exec that looked like it originated elsewhere (and with laire's style you can tell ;) ). Additionally, since then large parts of exec have been rewritten by Emm, Piru, Zuikkis and myself to name a few, so whatever remains of ancient code is fairly simple stuff...

Anyway, too much time wasted on yet another rehash of unsubstantiated claims, next time point to the relevant thread (in this case; this one) with answers and demand a put-up-or-shut-up (and an apology would be nice as well).


- CISC

The part of this disagreement that particularly irritates me is that we know AOS4 was developed directly from AOS3.1 source code.
Where is the proof that AInc ever had the right to use any Amiga intellectual property?
Amino was a licensee of trademarks.
Bill McEwen apparent intention (originally) was to use AmigaDE as a basis for new Amigas.

Since then, AInc has tried (and failed) to acquire the intellectual property of both the MorphOS development team and Hyperion.

The contention that the MorphOS team used AOS3.1 source as a basis for MorphOS is not only invalid, it fails to address another major point.
The 'real' AmigaOS that Hyperion HAS developed from AOS3.1 may not be validly licensed.

@Jim,

That argument does not make any sense, besides probably not being true. I think if you try to make that argument with anyone, you are only asking for more flames and hard feelings.

The validity of AmigaOS4.x has been fought in court between AInc. and Hyperion and Hyperion came out on top, so if they did not have the legal right before, they sure as hell have it now and it is clearly stated in court documents to prove it.

I would back away from this argument if I were you. It is a "No Win" situation.

> Where is the proof that AInc ever had the right to use any Amiga
> intellectual property? Amino was a licensee of trademarks.

"Amino Development Corp. [...] has purchased from Gateway (NYSE: GTW) the Amiga trademarks and Amiga computer systems. Terms of the transaction were not disclosed. Peter Ashkin, Gateway senior vice president, said that the company elected to sell the name after deciding to fold Amiga's software engineering function into Gateway's product development activity as part of Gateway's overall strategy to develop and market the coming generation of Internet appliances."
http://web.archive.org/web/20020225145745/http://investor.gateway.com/news/19991228-12782.htm

Note: "purchased" and "sell". To me that doesn't sound like licensing at all. To put it simply, intellectual property can be copyrights, patents or trademarks. The trademark issue is covered in the quoted part of the Gateway press release. The patent issue is covered in the press release as well (patents were retained by Gateway). The only thing that isn't covered by the press release is the AmigaOS copyright. But then, the press release is not a contract. And the contract between Gateway and Amino isn't public so far. So we just don't know what's in there regarding the AmigaOS copyright.

> AInc has tried (and failed) to acquire the intellectual
> property of [...] the MorphOS development team

I'm not sure that is what happened. AFAIR laire said Amiga Inc. wanted to dictate the direction that MorphOS as AmigaOS 4 would have had to take regarding development (e.g. used components). I can't remember that laire said or implied that Amiga Inc. really tried to acquire MorphOS. It was rather the other way round: laire sought to license the "Amiga" name and the Amiga Workbench (Ambient didn't exist back then) from Amiga Inc., but Amiga Inc's terms didn't seem acceptable to him.

> The validity of AmigaOS4.x has been fought in court between AInc. and Hyperion
> and Hyperion came out on top, so if they did not have the legal right before, they
> sure as hell have it now and it is clearly stated in court documents to prove it.

The validity of Amiga Inc's claim of ownership over the AmigaOS 3 copyright (i.e. that Amino/AIW ever owned it) was not tested in that litigation. And it's clear that none of the involved parties strived to do so since a possible finding of non-ownership would have compromised both Amiga Inc. and Hyperion*. So the validity of Hyperion's AmigaOS 4 is based on the non-tested assumption that the AmigaOS 3 copyright is owned by Amiga Inc. To turn that assumption into certainty someone would have to challenge Amiga Inc's claim in court. So far nobody did that.

* While Hyperion challenged the alleged IP transfer from Amino/AIW to KMOS/AID, AIW's ownership of AmigaOS 3 (i.e. transfer to AID was illegal) wouldn't have invalidated Hyperion's right to AmigaOS 4. So for Hyperion it was only essential that either AIW or AID owns AmigaOS 3.

Thanks Andreas. I've already come across the web page mentioning the sale of trademarks, so Amino did own those.
But, as you've pointed out, there has never been any proof that Amiga Inc. ever acquired AOS.
And unlike Dave comment, you are right to point out that this wasn't tested in court as the parties agreed to a settlement (avoiding having to produce any documentation in court).

Frankly, all we have is Hyperion and AInc agreeing that AInc owns AOS3.1 without any prior proof to that claim.

I find this matter highly suspect and will continue to contest the validity of this contention until proven otherwise.

Again, the MorphOs development team has been wrongly accused of using AOS3.1 source code while we know that Hyperion's developer has.

If anyone is likely to have committed an illegal act, it is AInc. and its licensee Hyperion.

> there has never been any proof that Amiga Inc. ever acquired AOS.

Yes, that would require the contract between Gateway and Amino to be public. And even then, assuming the AmigaOS transfer from Gateway to Amino to be part of that contract, it wouldn't prove that Gateway ever owned AmigaOS, or that Escom ever owned it.

http://sites.google.com/site/amigadocuments/#TOC-1994-1998:-From-Commodore-Amiga-to-ESCOM-to-Gateway

> this wasn't tested in court as the parties agreed to a settlement
> (avoiding having to produce any documentation in court).

The settlement only prevented the alleged transfer from Amino/AIW to KMOS/AID (via Itec LLC) from being tested. The question if Amino ever got AmigaOS from Gateway, or if Gateway ever got it from Escom, or (that's the interesting part) if Escom ever got it from Commodore, is a whole other matter. That said, if AmigaOS was never legitimately transferred to Escom, none of its successors could have owned it, no matter what's written in their respective contracts. In conclusion, Hyperion and Amiga Inc. deciding against a settlement wouldn't have led to a testing of the transfer chain prior to Amino/AIW as Hyperion were smart enough to not challenge Amino's claim to have purchased AmigaOS from Gateway.

> all we have is Hyperion and AInc agreeing that AInc owns AOS3.1
> without any prior proof to that claim.

Basically, there're three transactions of AmigaOS that are contested:

1. Commodore -> Escom (1995):
dubious, see Hembach's subsequent (1998!) attempt at repairing the situation; only ever challenged by VillageTronic in Germany in 1997 but no real judgement on that

2. Gateway -> Amino (1999):
rather non-dubious; contract is not public but to my mind there's no clue hinting that AmigaOS wasn't part of the deal; never challenged nor tested in court

3. Amino/AIW -> Itec LLC (2003) -> KMOS/AID (2004):
highly dubious, probably company and IP shell games; was challenged by Hyperion but not tested due to settlement

> I [...] will continue to contest the validity of this contention
> until proven otherwise.

Which of the three above mentioned contentions do you aim at?

> If anyone is likely to have committed an illegal act, it is AInc.
> and its licensee Hyperion.

What exactly would be the illegal act that Hyperion committed?

@Jim,

If someone else owned the rights to AmigaOS3.1, don't you think they would have come forward by now?

If it makes you happy to contest the validity of the ownership of AmigaOS3.1 and subsequently the validity of Hyperion's AmigaOS4.x, knock yourself out, but it is only going to create more conflict and is not going to help the current situation with the claims that MorphOS has/had parts of the original source code within it.

Using this argument will not solve anything, or shut anyone up that is making the allegations against MorphOS.

[ Edited by amigadave 26.04.2011 - 12:12 ]

No David, I don't think anyone would come forward to claim ownership of this.
The last completely provable, valid owner is CBM and Commodore-Amiga.
After that, the entire chain of transactions is questionable.
Can a German notary clerk render a contract legal after the US principle has declared bankruptcy? Or are the assets of a bankrupt company forfeited to pay its remaining debts?

The $1 contracts don't appear to be worth the value paid for them.

As far as Hyperion continuing to market AOS4, why not? I'm not against that. I'm just pointing out that the pot has been calling the kettle black.

Dave Haynie and Ben Herman's are less honorable people than our own developers. These two individuals have made unsupported accusations while Hyperion's own developers do exactly what the MorphOS team has been accused of.

I don't care if it offends the AOS community,. Harry's got a right to be pissed off.

I don't disagree with you that Harry has every right to be angry about the accusations, even if they were not directly aimed at him. And I have no problem with his "Open Letter to Dave Haynie" as an appropriate way to "call him out" and challenge him to prove his accusations, or shut up about the whole matter.

I am only questioning your method(s) of dealing with the accusation(s) as being non-productive and confrontational without any hope for resolving the issue, or getting any kind of retraction, or apology. In fact, I think your tactics will only make the situation worse, not better, and before these latest statements, I thought the Blue vs Red wars had calmed down for the most part.

David, you do have a point that things have been less confrontational in recent years. There has even been some cooperation (like Fab's port of OWB to AOS4).
And we are never likely to see the questions I've dredged up directly addressed because the transaction chain probably isn't valid.
Frankly, I'm glad Hyperion has retained control of its work.
I just bristle at Dave's contention that somehow the MorphOS team has improperly used AOS3.1 source code.
It's an echo of sentiments voiced by Ben Hermans years ago and its baseless.
When I've exchanged messages with Trevor Dickinson, we've discussed how it would be nice to have a common platform.
But with all this old baggage dragging us down, I don't ever see that happening.

You are right I calling me out for bring this into the discussion as it isn't directly related to Piru's request to Dave Haynie.
I hope he gets an answer, but I've never seen anyone who has made comments like this actually address those they're commenting on.
The whole situation plays out like the Obama birther idiocy.

> Dave's contention that somehow the MorphOS team
> has improperly used AOS3.1 source code. It's an echo
> of sentiments voiced by Ben Hermans years ago

I believe it might be the other way round. AFAIK Haynie posted his accusations the first time in early November 2001 to the TeamAmiga mailing list. And now look when Hermans chimed in:

http://www.biclodon.com/misc/amigafarm/benhermans/

Coincidence? Maybe, but probably not. I tend to believe that actually Haynie started it and Hermans "just" blindly followed and blew it out of proportion and context because it came in useful to him (btw, Haynie was announced as technical consultant for Hyperion's OS4 project in January 2002). However this doesn't mean I come to Hermans' defence here, of course.

> I hope he gets an answer

He did, about a week ago. See CISC's posting #14 here in this thread or Haynie's reply on AW.net.

Wow Andreas, that doesn't look like he's addressing Harry's concerns. It just looks like a different snipe.
I'm liking Dave Haynie less by the minute.

BTW - What has he done recently?

> What has he done recently?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Haynie#Robots_and_radios

Wow, his own Wikipedia page. Bet that stokes his ego.

But, essentially, since Amiga nothing particularly successful?

> since Amiga nothing particularly successful?

I don't know as I'm not well versed regarding the markets Nomadio is in.

Good point. And I should avoid sounding judgmental (just because I've found Dave's opinion offensive).
He's had some fairly cool near misses anyway.

Jim,
Quote:

Sorry for ranting but I have to get this of my chest. Please read on and read the message twice as I will try to do more than ranting :(

Please guys, if anything is stopping cooperation it is you guys. I think the rest of the amiga world is ready to leave the past behind. I regret that is does not seem to be the case for some of the MorphOS guys.
Taking a step back. A guy who was once a big Amiga person but is out of the scene for a very long time makes some comment on a forum; a guy who no longer has any amiga connection except that he was working for it when Commodore went bust; a guy who has just sold his last Amiga remnants. That guy makes a comment about the legality of the Exec code of MorphOS.
After this several fora are filled with messages with how Ben Hermans is the devil, that this guy above has to retract his statements, how Amiga Inc. doesn't own the Amiga IP rights etc, etc. This all without a single comment from guys currently linked with AmigaOS4 etc. All posts are made by people linked to MorpOS or supporters of the platform.

All this gives me the impression that one the main reasons of existence of MorphOS is to be anti-AmigaOS4 and anti-Hyperion. In my mind not a very good basis to develop an OS on.

It is true that some people at Hyperion and Amiga Inc. believe the C Exec code - developed at H&P I think and on which the MorphOS Exec is based - is illegal. They do believe they have prove for it and not just hearsay. Also Amiga Inc. is the owner and is the only company to be able to take legal action.
It is also true that the MorphOS devs believe they have made a clean room implementation and all code is legal. With that the case it should be possible to move and leave the past behind.
Would you guys think about the following: make site on morphos-team documenting your stance - something along the line: "Some people claim MorhpOS code is illegal. Using our development practices this ... and this ... we do believe everything is legal. If somebody disagree he can contact us with proove or take other actions."
Then if somebody make a comment somewhere just post a reply with a reference to the page and move on.

I also fail to see how Amiga Inc. being a valid owner of Amiga IP rights or not is relevant. Either the MorphOS code is OK or not OK, independent of Amiga Inc. owning the IP.

Each of the parties is convinced of their own stance; so one party asking the other party to retract their stance is just a road block to possible cooperation or even peaceful co-existence.

Even if Amiga Inc. would once come out of it's shelter and start to sue I don't think there is much to worry about; given their track record of past court case that is . At that time it would be a good occasion to test the validity of their claim for Amiga IP ownership. I personally don't see that happen, so IMO one reason the more for MorhpOS to just to move on.

Also the 'probably illegal' comment of Evert in a legal court filing has long been discussed off-the-record by me with him. I notified afterwards the AROS devs that I don't feel any reason to be worried and we (AROS) moved on. We don't need other guys taking a stance for AROS and beating on dead horses.

I already feel a little bit guilty of posting this but I do think you guys needed a mirror to see how the outside world (outside of MorpOS) can perceive you.
Most people will know I am a main AROS developer but I would like to use the open source AROS code to bring the whole Amiga world closer together in the future. As AROS dev I try to refrain from commenting on AOS4 or MorhpOS (especially bad things) but as this legacy seems to interfere with my other goal I could not stop posting this message.
Also want to let you know it does not change anything with my plans for MorphOS etc. as I sincerely hope some perseverance from me will help to get this bad blood out of the amiga community.

greets,
Staf.

PS: Saw Jim's reply to my post on Ric Elias; feel even a little more guilty now...


[ Edited by Fats 27.04.2011 - 21:48 ]

Don't sweat it Staf. You know I'm usually a little more even tempered. The fact that this stuff still gets posted had me burned up.
I had hoped for some time to see some reconciliation amongst all Amiga related camps, so my use of inflammatory posts is counter productive.
Please don't take offense with the rest of the MOS community over my recent contributions.
Harry's original request is quite valid.
If someone thinks there's proof, show it (or shut up).

And I'm not helping by diverting attention from that request.

Sorry Piru.

> messages [...] that this guy above has to retract his statements

...or provide proof.

> All posts are made by people linked to MorpOS or supporters of the platform.

Not surprising. Or why should people not linked to MorphOS be concerned by accusations regarding the legality of MorphOS?

> All this gives me the impression that one the main reasons of
> existence of MorphOS is to be anti-AmigaOS4 and anti-Hyperion.

Not likely. MorphOS very much predates Hyperion's OS4.

> some people at Hyperion and Amiga Inc. believe the
> C Exec code - developed at H&P I think and on which
> the MorphOS Exec is based - is illegal.

I think this is nonsense on multiple levels:

1. I don't think that anybody at Hyperion or Amiga Inc. considers the C Exec code illegal. Why should they?
2. I don't think the C Exec code was developed at H&P.
3. I don't think the MorphOS Exec is based on anybody else's C Exec code. Do you realize you take Haynie's and Hermans' line here?

> They do believe they have prove for it

I doubt they really believe that.

> Amiga Inc. [...] is the only company to be able to take legal action.

According to the settlement agreement Hyperion is able to take legal action as well.

> it should be possible to move and leave the past behind.

Yes, but reiterating the old claim that MorphOS uses stolen AmigaOS source code is quite the contrary to leaving the past behind, don't you think?

> one party asking the other party to retract their stance

I think you're confusing stance with public statement here. You can have a stance about something without ever uttering it anywhere (in public). Likewise, you can make public statements that don't present your true stance on the matter.

> Even if Amiga Inc. would once come out of it's shelter and start to
> sue I don't think there is much to worry about; given their track record
> of past court case that is :-)

I don't think so. A litigation is always consuming resources, even if the other party's accusations are completely unfounded. Just see Hyperion's statements on how the court case against Amiga Inc. slowed down development of OS4.

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 06.09.2011 - 07:46 ]

|||




[ Edited by Velcro_SP 06.09.2011 - 07:38 ]

> he has in past years occasionally made this allegation, IIRC never
> clearly and openly explaining his basis for it [...]
> Hazydave then finally explained himself clearly (he says Andy Finkel
> said Andy Finkel saw some of Andy Finkel's own code and comments
> from classic Amiga OS "Exec" in assembly language in "C Exec" in C
> by Phase 5 which employed Ralph Schmidt who would go on years later
> to found MorphOS). [...] it was decent of hazydave to finally explain himself
> clearly and publicly.

I think that's basically the same story he told in 2001 already:

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7824&forum=3&start=1

@fats

I think difference is that Evert Carton dropped his empty threats against AROS while Dave Haynioe continues to play his broken record.

Dave Haynie being PCB layout guy at some ex-toy company doesnt make him any special.

[ Edited by itix 28.04.2011 - 14:35 ]