27-Jan-2023 14:41 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 16 items in your selection
[News] P96 team communicatesANN.lu
Posted on 22-Nov-2000 09:34 GMT by Christian Kemp16 comments
View flat
View list
Olivier Fabre writes: Tobias Abt posted yesterday in the P96 mailing list an explanation to the current Elbox/P96 situation. Many points are addressed so I won't try to summarize; just read it.
P96 team communicates : Comment 1 of 16ANN.lu
Posted by Nicolas Mendoza on 21-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
Ok, I've got a mail myself with about the same statements and I GET the point, and feel a tad sorry for them.
BUT this is ONE of the reasons why we should have had an AHI for graphics...
Nicolas Mendoza
P96 team communicates : Comment 2 of 16ANN.lu
Posted by Troels Ersking on 21-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In my opinion the P96 team are acting childish....
They expect Elbox to pay license for making P96 the desired gfx system. As it is right now no-one exept UAE users use it and they don't pay the registration fee.
Also the BAD excuses about the lack of developement (computer problems)are really sorry to read....
Honestly I don't think they were going to release any updates...now they almost have to.
Still i hpe they work it out with Elbox but i wouldn't count on it.
And How can it be Elbox'es problem that people doesn't register p96??
They could have taken other initiatives to make sure people pay, but they didn't did they??
P96 team communicates : Comment 3 of 16ANN.lu
Posted by Mike on 21-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 2 (Troels Ersking):
Still, it would be in users best interest to foster cooperation between Elbox and P96 by politely suggesting to the Elbox guys that they deal with the P96 guys and pay them a decent amount for their work
P96 team communicates : Comment 4 of 16ANN.lu
Posted by Andreas Meyer on 21-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 2 (Troels Ersking):
>In my opinion the P96 team are acting childish....
And in my opinion Elbox is handling the driver issue childish and unprofessional
>They expect Elbox to pay license for making P96 the desired gfx system. As it
>is right now no-one exept UAE users use it and they don't pay the registration
>fee.
>Also the BAD excuses about the lack of developement (computer problems)are
>really sorry to read....
>Honestly I don't think they were going to release any updates...now they
>almost have to.
We all should thank Elbox not only for selflessly promoting P96 but also for forcing these bloody developers to fulfill their moral duties and continue development on P96.
>Still i hpe they work it out with Elbox but i wouldn't count on it.
>And How can it be Elbox'es problem that people doesn't register p96??
>They could have taken other initiatives to make sure people pay, but
>they didn't did they??
Oh no ! Not again 8-(
Andreas
Here we go again... only 97 to go...
P96 team communicates : Comment 5 of 16ANN.lu
Posted by Anthony Becker on 21-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
Toi say that only UAE users use Picasso96 can't even be close to the truth. I bought a RetinaZIII for my 4000 and surely was not about to purchase Cybergrafix for it. Picasso96 is not only more current but easily available from any of Aminet's mirror sites.
Of course, I'm also a jerk for not registering Picasso96. They're absolutely right. They have done a great thing for Amiga by releasing their graphics system free to download and try out with no limitations. This great thing for Amiga is a bad thing for them as there is nothing to force someone trying it out (like me) to make the purchase. It works, there is no time limit or resolution limitation, and the next version will be as easily obtained.
I will, now that I see the human side of this, be registering my Picasso96. Picasso96 is adding a huge value to Elbox's product in allowing them not to have to code a Cybergrafix compatible graphics system. They, like I, should pay something for that.
P96 team communicates : Comment 6 of 16ANN.lu
Posted by CCRider on 21-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 2 (Troels Ersking):
Yeah, right... it is Elbox that´s doing reverse engineering or stealing P96 code and you say that the P96 are acting childish???? Come on... :/
P96 team communicates : Comment 7 of 16ANN.lu
Posted by David Scheibler on 21-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
I hope that there won't be a Warp3D driver based on the pirated P96
driver.
And even if I hope that the Friedens don't tolerate such drivers for
their system because such an action from Elbox isn't any better than
pirateing Shogo or HereticII.
P96 team communicates : Comment 8 of 16ANN.lu
Posted by Ian Shurmer on 21-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 1 (Nicolas Mendoza):
Yeah, Ive got to agree with you -- I feel pretty, no very, sorry for the developers of P96 after reading that mail as well. But after the 100+ threads on ANN, I don't think its about whos right or whos wrong anymore, after all there are valid reasons for both sides of the argument. I think that Elbox and P96 just need to settle their differences and work together.
However, if Elbox did steal the code, then this is a terrible thing for Shareware developers and the Amiga in general. Just because the P96 team did the "right thing" for Amigans (I think?!) and released a non crippled P96 as the standard free download does not mean that companies such as Elbox can take advantage of this fact and steal/reverse engineer THEIR code. After the CGX fiasco I would have thought that Elbox would have learnt from their mistakes.
After all, if P96 was crippleware/commercial would this have happened...? I think not. Another blow for small Amiga software developers... :(
Regards, Ian (who is thoroughly p*ssed off about the whole situation. Yet again, small amiga companies are killing themselves and each other.)
P96 team communicates : Comment 9 of 16ANN.lu
Posted by Troels Ersking on 21-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 6 (CCRider):
reverse engineering? stealing P96 code?
Reverse engineering yes MAYBE, but stealing code what are you talking about???
It's not Elbox's problem if vodoo card users doesn't register just like most UAE/Pixel64/Retina/etc. users probably havent registred either. Shame on them!!
P96 team communicates : Comment 10 of 16ANN.lu
Posted by Olivier Fabre on 22-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 9 (Troels Ersking):
From P96 readme on Aminet :
"Picasso96 is ShareWare. Requested fee US$20 or DM30, free to use for
PicassoIV and Pixel64 users (the manufacturers of those cards already
paid for these licences) and the really few ones that already have
sent us a donation."
P96 team communicates : Comment 11 of 16ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 22-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 2 (Troels Ersking):
: And How can it be Elbox'es problem that people doesn't
: register p96?? They could have taken other initiatives
: to make sure people pay, but they didn't did they??
Yes they did. They tried to bundle it with hardware, such as the
PicassoIV or Pixel64. Or the Mediator.
P96 team communicates : Comment 12 of 16ANN.lu
Posted by Ian on 22-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
Hang on... In that statement from the P96 people, no mention is made of the main point of earlier threads that the "free" Elbox driver has to be licensed for a fee.
It seems more like the P96 guys want Elbox to bundle the whole package, thus neatly covering all cost/licensing issues. If this is the case, the only people who have a problem with that would be "those few" who have already registered.
OTOH, releasing a product as uncrippled shareware and expecting to make money is really very naiive...
P96 team communicates : Comment 13 of 16ANN.lu
Posted by Troels Ersking on 23-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 10 (Olivier Fabre):
Well I agree that 30DM is a very fair price, but my point was that there are no one who can claim Elbox STEAL's the P96 code.
It's not like they deliver some pirated version of P96 with the Mediator, they (elbox)are not responsible for the Vodoo card users (or vodoo card sale)to register P96, even though I bet they hope most people will.
About registrering P96: As i said it's a very fair price and the only reason I can think of why people doesn't register is lazyness... Even though I admire that P96 ain't released as a demoversion/crippleware it just seems naive to think people will register when they can use it for free...it's sad though.
P96 team communicates : Comment 14 of 16ANN.lu
Posted by Andrzej J. Debicki on 23-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 6 (CCRider):
Everyone (almost) is complaining about Elbox reverse engineered P96
code. Bu look what P96 guys did with CGX code to make P96
CGX-compatible. Come on, you really think they played fair? You think
that CGX guys said: "Mr Abt, take this CGX source code and make your
Picasso CGX comaptible to shorten our market". No way. And now, they
want Elbox to pay for what they didn't? Of course if the situation
ever happend.
:-)
P96 team communicates : Comment 15 of 16ANN.lu
Posted by Steffen Haeuser on 23-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 14 (Andrzej J. Debicki):
Hi!
Actually you do not need the CGX Source-Code to make a CGX Emulation, nor do you
need to reverse-engineer. This is only a API-level Emulation. I did the same
for CGX BTW (Picasso 96 Emulation Library) once, and I had neither the P96
Source Code nor the CGX Source Code. Basically you have like this (in the case P96
emulating CGX):
function_from_P96(...)
{
// Some Adaption code for differences between P96 and CGX
function_from_CGX(...);
}
This can be coded in a few hours at most. All needed information is
in the Autodocs of CGX, BTW. And there is no condition in the CGX
copyright which forbids you from calling CGX functions. Using internal
structures is something completely different...
Another API-level-Emulation is Frank Wille's ppc.library Emulation.
He also did not need any details on the internal workings of ppc.library
(though it surely was MUCH more complicated as a Kernel has much more
complex functions than a RTG Lib, and much more functions anyways).
What Elbox did is completely different. Their driver uses the internal
structures of P96 (it IS a P96 Driver, not an API-Emulation !!! This is
also why it still needs the base library), which are *only* legally
available against an NDA which is only available against money. If they do not
accept these conditions, they should not use the information which is tied
to these conditions (but then of course they have no Driver). They want to
use the *copyrighted* information - they have to comply to the conditions.
There was never an issue that the price would not be negociable. But as soon
as it was clear that P96 people would not do it *for free*, Elbox ceased
negociations. Then they tried the same with the CGX people again. And when
this also failed, they reverse-engineered P96. This is definitely not okay like
this.
Well, as this has been talked all over again with the same arguments, I think this
is my last post on this issue.
Steffen
P96 team communicates : Comment 16 of 16ANN.lu
Posted by Tobias Abt on 24-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 14 (Andrzej J. Debicki):
Actually, we asked Frank Mariak about it and he told us
he had no problems with it as we were just using the
publically available CGX API.
Anonymous, there are 16 items in your selection
Back to Top