| [Forum] AmigaOS 4.0 on Pegasos | Link |
| Posted on 15-Apr-2002 13:27 GMT by Morka | 510 comments (327k)
View flat (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
View list
Add comment | | This is email from Thomas Frieden about AOS4.0 and Pegasos board.
Odosielate¾: Thomas Frieden <ThomasF@hyperion-entertainment.com>
Adresát: morka@zoznam.sk
Predmet: Re: AmigaOS 4.0 on Pegasos
Hi,
morka@zoznam.sk wrote:
>Hi. I have one problem. I want buy Pegasos but at today AOS4.0 not run on this board.
Say who ? I thought it was already said: We do want to support the Pegasos board. It's firmly planned. Unfortunately, we haven't received a developer board yet, but if we ever get one, OS4 will run on the Pegasos.
Regards,
Thomas Frieden
Senior Developer, Hyperion Entertainment
ThomasF@hyperion-entertainment.com
http://www.hyperion-entertainment.com
|
|
AmigaOS 4.0 on Pegasos : Comment 200 of 510 | Posted by Ben Hermans/Hyperion (134.58.222.46) on 15-Apr-2002 20:32:44 | In Reply to Comment 182 (darklite):
I love legal discussions but not with people who don't have the legal background.
Do you people know what you are making claims about?
Take a look at article 6 here and tell me that you understand this provision fully.
You remember only 5 words of this article and then conclude decompilation is legal.
"Article 6 Decompilation
1. The authorization of the rightholder shall not be required where reproduction of the code and translation of its form within the meaning of Article 4 (a) and (b) are indispensable to obtain the information necessary to achieve the interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, provided that the following conditions are met:
(a) these acts are performed by the licensee or by another person having a right to use a copy of a program, or on their behalf by a person authorized to to so;
(b) the information necessary to achieve interoperability has not previously been readily available to the persons referred to in subparagraph (a); and (c) these acts are confined to the parts of the original program which are necessary to achieve interoperability.
2. The provisions of paragraph 1 shall not permit the information obtained through its application:
(a) to be used for goals other than to achieve the interoperability of the independently created computer program;
(b) to be given to others, except when necessary for the interoperability of the independently created computer program; or (c) to be used for the development, production or marketing of a computer program substantially similar in its expression, or for any other act which infringes copyright.
3. In accordance with the provisions of the Berne Convention for the protection of Literary and Artistic Works, the provisions of this Article may not be interpreted in such a way as to allow its application to be used in a manner which unreasonably prejudices the right holder's legitimate interests or conflicts with a normal exploitation of the computer program."
You don't and you prove it with your posts.
Hell, you don't even understand the difference between software and hardware.
The contents of a ROM is not hardware but software and there is plenty of case-law about that.
What we are doing with OS 4 to support the Cyberstorm and BlizzardPPC is perfectly legal.
We are using publically available information (BSD source-code, Linux APUS source-code) to support this hardware.
Even if we would not do that and reverse engineer either WarpOS or Powerup (which we are not doing), this would be legal because we are TARGETING THE SAME HARDWARE.
Brecht, for the love of god, you are allowed to reverse engineer to make sure your software is compatible/interoperates with other software or even to produce a competitive package (within limits).
Hence DirOpus is legal even though it it replaces Workbench.
But you are forgiven because Nicolas Sallin equally seems to have a problem understanding this.
Reverse engineering Cybergraphix would be perfectly legal in order for interoperability. This is actually a prime example of WHY it was made legal to some extent.
Besides, I have said before and I'll say it again, reverse engineering is only one legal angle on the MorphOS versus AmigaOS debate.
The main thrust of the argument revolves around unfair and parasitic competition (in Germany: Gesetz gegen Unlauteren Wettbewerk) and incitement to breach contract ("Verleitung zum Vertragsbruch) the contract in question being the Amiga OS 3.x EULA which disallows use of it on any non Amiga branded or licensed computer (and it's not because you allow this in one context say UAE that you need to allow it in another especially not if one's commercial and one's not)
Let me repeat it: as long as MorphOS allows for OS 3.x to be installed and OS 3.x compatible products to be run, it will constitute "unfair and parasitic competition" under German law.
And that was the plan wasn't it?
But like Dave said and Nicolas Sallin invited me to do: let's find out what the judge in Frankfurt has to say.
Reply to this comment | Top |
|
Add comments | 
- Links
|
