| [News] AFUA visited Thendic-France | ANN.lu |
| Posted on 24-Apr-2002 15:30 GMT by Teemu I. Yliselä | 629 comments
View flat
View list | |
The French Amiga user group AFUA visited the Thendic-France headquarters and met with Bill Buck and the Coyote Flux guys. Read their report here.
|
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 301 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by David Scheibler on 26-Apr-2002 20:30 GMT | In reply to Comment 298 (Samface):
>I can make a long list for why MorphOS legal status is questionable, can you
>say the same about AOS4? I didn't think so.
Yes you can. And that was actually proven in court. The legal situation of the
AmigaOS is highly questionable. |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 302 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Kronos on 27-Apr-2002 03:35 GMT | In reply to Comment 298 (Samface):
>No, he made it perfectly clear that decompilation is allowed to ensure >interoperability between software, not between software and hardware.
There is no CGX for AOne/Prometheus/Amithlon/Amiga-Forever
The P96-team gets money from these.
The CGX-team gets money from every sold GRex or Pegasos and
Cybervision.
The only reason for the existence of the CGX-emu is to make
it possible to run SW especially written for CGX.
So yes this is about interoperability of HW !!!
>Then why do I have to use the ROM file for AmigaOS3.9 in order to run it?
What ROM-file ? The only think you need is the REPLACEMENT for it,
and that doesn't include the orignal ROM but only SW written by
the MOS-team.
>If it was impossible to run nothing but PowerUP software,
PuP is always started first and has to be removed before you
start WarpUP or AOS4.
>how come I can run the AmigaOS at all?
AmigaOS runs on the 68k part not on the PPC.
>Also, why would it be illegal to flush the powerup kernel out of memory?
Thats what we are asking you ! Why would it be illegal to flush
Kickstart out of memory ?
>Because when you get a license, YOU are the only one allowed to use it.
Again have you seen what was written in it ?
AGFA gave C= a licence for their outline-fonts.
Is this licence still intact or have Escom/Gateway/AInc used
and sold illegal SW for the last 8 years ? |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 303 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Kronos on 27-Apr-2002 03:51 GMT | In reply to Comment 302 (Kronos):
Forgot this:
MacroSystems and Villagetronic still exist they
just don't do any Amiga-related stuff anymore, |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 304 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Boy Genius on 27-Apr-2002 04:35 GMT | | The Amiga as a lawyers computer, what a concept. If these brilliant lawyers actually write some applications maybe we can have a viable computer platform with some modern programs to run on it. Amiga has been in bed with Microsoft these days. I hope it doesn't pick up its destructive business habits. If Amiga could have made a destop operating system out of Amiga DE, BPlan would be the only company supporting the PPC Amiga. Here's an idea. Don't buy the MB/operating system you don't like. My Synopsis: Amiga backed Eyetech who couldn't do hardware. Bplan developed a PPC market but must labor to do software. The world doesn't care about Amiga because the developers are not drawn to a machine that A)is on so few desktops B) Doesn't have sophisticated state of the art hardware. Let's first get the Amiga out of the 80's. If we don't stop this civil war we're not going to have a platform to fight over. Commodore at least put 8-bit computers on every toy and department store shelf in America. They marketed to new consumers outside the then limited computer market. There's a market and software even today. Lets try it again. I want an Os/Mb/software combination to supoort digital audio and video with MIDI sequencing. I don't care Mos or Aos. I'll buy the best/first one to produce. |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 305 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Ah ha on 27-Apr-2002 06:21 GMT | In reply to Comment 133 (David Scheibler):
So, MorphOS is like WINE. An API compatability layer that sits on top of the kernal. |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 306 of 629 | ANN.lu |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 307 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by erm... on 27-Apr-2002 07:36 GMT | In reply to Comment 192 (Samface):
Are we talking International, EU, or US law? |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 308 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Samface on 27-Apr-2002 08:35 GMT | In reply to Comment 302 (Kronos):
>>No, he made it perfectly clear that decompilation is allowed to ensure >>interoperability between software, not between software and hardware.
>So yes this is about interoperability of HW !!!
Software running ontop of another software that is compatible with yet another software's API has nothing to do with hardware.
>>Then why do I have to use the ROM file for AmigaOS3.9 in order to run it?
>What ROM-file ? The only think you need is the REPLACEMENT for it,
>and that doesn't include the orignal ROM but only SW written by
>the MOS-team.
Obviously you haven't actually tried MorphOS yourself, then.
>>If it was impossible to run nothing but PowerUP software,
>PuP is always started first and has to be removed before you
>start WarpUP or AOS4.
Correct. But not in order to run 68k software.
>>how come I can run the AmigaOS at all?
>AmigaOS runs on the 68k part not on the PPC.
Correct.
>>Also, why would it be illegal to flush the powerup kernel out of memory?
>Thats what we are asking you ! Why would it be illegal to flush
>Kickstart out of memory ?
Where did I say that? Please, I'm beging you on my bare knees, WHERE did I say that? Point it out to me, please!!!
>>Because when you get a license, YOU are the only one allowed to use it.
>Again have you seen what was written in it ?
Sigh... Do you know anything about licenses at all?
>AGFA gave C= a licence for their outline-fonts.
>Is this licence still intact or have Escom/Gateway/AInc used
>and sold illegal SW for the last 8 years ?
Who knows? Who cares? I don't. We're talking about the legalities about an entire platform here, please stay on topic. |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 309 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by David Scheibler on 27-Apr-2002 08:51 GMT | In reply to Comment 308 (Samface):
>Obviously you haven't actually tried MorphOS yourself, then.
Where is the Amiga ROM file in the MorphOS distribution? |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 310 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Samface on 27-Apr-2002 09:00 GMT | In reply to Comment 301 (David Scheibler):
When was Amiga Inc in court regarding AmigaOS4? |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 311 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Samface on 27-Apr-2002 09:07 GMT | In reply to Comment 309 (David Scheibler):
LOL! This is really getting stupid... It doesn't matter if it's distributed with their product or not, simply depending on it in order to function is illegal.
Next post will say:
"But then every program requiring the AmigaROM is illegal."
No. There's a difference between running ontop of it and using it for emulation.
Next post will say:
"But then UAE/Amithlon/AmigaOSXL/Amiga Forever is illegal".
UAE in without a specific license is illegal. Amithlon/AmigaOSXL/Amiga Forever has been licensed for using the AmigaROM and is therefore legal.
Perhaps I should write up an FAQ? |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 312 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by David Scheibler on 27-Apr-2002 09:09 GMT | In reply to Comment 310 (Samface):
They were in court regarding OS3.1. Because OS4 is based on OS3.1 the legal
status is questionable. |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 313 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Samface on 27-Apr-2002 09:12 GMT | In reply to Comment 312 (David Scheibler):
Amiga Inc? I think not. I think you're referring to Escom which is an entirely different story. In what way has this anything to do with the current owners? |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 314 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by David Scheibler on 27-Apr-2002 09:13 GMT | In reply to Comment 313 (Samface):
They bought the IP from Escom? Enough relevance?! |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 315 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Samface on 27-Apr-2002 09:18 GMT | In reply to Comment 312 (David Scheibler):
Please read post #306, look at points 1, 3 and 6. Give me valid arguments for why I should doubt these facts in any way. |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 316 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Samface on 27-Apr-2002 09:20 GMT | In reply to Comment 314 (David Scheibler):
*BEEEEP* Wrong. Thanks for playing.
They bought them from Gateway. |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 317 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by David Scheibler on 27-Apr-2002 09:22 GMT | In reply to Comment 315 (Samface):
I gave you the court decision. Should be enough. It's not relevant what they
have written in any contract if the law/judge says the opposite.
If I make a deal with you about things I don't own you don't own them after you
have signed the contract because the contract is not valid. |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 318 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by David Scheibler on 27-Apr-2002 09:23 GMT | In reply to Comment 316 (Samface):
And Gateway bought them from Escom. Quite simple.
Commodore->Escom->Gateway->Amino
So how could they have aquired rights from Gateway that Escom did not have? |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 319 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Samface on 27-Apr-2002 09:28 GMT | In reply to Comment 317 (David Scheibler):
1. You did NOT give me the court decision.
2. You still haven't given me any facts, any URL which you can refer to which tells me about the case and what it was about?
3. Still it's only about the legalities regarding Escom, you don't think Gateway could've done something about it? It seems to me like they very much had their interest in making sure they had the rights for everything, why would they else acquire 47 patents, for example? |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 320 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Ben Hermans/Hyperion on 27-Apr-2002 09:29 GMT | In reply to Comment 302 (Kronos):
>There is no CGX for AOne/Prometheus/Amithlon/Amiga-Forever
>The P96-team gets money from these.
>The CGX-team gets money from every sold GRex or Pegasos and
>Cybervision.
>The only reason for the existence of the CGX-emu is to make
>it possible to run SW especially written for CGX.
>So yes this is about interoperability of HW !!!
Ahem, no.
Repost from the "Ben Hermans interview thread".
Let's examine the CGX - P96 situation.
Imagine the P96 people decompiled CGX to produce a compatibility API so that applications targeting the CGX API would work with P96.
This is legal and exactly the reason why the provision on decompilation exists in the first place: to ensure interoperability through decompilation between software.
The interoperability exists in this case between the application using the CGX API and P96, not between P96 and CGX.
You don't want P96 to interoperate with CGX, you want an application using the CGX API to interoperate with P96.
There's a distinction there.
Even if both P96 and the apps using the CGX API are run on different hardware, they still target eachother for interoperability, not different hardware.
But by all means, carry on!
It seems you all should have gone to law-school, the interest in IP law is simply overwhelming. |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 321 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by David Scheibler on 27-Apr-2002 09:31 GMT | In reply to Comment 319 (Samface):
1. Look for Rainer Bendas history
2. It was VillageTronic vs. Amiga
3. How could they have done something about it? Tell me from who Gateway bought
the right to AmigaOS if not from Escom. |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 322 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by cheesegrate on 27-Apr-2002 09:34 GMT | In reply to Comment 320 (Ben Hermans/Hyperion):
@mr hermans
maybe you should start negotiations with thendic since u seem to have
a lot of time on your hands
regards
adam ceremuga
indymedia brisbane |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 323 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Kronos on 27-Apr-2002 09:34 GMT | In reply to Comment 308 (Samface):
>Software running ontop of another software that is compatible
>with yet another software's API has nothing to do with hardware
Try to see CGX as some kind of "GFX-OS" written for all the
Cybervision-cards and you'll see where the HW is.
Every P_IV sold was one lost customer less for P5s GFX-card.
One main why people bought the P_IV was because it could run
SW especially written for the Cybervisions and their "GFX-OS".
>Obviously you haven't actually tried MorphOS yourself, then.
So than explain me how you know MorphOS is using the Kickstart
and not its own replacement routines. You can't because it
doesn't.
>Where did I say that? Please, I'm beging you on my bare knees,
>WHERE did I say that? Point it out to me, please!!!
David have tried several times to explain to you that is all that
MorphOS does with the Kickstart, and still you claim its illegal
(a view not even shared by Ben Hermans or AInc themself).
>Sigh... Do you know anything about licenses at all?
How did that licence look ?
Probraly $xxx had to be paid before and i assume $yyy for every
AOS-compatible system sold. Maybe thei was a time limit but thats
something we don't know.
But i know a bit about bancrupsy cases.
When a buisness goes down all contract remain intact as long as
all duties in it are fullfilled. It will be tried to turn every
remaining item into profit to cover at least some of the depts.
This includes patents, designs and licences. Most of these were
bougt by DCE to continue the production of the PowerUP-card, but
the SW-rights for it are still in the Hands of R.S. and he may
also have bought the licence. |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 324 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Frodon on 27-Apr-2002 09:38 GMT | In reply to Comment 308 (Samface):
Hello SamFace,
You said:
> Software running ontop of another software that is compatible with yet another
> software's API has nothing to do with hardware.
Ok then so what is the problem with MorphOS then?
The A-Box is a software running on top the MorphOS kernel (another software) that is compatible with AmigaOS APIs (yet another software) and so has nothing to do with hardware if you are right.
So even if the MorphOS Team have used decompilation (And they don't), MorphOS would have also been legal. (But it's legal anyway as the decompilation has not been used ;-) )
Regards |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 325 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by gz on 27-Apr-2002 10:18 GMT | In reply to Comment 294 (Lennart Fridén):
Now, surely you can't mean that company X, buying certain parts of company Y should update each and every company (e.g. companies Z, P, Q, and R) that company Y USED to have deals with?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my opinion your argument would apply in a case where AI wouldn't had been in good knowledge of the MOS project. It's different in what we have here however as when amino bought the name from gateway, All licences previously attached to gateway AI where inherited to amino. Also AI knew about the mos project and it's goals all along but never intervened, untill the mos team told AI to take their licence proposal elsewhere.
It would have been in AI's own interest to intervene with a project that they suspect violates their rights and product licenses as a brand owner.
But they didn't, thus this situation got to the point where it is now.
Thru this I can only determine that AI had something up their sleeve for MOS, which they did when they first approached MOS team when the project was in a promising state, and only then when it didn't work out, things got ugly.
AI were hoping that they wouldn't have to start a huge project up from scratch, and so they waited these other people to grow the fruit, and when the fruit would be almost ripe AI could step in and do the thing they did with OS.3.9 and h&p. Which is assimilating someone elses work under THEIR name without really having to do anything.
However as you seem to hate the mos team so badly, that you suddenly wen't blind with the part of my post where I was saying that MOS team WAS
responsible to approach AI again after the p5 banckruptcy so they could verify the legality of their project. It's clear that if they had a licence it should be up for themselves to have contacted AI and renew it. Nobody knows why they didn't do this, so I'm not going to start speculating it.
My point is that I NEVER said that AI was the sole reason why this mess happened. I was merely willing to point out that both MOS and AI share their part in this drama and that both are responsible for different kind of things here.
And if you are asking me if the current situation with mos is questionable. My answer is YES.
However as NONE of us including you, don't have solid proof of WHAT illegal MOS contains or is alledged containing,we will have to wait before starting to point our fingers and scream: THEY ARE WITCHES, LET'S BURN THEM AT THE STAKE!
Also from a personal point of view I find AI's ethics very questionable too for always trying to find the approach of reaping the fruits of other ppl's labor.
It's not just MOS ppl... The only difference is that AI do it legally, but morally it's just as questionable. |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 326 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Frodon on 27-Apr-2002 10:30 GMT | In reply to Comment 325 (gz):
Hello,
You said:
"THEY ARE WITCHES, LET'S BURN THEM AT THE STAKE!"
What do you have against witches??? ;-) Personally i love witches ;))
(Just a bit of humour to relax the atmosphere a little ;) )
Bye |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 327 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by gz on 27-Apr-2002 10:51 GMT | In reply to Comment 295 (Samface):
I'm no BAF and don't simply believe in them because they have the name, be sure of it. But, you're not giving me a valid argument here. It's MorphOS duty to make sure their product is legal, not Amiga Inc.'s. Why is it so hard to understand that you as the developer of a product have to make sure that your product is legal before actually releasing it and preferably before developing it, as all of your work could just as well be for nought.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read my reply to Lennart, and you should see that I never disagreed with what you are saying above.
>>Excuse me, but why should Amiga Inc help the MorphOS team? Why do you seem to think Amiga Inc. owes them something?
My english must be really bad if you misunderstood my sentence in such a horrible way. I was referring to the argument below.
"AI stepped in suddenly and demands control of their project. who would swallow that without taking an issue with it?"
>>The legal concerns for MorphOS is the responsibility of the MorphOS team, not Amiga Inc.
MAINLY and legally it's the responsibility of the morphos team, but as I have said earlier, law doesen't always mean justice. I find AI's intentions ethically wrong. You see 2 apples on the table but think only the other is rotten from inside. Have you ever given it the thought that maybe they both could be rotten?
>>You should know better than going into specific political matters like that. I won't even go into that argument and instead I'll simply tell you that the IP of Amiga Inc is hardly an evil regime bombarding civilians, ok?
Im sorry but I wasn't talking about the situation of amiga industry anymore, because I was replying to things said by you which couldn't be compared to software development.
"Would it be right to do a lynch mob because the police hasn't found the killer yet? No. If you want to help, send your application to the police academy..."
Then you said:
"If you find something wrong about the justice in your country, the only way of correcting this would be either joining the police force yourself or becoming a politician."
"Even Robin Hodd himself realized this and instead he was forced to help Richard back to the throne in order to set things right. Do like a child and learn from the story."
Do the things you have said above have any meaning in the context of AI and MOS?!?
Not in my opinion. Which is why when I was answering your arguments, I wasn't talking about amiga anymore.
>>complicating things more than necessary isn't a very good idea either. Like >>your political stuff, for example, what does it got to do with anything? It >>only stirs up things which isn't topical anyway.
Well it wasn't me starting the political debate. I was merely replying on your posts. |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 328 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Samface on 27-Apr-2002 10:52 GMT | In reply to Comment 321 (David Scheibler):
I found NOTHING on the keywords when I searched for it, I'm sorry. Please give me an URL to backup your claims while I give you facts regarding Gateways ownership of AmigaOS3.1:
"Amiga International, Inc.: OS3.1 Info July 25th, 1997
July 25th, 1997
Copyright
The AMIGA OS 3.1 is owned by AMIGA International, Inc. / Gateway 2000
and protected by copyright laws, international treaty provision and
all other applicable national laws. The distribution of the AMIGA OS
3.1 is only approved by authorized dealers and distributors. The
following security sticker indicates that this product is genuine
AMIGA International, Inc. software. Reproduction of this certificate
of Authenticity is illegal and strictly prohibited by law." |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 329 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by gz on 27-Apr-2002 11:07 GMT | In reply to Comment 326 (Frodon):
>>What do you have against witches??? ;-)
Im married to one ;) |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 330 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by David Scheibler on 27-Apr-2002 11:14 GMT | In reply to Comment 328 (Samface):
Although I doubt that you understand the court decision written in German here it is:
http://home.t-online.de/home/R.Benda/story3_4.html
Please note the quote of the court decision (from 16.07.1997) starts here:
"In der Sache (...)". |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 331 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Bill Hoggett on 27-Apr-2002 11:19 GMT | In reply to Comment 318 (David Scheibler):
David, you are misrepresenting the verdict.
The court did not decide Escom did not own the rights, they decided that Escom wre unable to prove their ownership to a sufficient degree to pursue the case against VillageTronic.
That's a very weak judgement to use as a precedent that Escom/Gateway/Amiga have all benn using the 3.1 ROM illegally, as I believe any court, including a German one, would decide should anybody be stupid enough to take the matter that far.
Having said that, I suspect the "MorphOS is illegal" case is equally frivolous, and is merely a pile of FUD spread by Amiga Inc & Hyperion as a marketing ploy.
Why doesn't everyone just pipe down and concentrate on what's important: releasing product. You can have all the bunfights you want afterwards. |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 332 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by David Scheibler on 27-Apr-2002 11:21 GMT | In reply to Comment 331 (Bill Hoggett):
Please also see the fact that they said that the whole contract was a mess... |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 333 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Anonymous on 27-Apr-2002 11:22 GMT | In reply to Comment 319 (Samface):
http://home.t-online.de/home/R.Benda/story3_4.html
Im Urteil des Oberlandesgerichts Celle vom 16.07.1997 (13 U 97/97), ist
folgener Absatz zu finden, Zitat:
"In der zwischen der Commodore-Amiga-Gruppe und der X. geschlossenen
Veträgen ist nur von -sämtlichen aufgrund der Patente bestehenden
Rechte, Titel und Rechtsansprüche- die Rede; das Betriebssystem OS3.1
ist dort nicht als solches bezeichnet. Den vorgelegten Unterlagen über
eine Vereinbarung zwischen diesen Parteien vom 13.03.1995 lässt sich
deshalb nicht hinreichend überprüfbar entnehmen, daß die X. die aus-
schliesslichen Lizenzrechte an dem Betriebssystem erworben hat." - Zitat
Ende. |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 334 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Frodon on 27-Apr-2002 11:23 GMT | Hello,
<HUMOUR> I don't like seeign the same face anywhere, so please SamFace, can you stop posting comments please? ;-))))))</HUMOUR>
Bye |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 335 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Kronos on 27-Apr-2002 11:26 GMT | In reply to Comment 331 (Bill Hoggett):
>Why doesn't everyone just pipe down and concentrate on
>what's important: releasing product. You can have all
>the bunfights you want afterwards.
Sorry Bill but in what world are living ?
This isn't wewahappywonderland this is "Amigaland" where
everybody says there isn't any money to be made, but still
everybody is acting like it would be about the recipe for
turning bird-droppings into diamonds. |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 336 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Frodon on 27-Apr-2002 11:30 GMT | In reply to Comment 335 (Kronos):
Hello,
AmigaLand is more StupidLand today :-(((
Bye |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 337 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 27-Apr-2002 11:31 GMT | In reply to Comment 334 (Frodon):
Same here, but not humourously:)
Or if that's not possible, at least he could think before posting
and NOT talk about stuff he knows nothing about.
The ROM studd were utter bullshit. Ben Hermans who's a lawyer didn't
mention those, as probably there's no case with that, does samface
think he's smarter? Suddently samface became a law, hw and sw expert.
No "camp" needs such people... |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 338 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Samface on 27-Apr-2002 11:41 GMT | In reply to Comment 331 (Bill Hoggett):
"Why doesn't everyone just pipe down and concentrate on what's important: releasing product. You can have all the bunfights you want afterwards."
And if that "bunfight" reveals that MorphOS actually is illegal, will you blame Amiga Inc for making all their work they've put into MorphOS in vain? |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 339 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Samface on 27-Apr-2002 11:44 GMT | In reply to Comment 337 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
Alkis, not one single of argument you used were based on facts while I keep quoting the law. Go on, ignore me all you want, just like you seem to ignore the law. I'm sure everything will turn out for the best that way... |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 340 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Kronos on 27-Apr-2002 11:46 GMT | In reply to Comment 338 (Samface):
Well there is only one that has to make sure
MorphOS is legal and thats Ralph (and his team).
But it is not Bens or your reposiblity to spread
rumours about its legal status without even knowing
whats in the final release and how it was made. |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 341 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Samface on 27-Apr-2002 12:04 GMT | In reply to Comment 337 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
All I want is facts proving me wrong and none has been shown to me. You see, it never was about my opinion, my expertise and none of the facts I've pointed out has been related to me as a person. This is exactly why I stayed away from claiming that it was something I had the expertise for, I simply pointed at the already existing facts. Still, you jump on me, claiming that I don't know what I'm talking about. To me; that just proves the opposite.
Please, answer me this:
1. MorphOS (the officially released version available for download) does replace the AmigaROM with it's own Quark kerenel, I've never denied that like some other people claim. But, would you deny the fact that the AmigaROM is used in anyway for launching AmigaOS3.x ontop of that kernel and emulator?
2. Could you deny the fact that the MorphOS team/bPlan/Thendic-France use the recognition of the Amiga trademark for marketing their products? I mean, announced as an Amiga next-generation PowerPC OS, advertising the Pegasos when you search for AmigaOne at google, uses the Workbench trademark, etc...
3. Would you deny the fact that MorphOS has used reverse engineering of the AmigaOS? You see, Ralph Scmidt himself told me that MorphOS is a reverse engineered product which according to him is perfectly legal. (Ben Hermans made it perfectly clear that this is not the case.)
Don't give me your opininon or something you simply claim to know, give me the cold facts. I want to be able to examine the proof myself like in a courtroom where no proof can be presented to the court without letting the other side of the case examining it first. |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 342 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 27-Apr-2002 12:08 GMT | In reply to Comment 339 (Samface):
The rom stuff I said were perfectly correct.
ROMs are readable at any time in the Amiga.
The ROMs themselves, not a copy of them.
Blizkick etc exist to copy the ROM in the FastRAM
thus making accessing it faster.
Almost every single piece of software accesses the
ROM itself. That's what MorphOS 0.4b does on Amiga HW.
It accesses the ROM and patches parts of it with
it's own code, like setpatch 3.5+ does.
Your arguements could be valid in other computer systems
but NOT on the Amiga.
See? Suddently there are lot's of facts here! Got anything to say? |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 343 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Samface on 27-Apr-2002 12:13 GMT | In reply to Comment 342 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
How can it acces the ROM if it's flushed out of memory, like you said earlier? I'm sorry but, you still haven't made a valid point, I'm afraid. |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 344 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Samface on 27-Apr-2002 12:15 GMT | In reply to Comment 342 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
Also, beeing easy to acces is still not an argument for why it would be legal. |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 345 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Samface on 27-Apr-2002 12:19 GMT | In reply to Comment 342 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
Then I have to explain for the billionth time: there is a difference between running ontop of the ROM and running the ROM within an emulator. MorphOS does NOT run ontop of the ROM like just another Amiga application, it's what makes the difference between an appliaction and an OS. |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 346 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Samface on 27-Apr-2002 12:21 GMT | In reply to Comment 342 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
See? Suddenly there's no facts at all. Got anything to say? |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 347 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by David Scheibler on 27-Apr-2002 12:23 GMT | In reply to Comment 345 (Samface):
And then I tell you a million of time that it doesn't make a difference if you
use a crack just one day, for one week or for a year. A pirate is a pirate. |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 348 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 27-Apr-2002 12:25 GMT | In reply to Comment 344 (Samface):
AAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!
IT'S NECESSERY TO ACCESS THE ROM NOT JUST EASY! *NECESSERY*!!!!!!!!!
Why don't you buy a brain...
MorphOS accesses the ROM the same way most Amiga software do, and patch
the rom the same way all hacks/patches+setpatch do.
The final version will not use the ROM AT ALL.
Is it THAT hard to understand?
BTW, the most stupid thing you EVER said was that UAE is illegal...
It does have a minimal replacement kernel to run 1-2 purely hw hitting
demos and it uses that(can't boot with that afaik:P) unless YOU provide
it with YOUR ROM dump. The Kickstart rom contains AmigaOS. It's licence
says that you can use it whereever you like IF you use it at one machine
at a time iirc. The 3.5+ licence agreement is a different story but that
doesn't come with a rom. |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 349 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Samface on 27-Apr-2002 12:34 GMT | In reply to Comment 347 (David Scheibler):
Which only proves my point that you have nothing against the facts I've pointed out. Instead you resort to personal insults which only degrades your own creditability. I'm sorry but for your own good, drop out before things get worse. |
|
| AFUA visited Thendic-France : Comment 350 of 629 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Samface on 27-Apr-2002 12:37 GMT | In reply to Comment 348 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
There is a difference between running ontop of the ROM and running the ROM within an emulator. MORPHOS DOES *NOT* RUN ONTOP OF THE AMIGAROM LIKE ANY OTHER AMIGA APPLICATION, it's what makes the difference between an appliaction and an OS. CAN YOU READ IT? |
|
|
- 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.
|
