|[Rant] Amiga Inc Software Licence - Poll||ANN.lu|
|Posted on 07-Jun-2002 09:51 GMT by Rodney McDonell||22 comments|
A Poll concerning the AmigaOS + Hardware licencing Amiga Inc have dreamed up has been posted @ Amiga.org. The poll was set up so that the community could gather a better idea to how many people like/dont care/hate the licenceing. Those who also think its too late to do anything, also get a chance to vote.
Thanx to Wayne Hunt, Amiga.org Administrator for fixing the Polls :)
|Amiga Inc Software Licence - Poll : Comment 1 of 22||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Rodney McDonell on 07-Jun-2002 07:52 GMT|
|This is of course in responce to the Petition which does not accuratly show how many people are for and against... That is, the petition only shows one side of the story.|
|Amiga Inc Software Licence - Poll : Comment 2 of 22||ANN.lu|
|Posted by SlimJim on 07-Jun-2002 08:56 GMT|
|Although it is good to have some counterpoint to the petition, it has to be said that|
the poll isn't fairly phrased for those in favour of the petition.
There is one item in favour of AInc:s line, but no obvious token if you agree
to the petition. (eg. "AInc:s license policy is crap")
For the poll to give a fair view, there must be some item like that included. The
'negative' items to choose are too extreme and beyond the scope of what is discussed.
You have to respect both sides and give all parties a fair chance if you want to present
a valuable measurement of public opinion.
|Amiga Inc Software Licence - Poll : Comment 3 of 22||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Anonymous on 07-Jun-2002 09:49 GMT|
|Has anyone actually seen the real licensing contract?|
I find this poll/petition thing, totally ridicoulus, especially the petition Seehund has started. Its just creating more kaos than there was before, our so-called community will really benefit from that... NOT!
What we need now is the A1 and OS4 getting finished and ready for sale. Then maybe after 6 months, when sales are known Hyperion can begin to think about other hardware...
Petition is also based on "facts" that aren't right. It really sucks to see people go that low....
|Amiga Inc Software Licence - Poll : Comment 4 of 22||ANN.lu|
|Posted by SlimJim on 07-Jun-2002 10:02 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 3 (Anonymous):|
> Has anyone actually seen the real licensing contract?
I keep asking this and noone seem to have - part from (I suppose) Ben Hermans
that always have said that the questions raised in the petition is a non-issue
(well to be fair that is his opinion anyways, and he may be biased in one direction or the
See the discussion thread "An old (but hot) issue revisited" on amiga.org for
my view on "the real license document" everyone here seems to be dissecting into
|Amiga Inc Software Licence - Poll : Comment 5 of 22||ANN.lu|
|Posted by |Lando| on 07-Jun-2002 12:13 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 2 (SlimJim):|
>There is one item in favour of AInc:s line, but no obvious token if you agree
>to the petition. (eg. "AInc:s license policy is crap")
Errr... the one you want is the one that says
"AI should release a purely open system, not restricted to proprietary hardware" (meaning "AInc:s license policy is crap")
You should spot it quite easily - its the one second from the bottom with a handful of votes...
As far as I know you have to register to vote. Unlike the Anti-Amiga Inc "poll" where people with a dynamic ip have signed 10-20 times each using different names. :) Sad people, I mean its not as if anyone takes petitiononline.com seriously anyway...
|Amiga Inc Software Licence - Poll : Comment 6 of 22||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Rodney McDonell on 07-Jun-2002 12:38 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 2 (SlimJim):|
Sorry about that. I only suggested the poll to Wayne. I think he made up the options, and as far as i know, he is not in favour of Aincs Licence!
Cant please everybody unfortunatly... But i do agree, it could have been phrased better
|Amiga Inc Software Licence - Poll : Comment 7 of 22||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Joe on 07-Jun-2002 13:01 GMT|
|This poll won't show what users think as most of Amiga.org users are pro Amiga INC.|
The same poll here would have a different result as this site is still open to other non pro amiga users.
|Amiga Inc Software Licence - Poll : Comment 8 of 22||ANN.lu|
|Posted by SlimJim on 07-Jun-2002 13:13 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 5 (|Lando|):|
Well, if people are happy with that- that's ok- I'm personally not voting negatively anyways.
But that item you mention seems (to me) to be more than the petition bargained for-
a 'totally open' amiga-system? Is that really what they want? So be it...
|Amiga Inc Software Licence - Poll : Comment 9 of 22||ANN.lu|
|Posted by SlimJim on 07-Jun-2002 13:19 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 7 (Joe):|
That's a silly notion. Are you afraid to go to amiga.org and vote just because you don't
support AInc? I didn't notice any opinion-control pamphlet I had to fill in before being
'accepted' as an amiga.org member...?
All are there, pros and cons, only you have to sign up with an e-mail and stand for
what you are saying. Difficult concept for some perhaps, but not for most grown-ups.
|Amiga Inc Software Licence - Poll : Comment 10 of 22||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Seehund on 07-Jun-2002 15:07 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 1 (Rodney McDonell):|
> This is of course in responce to the Petition which does not accuratly show how
> many people are for and against...
Ummm, if that's the case, there should maybe be at least one poll option that actually reflects what the petition says.
A poll about a petition... Heh. Who's for a poll to determine whether we should have a petition to boycott polls about petitions? :-P
|Amiga Inc Software Licence - Poll : Comment 11 of 22||ANN.lu|
|Amiga Inc Software Licence - Poll : Comment 12 of 22||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Wayne Hunt on 07-Jun-2002 17:03 GMT|
|For the record here guys, while inspirational, the poll has nothing to do with the petition. While I officially do not support Amiga Inc's solution to straddle AmigaOS to outdated and proprietary hardware, I think Seehund's petition is meaningless and moot.|
After watching the stupidity for a while, it was rather apparent to me that there were four distinct ways that people thought.
1) They liked it
2) They didn't care
3) They thought AI should release an open-hardware solution (no g'dammit, I am not advocating piracy!!!![though I personally feel the anti-piracy argument is bullspit])
4) They think that none of this really matters, as it's too late for AI to make a dent in the market.
As such, I wondered what, given those four elemental choices, people would choose. It's a damned poll people, I was curious. Don't make the mistake however of confusing my curiousity with any dumbassed "boycott" or "petition" which doesn't make a damned bit of difference to Amiga Inc.
Let's face it here people. Amiga Inc has made no pretense of caring about the Amiga community in quite some time. They are after a bigger market (the one we once represented) and let's also accept one fact here that no one has mentioned. The "Amiga community" has become Amiga Inc's worst public relations nightmare. Admittedly, that's because despite Bill McEwen's own PR history, they can't help tripping over their own feet where the community is concerned.
|Amiga Inc Software Licence - Poll : Comment 13 of 22||ANN.lu|
|Posted by [JC] on 07-Jun-2002 22:45 GMT|
|All AInc have to do is this:|
1) Publish a set of guidelines a board must conform to to be marked "AmigaOS 4 ready", and have a certification system. Make it so only certified vendors can advertise thier board as being AmigaOS compatible, but don't prevent non-certified systems running it.
2) Make AmigaOS such that board specific parts are all done by drivers (like Windows 2000) and therefore can be given on a CD by a board vendor. Generic "fallback" drivers should be implemented in this case
3) Put the protection device in a USB dongle or so. Sure, it'll be cracked to work without the dongle, but having protection in a ROM won't stop it being cracked either.
Funnily enough, this sounds like the PC market doesn't it. Maybe there's lessons to be learnt from the "arch enemy" that'd benefit all in the Amiga community.
Also, where the hell is all this rubbish coming from about MorphOS being nothing more than an emulator ? All it does is provide the AmigaOS classic API's (like WINE) via a 68K emulator (like the Mac), and things like WarpUp API's (it runs our WarpUp code better than WarpUp does itself), on top of it's own kernel (I don't belive AInc when they say it contains stolen code)
Remember, prior to AInc slapping unfair terms on the deal, MorphOS WOULD HAVE BEEN THE OFFICIAL AMIGAOS 4.
Having said that, I am neither pro-Morphos or pro-AmigaOS4. I belive in a choice.
That is all. My opinions are my own and not neccesarily those of my employers.
|Amiga Inc Software Licence - Poll : Comment 14 of 22||ANN.lu|
|Posted by anarchic_teapot on 08-Jun-2002 07:05 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 10 (Seehund):|
> A poll about a petition... Heh. Who's for a poll to determine whether we
> should have a petition to boycott polls about petitions? :-P
I'll drink to that, but only if we all agree to boycott petitions and trolls as well.
Who's coming down to the pub?
|Amiga Inc Software Licence - Poll : Comment 15 of 22||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Tbone on 08-Jun-2002 07:13 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 10 (Seehund):|
"> This is of course in responce to the Petition which does not accuratly show how
> many people are for and against... "
"Ummm, if that's the case, there should maybe be at least one poll option that actually reflects what the petition says. "
I agree, sorry to say I had to choose "I agree with AInc" in the poll because of the way it was worded... The petition isn't about having "NO license"... but it looks like the poll is doing well nonetheless. If they worded it differently I would have chosen differently.
|Amiga Inc Software Licence - Poll : Comment 16 of 22||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Rodney McDonell on 08-Jun-2002 12:09 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 7 (Joe):|
>>This poll won't show what users think as most of Amiga.org users are pro
>>The same poll here would have a different result as this site is still open
>>to other non pro amiga users.
Ahhh, well, i posted the news here so that we could get some ANN voters and since then, the vote for pegasos has gone up considerably! I think including ANN in on this is only fair!
|Amiga Inc Software Licence - Poll : Comment 17 of 22||ANN.lu|
|Posted by NihilVor on 08-Jun-2002 16:33 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 14 (anarchic_teapot):|
Where are the "who gives a damn about the licensing--release your product" votes?
I could care less. So many people are signing stupid petitions because it is the cool thing to do.
Lets have a petition for Amiga to ignore these stupid petitions from morons. It is not like they will actually pay any attention to these things anyways. ;)
|Amiga Inc Software Licence - Poll : Comment 18 of 22||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Sven Harvey on 08-Jun-2002 21:36 GMT|
|You know I`m getting really rather tired of this... So hopefully some people may actually read the following, understand it and hopefully come to a significant conclusion...|
1. Amiga Inc. have set up a licensing agreement for distribution of OS4.0 which stipulates the following:
a. All motherboards sold that have the ability to run OS4.0 MUST ship with an OEM license for Amiga OS4.0. This DOES NOT mean that the board cannot run and cannot be bundled with any other OS (e.g. Linux PPC). AI is not stopping AmigaOne owners (for example) dual booting thier machines.
b. That OS4.0 will only run on boards with some form of licensed hard-code (e.g. ROM chip) to help differentiate the boards. IE a version of the AmigaOne G3-se that doesn`t have the hard wired code for OS4.0, and therefore cannot run it, doesn`t have to ship with a license for AmigaOS 4.0.
2. Amiga OS 4.0 will be made available for the AmigaOne boards with appropriate ROM chips, users of certain older PPC processor cards for older Amigas that have a real KickstartROM available, and other PowerPC based motherboards/accelerators as negotiations and agreements go forward. AI are being transparent about this, if you want your card/board to run OS 4.0 you have to negotiate with AI, after all they paid a big chunk of money for the IPs including the OS an they don`t (nor does Hyperion) have a bottomless pit of money to fund various versions of the OS for different boards.
3. This is an anti-piracy measure, and the only people who stand to lose from this licensing system are those who want to use OS4.0 but are not willing to pay for it. Maybe Microsoft don`t do things this way (licensing agreements and certification for hardware) but look how many copies of Windows are illegal pirate copies - and does anyone think for one minute that Amiga, Inc. and Hyperion will be able to viably continue the Amiga OS or indeed any of thier business interests if OS 4.0 gets pirated to hell?
4. Even if there was no piracy at all in the Amiga market and you could guarantee that without a licensing system that everone using OS 4.0 had paid for thier copy of it... what mechanism would be in place to ensure that the hardware you were using would work properly. Just imagine if a company ran off a load of AMigaOne clone motherboards and you purchased one and bought OS 4.0 for it only for the whole kit and kaboodle to stop functioning after 2 weeks because of a massive design flaw in the hardware?
5. What exactly would you run OS4.0 on if you could buy it seperately for a new computer other than an AmigaOne, being as the AmigaOnes from Eyetech would be shipped with a copy of OS4.0 regardless (from the point of the end-user release)? A pegasos - not likely it seems that the producers have no interest in thier boards running OS 4.0. Thier loss. A Shark or other similar G3/G4 board...? Hmmm these won`t be much use unless they actually ship with OS 4.0 as I can`t see Warp OS working with them somehow.. Unless you want to run Linux and nothing else, in which case I`m sure if the demand is there an AmigaOS 4.0 diabled board that can run Linux would be made available.
6. If you change your mind after purchasing a G3/G4 system that can be made to run AmigaOS4.0 with LinuxPPC and you then want AmigaOS 4.0 then what makes you think you won`t be able to buy an upgrade kit that features a copy of OS 4.0 and the appropriate hardware solution to allow it to run the OS... Lets face it most of us can change a ROM chip... we had to when upgrading to OS3.5/9 in most cases! It has already been stated that for instance if a version of the G3-se was made available to run Linux only without the "dongle" code in ROM, then an uprade kit with a new ROM chip and OS 4.0 would be made available to those who need it...
Simply put after that essay (sorry to bore you to tears), I really do not see why people have such a problem with a licensing system. It appears to be (if you fully read the appropriate announcements) a sound and very very sensible business decision.
I can only conclude that the main reasons why someone wouldn`t be in agreement with the licensing system as set out is:
1. because they don`t understand it (which lets face it due to the international and multi-language nature of the Amiga community maybe down to bad translations and re-translations of the texts involved... I can only imagine what babelfish would do to such texts as English is my first, and possibly to my shame, my only language)
2. They don`t want to pay for thier copy of OS 4.0... (I won`t comment as bad language isn`t allowed :-)
Please try to understand the agreement before jumping to the wrong conclusions... I get the feeling a lot of people are reacting to hersay and chinese wispers
I have also yet to read/hear and really good arguments against or reasons why the licensing system is a bad thing... After all you can`t have your choice of board to run OS4.0 restricted by a licensing agreement when all the boards that can run the OS ship with it...
Thanks for your time and attention
Amiga Mart writer
|Amiga Inc Software Licence - Poll : Comment 19 of 22||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Wayne Hunt on 09-Jun-2002 01:06 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 18 (Sven Harvey):|
> 3. This is an anti-piracy measure, and the only people who stand to lose
> from this licensing system are those who want to use OS4.0 but are not
> willing to pay for it.
Bullshit. Absolute, unmitigated bullshit.
I have never in my life, ever pirated a copy of AmigaOS. I have paid for, or been given as a gift, every copy of AmigaOS that I've ever owned, on legitimate disks since 1988 (when I began). I want to be able to run AmigaOS on an open architecture system (as Amiga Inc promised... then again what's a little white "promise" between friends?).
I do not want to be tied down to -- and charged extra for -- what Amiga Inc thinks is the only thing we need. Determining our needs is not their business. Satisfying our needs is their business. (something they don't understand).
Wanting individuality and the freedom to make my own choices make me an Amiga user, not a pirate.
Hardware manufacturers who are currently (or will be soon) designing and making open-architecture motherboards will have no interest in, and certainly no incentive for, going to Bill McEwen and begging to pay him for the priviledge. They're also not about to rework their device in order to incorporate some lame-assed, unnecessary, 1985 leftover idea of copy protection.
Want to fool yourself into thinking this is about piracy? Fine. Go right ahead. Want to delude yourself into thinking a ROM will stop piracy? Go right ahead. I sincerely hope you're right and I pray that I am wrong, but don't fool yourself. "This" is not about piracy.
Don't give me the bullshit about Quality Control either. The PC World has multiple processor choices and roughly 100+ motherboard brands and models to choose from. In my 15+ years of working with PC's and Amigas, I have never bought some mythical "bad quality motherboard" and with the exception of one (1) instance in 1998, I've never had a single motherboard go bad. But wait... even that motherboard was only $130 and was an ASUS (better brand name) whose bus controller heat sync fell off (my fault).
Every motherboard and processor I have ever bought for the PC has worked as designed, to the fullest of my satisfaction without the need for some lame-assed licensing plan (which apparently raises the price by $400 by the way).
I'm also damned sure that -- like me -- most of the people here -- outside of possibly Shawn the Bus Arch Troll -- know how to research and purchase a motherboard of substantial quality. The only instability I have ever seen on a PC is caused by Windows. This is a FACT that I cannot claim about the stability of Amiga hardware and the now "same as shareware OS" known as AmigaOS...
Using Bill McEwen's marketing and licensing model, we're guaranteed of no more than maybe two choices of motherboard. Neither of which, in my opinion will ever be produced in sufficient quantity or quality to surpass being able to buy a top-of-the-line motherboard and processor for under $300 which is now incredibly easily possible on the PC.
"This" is about Bill and company's lack of vision, and their desperate need to secure their ability to get paid. It is also a guarantee that AmigaOS' future is moot.
No one is going to pay exhorbitant prices for hardware for a commercially unsupported OS simply because they have a vague fondness for it. (See BeOS, See Linux, See OS/2, see...) No one is going to pay Fleecy for the priviledge of redesigning their hardware to support a GNDN (Star Trek Trivia) piece of 1995 software which has only been made to go faster and look "pretty" (both of which could have been done in 1992).
Sorry guys, I know this is prophetic, but in my never so humble opinion as far as AmigaOS is concerned, the party is over, the lights are turned off, and we're just sad little geeks, dancing in the dark.
Amiga DE/Anywhere/whatevertheyarecallingitthisweek is a horse of a different color. Hopefully it is not the dead, beaten horse it appears to be with all the "partners" bailing out on it.
|Amiga Inc Software Licence - Poll : Comment 20 of 22||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Sven Harvey on 09-Jun-2002 10:35 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 19 (Wayne Hunt):|
Firstly I want to say that I respect your opinion on this, though I certainly don`t agree with it and, Wayne, you are on eof the last people on the planet I want to get into a slanging match with.
At no point did I say that I thought those opposed to the licensing agreement were pirates, simply that I did not see AT THIS POINT what anyone could lose by the licensing system, other than the pirates. In 12, 18 or 24 months time things could be radically different...
Your heart appears to be in the right place but....
1. How can Amiga Inc. satisfy our needs if they don`t determine them?
2. What do you stand to lose from this licensing system? IF further PowerPC based boards do become available what makes you think Amiga, Inc. and thier partners won`t be able to provide OS4.0 with an anti-piracy device (which doesn`t have to be a ROM)of some description for boards not specifically made or OS4.0? EVen if there was no copy protection involved wouldn`t the cost of an "open" OS4.0 not end up being the same, from a business point of view, as the cost of an OEM version and the license fee from the board added together anyway? After all the AmigaOS is a commercial product, not a Linux-like open source OS, and should be the better for it.
3. Why would anyone want to use a board even if it was a smigen cheaper that isn`t being developed specifically as an AmigaOne anyway? I get the general feeling (and I am by no means an expert on hardware, believe me)that the more different boards and hardware solutions there are the more bloated the OS will have to become to work on them all. IS this not one of the major reasons why Windows is so damn lame? MS have to try and make the OS work on every x86 board, every PC part in creation. Do we really want this? I personally would much prefer a concise efficient system that is much more fully integrated. Are we not losing part of the Amiga advantage by fully opening the hardware up? Imagaine if you will when the A3000 was out, what would have happened if loads of cloned versions turned up all using slightly different bits of hardware - the OS would have had top be changed somewhat - would it have been the same expereince for all those people? I sincerly doubt it.
In reflection I apologise if my previous posting caused any offense, I certainly didn`t mean to, but as I have thought about this I have come to the conclusion that I am not convinced that I would want to use open-architecture motherboard, as I wouldn`t be sure it would work as well as a G3-se or its replacements.
I know what I would like to see (and I`m going well into dreamland here), and thats to see IBM making a PowerPC motherboard specifically as an Amiga in association with Amiga, Inc., Hyperion and Eyetech and some deal done with Nintendo for the new Amigas to be used as development platforms for the Gamecube...
Also this whole thing about Amiga Inc. being a software company is wrong. I do not agree with them taking this stance, and think they should take a more active leading role in hardware development in the way that Apple, Commodore etc. have done to ensure the things work the way they are supposed to. Because lets face it I have never used a PC that in my eyes worked properly in comparision with any of my Amigas.
I understand that you probably won`t agree with any of that, which I repect, but at least its a debate rather than a flame war, which helps no-one and some real issues are being addressed which I appreciate.
Sven Harvey (in the UK by the way) again
oh and GO ENGLAND! We may actually have a chance of winning the World Cup!
|Amiga Inc Software Licence - Poll : Comment 21 of 22||ANN.lu|
|Posted by far on 10-Jun-2002 21:06 GMT|
|the so called a1 stil1 sucks no matter how they try to make it look.|
|Amiga Inc Software Licence - Poll : Comment 22 of 22||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Samface on 12-Jun-2002 07:36 GMT|
|Newsflash: POP isn't the same thing as open firmware. This means making the AmigaOS4 "open hardware" is *impossible*. Every POP motherbard will need a specific AmigaOS4 HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) and this requires support from the hardware manufacturer itself. The license is good because it enables any hardware manufacturer to get AmigaOS4 support for their hardware, this would be alot more difficult without such a license.|
|Anonymous, there are 22 items in your selection ||