29-Mar-2024 06:17 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
[Forum] Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3ANN.lu
Posted on 03-Feb-2003 22:33 GMT by catohagen69 comments
View flat
View list
IBrowse 2.3 falsely claims MorphOS system is using AmigaOS.
Particularily misleading since MorphOS systems are reported as running AmigaOS 4.0 !!.

There exists a crude hack that just replace all "AmigaOS" strings with "MorphOS", and
"3.1", "3.5" and "3.9" with "1.1" or "1.2". Better solution should be provided by the IBrowse authors.

List of all comments to this article
Sorted by date, most recent at bottom
Comment 1Xeyes03-Feb-2003 21:41 GMT
Comment 2catohagen03-Feb-2003 21:43 GMT
Comment 3catohagen03-Feb-2003 21:51 GMT
Comment 4Alkis Tsapanidis03-Feb-2003 21:59 GMT
Comment 5Argh03-Feb-2003 22:21 GMT
Comment 6the man in the shadows03-Feb-2003 22:34 GMT
Comment 7Ryu03-Feb-2003 23:59 GMT
Comment 8Linus G04-Feb-2003 00:11 GMT
Comment 9Anonymous04-Feb-2003 00:14 GMT
Comment 10gary_c04-Feb-2003 00:20 GMT
Comment 11gary_c04-Feb-2003 00:37 GMT
Comment 12the man in the shadows04-Feb-2003 01:32 GMT
Comment 13Anonymous04-Feb-2003 01:32 GMT
Comment 14[JC]04-Feb-2003 02:11 GMT
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 15 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by gary_c on 04-Feb-2003 02:40 GMT
In reply to Comment 13 (Anonymous):
>> Somebody afraid to be identified wrote:

> Just another individual with cash burning a hole in their pocket is all.
Really, calling anyone who asks a question afraid really starts the
rebuttle off nicely.

It's just suspect to me when someone posts on a sensitive topic but isn't willing to reveal who they are.

>> There is utterly no indication of any legal problems with MorphOS. Those
>> who own IP and believe otherwise have had ample opportunity to press
>> their case. I think the silence is telling. Thanks for sharing your
>> opinion, though.

> Utterly no indication. Whatsoever.

> Hmmm... there's been indication. It's the merit of this indication that's
in question. The silence says nothing nor proves nothing. I assume you've
never been through parenthood.

Another wrong assumption, I'm afraid. As for the merit of the indication, I'm familiar with the allegations and the responses to them.

> I don't know where you live, been in most of the free world, it is not
> the task of the accused to prove innocence, but of the accusor to prove
> guilt. Is this a hostile response? I hope not; I'm trying to be calm and
> reasonable, despite your calculated attempt to stir up trouble.

> I'm not accusing. I just want to know where the product stands before I
throw my money, time and effort into an area where legality is questioned
by another company.

Companies can bluster if it's in their interest to do so; BT tried to claim it invented hyperlinks, remember? But if a company has a legitimate claim, there are ways to follow through. If the company doesn't have a substantial-enough case to follow through, then everyone else in its business sphere doesn't have to sit on their hands motionless waiting for lawyers to call. Life goes on. If the company doesn't have the resources to follow through, then we're not likely to see much of anything else coming from that company either, so the question is moot. Again, it is the privelege of an offended company to present its case against an alleged transgressor. If it doesn't, then the assumption by all concerned -- customers, competitors, customers of competitors, etc. -- should be that there is no case. How else can we function in a litigous society?

> I'm not allowed to do this in your part of the world it
seems. Amiga, Inc has come under intense scrutiny by the public, but if
someone points a finger at MorphOS, they're "not living in the real world."
Interesting.

I don't think there's a double standard. Well, I can't vouch for other people's standards, but personally I'd react the same way. For example, I've never said, "Amiga, Inc. is out of business," only that "Amiga, Inc.'s office phone lines are out of service and their office space has been vacated." Only the facts. Perhaps they can run a business from a cell phone; I grant them that, if it's possible. (Just as an example.)

> But stir up trouble? I'm trying to get answers to a question to which I've
received responses almost exactly like this one. They're along the lines
of "It just is, so there." The owners of the trade name don't seem to think
so. They've made a threat which they've not yet retracted. That leaves, at
the least, cause for concern.

If you're basing your suspicion of MorphOS on the muted rumblings of displeasure from Amiga, Inc. staff, then I'd say yes, you have cause for concern. But most people would want something more substantial as evidense before condemning the MorphOS team as criminals. Since the Genesi products are being developed, displayed and sold without restraint, at least circumstantially I think we could assume they are legal products. And, again, it isn't the responsibility of Genesi to *prove innocence* but of Amiga, Inc. or Hyperion to prove guilt.

> What concern? In part, MorphOS runs Amiga software. To do so it must
provide an environment that is identical to that of AmigaOS. Last I
checked, copyright law covers this area of intellectual property, unless it
is substantially different.

Better check again. Copyright law does not prevent functional equivalence.

> Surely the writers of MorphOS have thought this
all through. They must've known the issue would present itself one way or
another. Having thought it all through, I would think there would be a
desire on their part to assure their clientele of that legitimacy. As a
potential investor, I believe I have the right to know these things.

I'm sure they have thought this through, and their continuing development of the product evidenses their conclusion. That is, they know they are within the law. I'm surprised people are still thinking otherwise.

>> Not at all. This issue doesn't involve the operating systems or the
>> hardware at all; it involves the software application. Admittedly we are
>> in uncharted waters to some extent here, since it's unusual for an
>> application to be able to run under more than one operating system. So it
>> will take some refinement for apps to distinguish their OS, if this is
>> deemed important. But please understand that this is a technical issue,
>> not a legal or moral one.

> I don't see a gray area here. MorphOS must recreate the AmigaOS
environment on either a large or small scale for the software to function.
Until there is clarification that the environment in MorphOS is not in any
way an infringement on copyrighted materials, this issue will continue
to surface. Just the standard "it just is, so there" is obviously not
sufficient.

MorphOS doesn't "recreate the AmigaOS environment." It provides an environment of equivalent functionality. This environment was designed independently of Amiga, Inc. IP, thus is not an infringement. Cleanroom reengineering to achieve equivalent functionality is not illegal in *any* country. How do you think non-Microsoft programs are able to import and export Word documents when their developers don't have access to the Microsoft sources? Are all these programs illegal because the developers have managed to duplicate MS functionality? They do things differently but get to the same end point. There's nothing illegal about that. There's sufficient public documentation of the Amiga API to enable the MorphOS developers, along with their own deductive reasoning, to produce a functionally equivalent Abox.

> Precisely where is anyone at legal risk in this situation? Is there legal
> culpability in IBrowse reporting an incorrect OS environment? Is there
> anything illegal about a MorphOS user running whatever software he/she is
> otherwise entitled to? Is there something illegal about patching IBrowse
> to report an alternative OS environment? You really should follow your
> own advise and not raise the issue of legality when you are only kicking
> up dust without having a clue about the facts of the matter.

> I could invest in MorphOS, either financially or intellectually, then three
years from now find myself in the crapper when the company has been taken
down by lawsuits which people like yourself were telling me were never a
concern, and have no platform to run the applications which I've either
developed or funded. You're right, there's no risk to be found here.

I think if you are looking three years down the road for any niche market like AmigaOS or MorphOS, you've got a lot of factors to consider, most of them significantly more important than this "illegality" question. You must realize, of course, that there are rather imposing risks in this market in any event. The weight of your concern is more befitting a developer than a customer. (As a customer, you have no risk. The applications you buy will be yours to use no matter what happens eventually between these companies from a legal standpoint.) Any developer with such concerns should contact Genesi directly and air his/her concerns. Naturally people like that are important to them as they try to build their market, and concerns like those must be put to rest.

> Until these questions are answered, it's something to be considered.

It's an interesting topic, but I think the situation speaks for itself. Unless Amiga, Inc. or Hyperion (or whoever owns the IP in question) presents a case in the proper manner, we can assume there is no case to be presented. People have made accusations in offhanded ways, and the reply has been that there has been no impropriety. The onus is not on the accused, but the accuser. If you can't live with that situation, then I'm wondering how you otherwise manage in this little corner of the computing world where uncertainty is the only constant.

-- gary_c
Jump...
#17 bbrv
TopPrevious commentNext commentbottom
List of all comments to this article (continued)
Comment 16Hooligan/DCS04-Feb-2003 03:26 GMT
Comment 17bbrv04-Feb-2003 03:31 GMT
Comment 18gary_c04-Feb-2003 04:53 GMT
Comment 19catohagen04-Feb-2003 06:40 GMT
Comment 20Senex04-Feb-2003 07:04 GMT
Comment 21bbrv04-Feb-2003 07:12 GMT
Comment 22Anonymous04-Feb-2003 07:13 GMT
Comment 23Ben Yoris04-Feb-2003 07:19 GMT
Comment 24Senex04-Feb-2003 07:23 GMT
Comment 25Anonymous04-Feb-2003 07:39 GMT
Comment 26catohagen04-Feb-2003 07:44 GMT
Comment 27catohagen04-Feb-2003 07:58 GMT
Comment 28priest04-Feb-2003 08:39 GMT
Comment 29Not a Eyetech Fan04-Feb-2003 09:00 GMT
Comment 30Cyberwlf04-Feb-2003 09:12 GMT
Comment 31Anonymous04-Feb-2003 09:16 GMT
Comment 32catohagen04-Feb-2003 09:25 GMT
Comment 33Alkis Tsapanidis04-Feb-2003 10:45 GMT
Comment 34mahen04-Feb-2003 10:51 GMT
Comment 35mahen04-Feb-2003 10:58 GMT
Comment 36Alkis Tsapanidis04-Feb-2003 10:59 GMT
Comment 37catohagen04-Feb-2003 11:12 GMT
Comment 38Alkis Tsapanidis04-Feb-2003 11:17 GMT
Comment 39David Scheibler04-Feb-2003 11:18 GMT
Comment 40Johan Rönnblom04-Feb-2003 12:04 GMT
Comment 41joe04-Feb-2003 12:07 GMT
Comment 42Sigbjørn Skjæret04-Feb-2003 12:39 GMT
Comment 43tired04-Feb-2003 12:57 GMT
Comment 44logain04-Feb-2003 13:02 GMT
Comment 45Alfred Schwarz04-Feb-2003 13:22 GMT
Comment 46logain04-Feb-2003 13:33 GMT
Comment 47Anonymous04-Feb-2003 13:36 GMT
Comment 48krize04-Feb-2003 13:44 GMT
Comment 49JoannaK04-Feb-2003 14:10 GMT
Comment 50Anonymous04-Feb-2003 14:17 GMT
Comment 51Anonymous04-Feb-2003 14:24 GMT
Comment 52pixie04-Feb-2003 14:38 GMT
Comment 53Jupp304-Feb-2003 14:58 GMT
Comment 54cheesegrate04-Feb-2003 15:06 GMT
Comment 55Alkis Tsapanidis04-Feb-2003 16:49 GMT
Comment 56Elwood04-Feb-2003 19:17 GMT
Comment 57AnonX04-Feb-2003 21:12 GMT
Comment 58Anonymous04-Feb-2003 22:35 GMT
Comment 59gary_c05-Feb-2003 00:12 GMT
Comment 60Kolbjørn Barmen05-Feb-2003 00:32 GMT
Comment 61joe05-Feb-2003 11:26 GMT
Comment 62pixie05-Feb-2003 13:43 GMT
Comment 63pixie05-Feb-2003 13:46 GMT
Comment 64pixie05-Feb-2003 13:54 GMT
Comment 65pixie05-Feb-2003 14:03 GMT
Comment 66itix05-Feb-2003 16:30 GMT
Comment 67Alkis Tsapanidis06-Feb-2003 10:43 GMT
Comment 68Anonymous06-Feb-2003 23:41 GMT
Comment 69Ketzer11-Feb-2003 08:16 GMT
Back to Top