[News] Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware | ANN.lu |
Posted on 25-May-2002 20:50 GMT by Seehund | 187 comments View flat View list |
There's a petition aimed at Amiga Inc. set up at http://www.petitiononline.com/amigaos/ for all those who disagree with Amiga Inc's presented plans regarding compulsory OS/hardware bundling and licensing.
An excerpt from the petition:
On April 12th, 2002, you, Amiga Inc., published your plans regarding distribution policies for the forthcoming AmigaOS4 in an "Executive Update" on your web site.
In short, what you say and what we the undersigned object against is this:
* Any hardware capable of running AmigaOS must first be modified with "AmigaOS specific extensions" to its "boot ROM" in order to be allowed to run AmigaOS.
* Such hardware and its distributors must be approved and licensed by Amiga Inc. and the hardware distributors must also sell and support AmigaOS4.
* AmigaOS will only be available bundled with such hardware.
We think that the above will seriously hurt AmigaOS users, the POP/PPC hardware market and thus ultimately you, Amiga Inc., yourselves.
To read the entire petition and sign it, please click here.
Before those imagining sides, factions, camps and personal enemies everywhere start commenting, it must be emphasised that this poll is not intended to "promote" anything else than the success of AmigaOS, the POP/PPC hardware market, free choice and ethical business practices.
|
|
List of all comments to this article |
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 164 of 187 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Seehund on 27-May-2002 23:59 GMT | In reply to Comment 156 (DaveW): DaveW wrote:
> You took issues with me and others pointing out the petition is flawed
> because it claims to summarise the executive summary with three assertions
> of which two do not exist in the summary.
What, pray tell, is so incorrect that it would flaw the petition?
Let me guess...
Quote:
"In *SHORT* [added emphasis], what you say and what we the undersigned object against is this:
* Any hardware capable of running AmigaOS must first be modified with "AmigaOS specific extensions" to its "boot ROM" in order to be allowed to run AmigaOS."
So, someone named Ben Hermans at a company called Hyperion has said in an online forum that this "boot ROM" (which is a direct quote from the linked executive update, supposedly written after "consultation with partners, developers...") as a physical ROM chip in a socket is only an issue for a POP mobo labelled A1G3SE. Somehow the solution of a licensee made its way into a list of company policies at the licensor's web site? Odd.
After the petition went online, this Ben Hermans even said that these "OS4 specific extensions" wouldn't have to reside in the BIOS at all.
Now let's believe this Ben Hermans person for a moment. What would this change? If you're interested in AmigaOS4 it changes nothing at all, as long as the compulsory licensing and compulsory OS/hardware bundling still are valid. What good is e.g. a USB dongle over a perverted BIOS if you still aren't allowed to buy your own choice of hardware and buy AmigaOS separately? It's, to use Smithy's words, a technicality. Fundamentally meaningless. It has no bearing on the gist of the petition.
And why are posts in an online forum by a person from another company to be believed over what's said on Amiga Inc.'s own web site? No change or correction has appeared there.
This is boring and ridiculous, but you said there were 2 errors in the summary of the petition, so let's guess again...
Quote:
"* AmigaOS will only be available bundled with such hardware."
So, once again let's go into technicalities. OS4 will also be sold separately to those who use ancient 68k Amigas with the old or forthcoming PPC expansions. Those who buy licensed POP mobos from the currently single licensee before OS4 and modified ROMs are available will also be able to buy OS4 + ROMs separately.
So? How is this relevant? How does it flaw the reasoning behind the petition? How does this matter to POP mobo distributors and those who wish to buy OS4 to run on those mobos? These are exceptions to the presented policies. It's technicalities. It's not within the scope of the petition.
Where are the "two whopping flaws"?
And why would people who say that a company's business policies are unethical have to watch their backs? Ethics is not law. Unethical != illegal. It's a person's or group's concepts of good and bad. I don't think what AI says conforms to my ethics 100%, but the petition and thus the undersigned don't say they're doing anything illegal. |
|
List of all comments to this article (continued) |
|
- User Menu
-
- About ANN archives
- The ANN archives is powered by #AmigaZeux. It was updated daily (news last: 22-Oct-2004; comments last: 18-May-2005).
ANN.lu was created, previously owned and maintained by Christian Kemp, www.ckemp.com.
- Contribute
- Not possible at this time!
- Search ANN archives
- Advanced search
- Hosting
- ANN.lu was hosted by Dreamhost. Sign up through this link, mention "ckemp" as referrer and he will get a 10% commission on any account you purchase.
Please show your appreciation for any past, present and future work on ANN.lu by making a contribution via PayPal.
|