P96 Licensing Status

[Lord Aga]

Jens could work a lot on his wording. At first I thought that might be a German thing with the translations and everything but then we have a lot of German Amigans without such problems.

And as roomeo said, after a while you should learn how to do things right.

[JimDrew]

I am a little confused on this whole licensing "issue". Perhaps things are different outside of the U.S., but here there is absolutely no licensing requirement for the Picasso96 software... period. You can manufacturer a video card that is fully compatible with the Picasso96 software without any legal repercussions. You just can not include the Picasso96 software with the video card without permission/licensing, because that software is a copyrighted work. Our laws here in the U.S. protect the consumer from monopolies. Much like it is legal to write software for your iphone via a jailbreak, or modify firmware in your automobile's ECM, you most certainly can produce hardware that supports someone else's software. It's even legal to reverse engineer a product to determine how it works here in the U.S.

The only real issue I see is the lack of information about the driver structure that many of us are after. That it's it. Again, maybe the laws are different in Germany and other countries. Here in the U.S., we have no licensing issue because there is no copyrighted code being included with any video hardware.

I am hoping that Jens will "sell" developer kits. THAT is the only thing worth anything as far as the Picasso96 software is concerned.

[cmsj]

Originally Posted by JimDrew

You can manufacturer a video card that is fully compatible with the Picasso96 software without any legal repercussions. You just can not include the Picasso96 software with the video card without permission/licensing, because that software is a copyrighted work.

I'm not sure that's true, the P96 readme on Aminet says there are no distribution restrictions for the archive, so a card manufacturer could include the lha with their card.

Originally Posted by JimDrew

The only real issue I see is the lack of information about the driver structure that many of us are after.

Exactly, that's where the whole issue is coming from. The only public source of information about how to write a P96 driver is the uaegfx driver, because it's open source.

Various folk (most vocally, ThoR) have been suggesting that the uaegfx driver is maybe not kosher, in that there may never have actually been permission for it to be open source. I'm not aware of there having been a public statement by anyone who can definitively answer that (perhaps Cloanto could, they had some kind of business arrangement with the P96 authors for including P96 in Amiga Forever, and employed the driver's author, Brian King, at some point)

So, if that driver is questionable, any drivers derived from it would inherit its questionable status. Obviously the P96 authors aren't super concerned about this, because a) they have had the uaegfx driver in the P96 archive for at least 16 years, b) they don't appear to have asked for the uaegfx source to be taken down.
However, as far as we can tell, there's no expiry for copyright infringement claims to be made (unlike, say, a trademark infringement), so a new owner could play hard-ball with potentially all of the derived drivers.

You're absolutely right that there's no way that a piece of video hardware can infringe any copyright of P96. This is all about the drivers. A lack of certainty about the status of the vampire/matze/mntmn/etc drivers, and the lack of concrete DDK info.

Originally Posted by JimDrew

I am hoping that Jens will "sell" developer kits. THAT is the only thing worth anything as far as the Picasso96 software is concerned.

His postings on the a1k forum (in German, so subject to translation errors) suggest that his intention is to release a new version of P96 that is no longer freely redistributable, instead it must be purchased from his online store, but he'll release the DDK for free.

I actually think that would be a fairly good outcome - sure nobody likes paying for things they've been using for free for a couple of decades, but in reality we should all have been paying the shareware fee for P96 anyway.

[matthey]

Originally Posted by JimDrew

I am a little confused on this whole licensing "issue". Perhaps things are different outside of the U.S., but here there is absolutely no licensing requirement for the Picasso96 software... period. You can manufacturer a video card that is fully compatible with the Picasso96 software without any legal repercussions. You just can not include the Picasso96 software with the video card without permission/licensing, because that software is a copyrighted work. Our laws here in the U.S. protect the consumer from monopolies. Much like it is legal to write software for your iphone via a jailbreak, or modify firmware in your automobile's ECM, you most certainly can produce hardware that supports someone else's software. It's even legal to reverse engineer a product to determine how it works here in the U.S.

I don't see anything illegal about what Elbox did with the Mediator drivers (no legal problems so far). They lost the advantages of a developer kit and an easier install but they may not have been available or for sale by that time anyway.

Originally Posted by JimDrew

The only real issue I see is the lack of information about the driver structure that many of us are after. That it's it. Again, maybe the laws are different in Germany and other countries. Here in the U.S., we have no licensing issue because there is no copyrighted code being included with any video hardware.

I am hoping that Jens will "sell" developer kits. THAT is the only thing worth anything as far as the Picasso96 software is concerned.

Updates and support are worth something. The owners just need to make the new version enough better than the old free version to be worth the probably small amount they are charging. RTG should be built into the AmigaOS which should be developed. Of course this would need to come from the guys who pulled the old free PPaint from Aminet instead of making their new version enough better to sell itself. They also nickle and dime for new GUI components that should be included in the AmigaOS. Their partner Hyperion is probably not capable of creating an "efficient" version of the AmigaOS anyway (MorphOS wins in every performance matchup I have seen). Only Amiga makes it impossible.

[voyager]

Isn't this the same as going to the new ghostbusters movie? If we keep going they keep making that !@#$$%

If we buy into this, it will repeat it self.

[gulliver]

I dont see the problem right now:

If Jens keeps his word, it seems a good outcome.
Every hardware/software developer gets the free DDK and users get a bugfixed and improved and supported P96 that will of course cost some bucks. Furthermore the old (current) Aminet archive wont be removed, so Amiga users that dont want to pay, are not compelled to.

This reminds me of how the free CGXv3 was released and afterwards v4 was sold comercially with a fair degree of success because it had many interesting new features that caught former users.

[McTrinsic]

Oh yeah, that was the final I thing I needed - the assumption that the glorious USA have it better and the whole problem ist created by that fact the Europe is simply "inferior".

Believe it or not, Europe has a lot of laws agaonst monopols. They are working at least as good as the US ones, considerng how effective they are against monopoly-abuse such as from Microsoft. Great job there, USA. I can see how you protect customers by ... by ... uhm, wait...

This is why I asked everyone to first understand what the whole thing is about, and it is quite possible to understand this fron the information available or to ask even without pointing out differences between systems or states. A simple question "why is this ..." would probably have been enough.

To answer your question: the DDK is not freely available and has never been. Writing a driver for the P96 would have required a contact with the owners of P96.

So what Elbox did was a violation of the rights that protected the P96 DDK. It's simple as that.

The distribution of the P96 has been free for quite sme time. No question about that.

So please differentiate between DDK, drivers and the P96 package itself.

Please be aware that the P96 needs to be bought to be used. Still!

Cheers,
McT

Originally Posted by JimDrew

I am a little confused on this whole licensing "issue". Perhaps things are different outside of the U.S., but here there is absolutely no licensing requirement for the Picasso96 software... period. You can manufacturer a video card that is fully compatible with the Picasso96 software without any legal repercussions. You just can not include the Picasso96 software with the video card without permission/licensing, because that software is a copyrighted work. Our laws here in the U.S. protect the consumer from monopolies. Much like it is legal to write software for your iphone via a jailbreak, or modify firmware in your automobile's ECM, you most certainly can produce hardware that supports someone else's software. It's even legal to reverse engineer a product to determine how it works here in the U.S.

The only real issue I see is the lack of information about the driver structure that many of us are after. That it's it. Again, maybe the laws are different in Germany and other countries. Here in the U.S., we have no licensing issue because there is no copyrighted code being included with any video hardware.

I am hoping that Jens will "sell" developer kits. THAT is the only thing worth anything as far as the Picasso96 software is concerned.

[JimDrew]

The Picasso96 software is freely re-distributable, with the exception of manufacturers (according to the read me).

I am well aware of what the DDK is. I got the DDK from Tobias when I wrote the video drivers for EMPLANT's Mac emulation. Unfortunately I can't find the files and the only info I have now is what is contained in notes in my video driver source code.

Some people have apparently been threatened over making a Picasso96 compatible video card. This is why I stated the laws here in the U.S.

If Elbox released the DDK without permission, then that would be illegal as it would have a copyright, but that's it. Developing a driver with that information, no matter how that information was obtained, would not be illegal in the U.S. as long as the code was original. Just like disassembling a driver and writing code based on the structure is not illegal here in the U.S.

I am going to chat with Jens about all of this to see what is really going on.

[1time]

Im going all in on Vampire.. .. will not support any other product from a "special" company.. easy as that.

[idrougge]

Originally Posted by 1time

Im going all in on Vampire.. .. will not support any other product from a "special" company.. easy as that.

So I take it you are not going to use RTG on your Vampire.

[McTrinsic]

Originally Posted by JimDrew

The Picasso96 software is freely re-distributable, with the exception of manufacturers (according to the read me).

Agreed.

Originally Posted by JimDrew

Some people have apparently been threatened over making a Picasso96 compatible video card. .

Not "some". One person specifically. This person was made aware that using work based on a copyrighted DDK could lead to a copyright infringement.

Originally Posted by JimDrew

This is why I stated the laws here in the U.S. If Elbox released the DDK without permission, then that would be illegal as it would have a copyright, but that's it. Developing a driver with that information, no matter how that information was obtained, would not be illegal in the U.S. as long as the code was original. Just like disassembling a driver and writing code based on the structure is not illegal here in the U.S.

Not the act of disassembling and writing. What you do in your own rooms is pretty much your own thing in the EU.

Distributing this work, even more so as a prerequisite to the use of a commercial piece of hardware is totally different thing. And commercial can be very far stretched. Even you sell some units just to help you get a lower price when ordering PCB could be considered commercial.

If this isn't of any concern - go tell the ReactOS people. This is exactly the problem they have. Especially with Microsoft and especially in the U.S.A.

Originally Posted by JimDrew

I am going to chat with Jens about all of this to see what is really going on.

Sounds good!

Thanks,
McT

[grond]

Originally Posted by McTrinsic

To answer your question: the DDK is not freely available and has never been. Writing a driver for the P96 would have required a contact with the owners of P96. So what Elbox did was a violation of the rights that protected the P96 DDK. It's simple as that.

It's not as simple as that. It's simply wrong that you cannot write a driver without licensing the DDK (even according to German laws, duh). If you can write the driver without the DDK, it's perfectly legal to do so. There is nothing illegal about the available drivers that were written without having access to the DDK (elbox, mntmn, vampire, mint, fpgaarcade).

Originally Posted by idrougge

So I take it you are not going to use RTG on your Vampire.

Why not? There is a perfectly legal driver for it.

[OlafSch]

something new... it seems Jens want to get money for P96 from Cloanto or (if they do not pay) urge all amigaforever user to buy licenses from him...

that will create big enthusiasm in the emulator scene for sure and make lots of new friends for him. It also looks different from what he claimed to do so I have high doubts again

[McTrinsic]

@Olaf
That is a very ... pointed summary of the discussion on A1k.org.

I do not agree that you have appropriately captured all elements of the discussion.

You on some sort of Jihad or Crusade???

Cheers,
McT

[idrougge]

Originally Posted by grond

Why not? There is a perfectly legal driver for it.

I'm not questioning the legality, but P96 might very well soon be a product from that certain company whose products you're not going to use.

[Overflow]

Originally Posted by McTrinsic

@Olaf
That is a very ... pointed summary of the discussion on A1k.org.

I do not agree that you have appropriately captured all elements of the discussion.

You on some sort of Jihad or Crusade???

Cheers,
McT

Im staying far away from concluding anything, because unless you read everything on every forum (and I would still probarly get it wrong), its hard to get a grasp on all the twists and turns.

But, since you say Olaf is wrong, for the uninformed, what is the correct version?

[OlafSch]

Originally Posted by Overflow

Im staying far away from concluding anything, because unless you read everything on every forum (and I would still probarly get it wrong), its hard to get a grasp on all the twists and turns.

But, since you say Olaf is wrong, for the uninformed, what is the correct version?

and I could say maccy is on his fanboy trip if I would be sarcastic

Jens S. writes that Cloanto used P96 for amigaforever without license and are refusing to agree to pay more money. So he wants that the buyer of amigaforever license P96 because they use it without license. Later on (after my post) he admitted that he has no real mean to force anyone to do that so he wants to make them bad conscious. One post bad boy, then good boy and only shitstorm and misunderstanding, then again what bad boy/good boy? I do not understand what he really wants expecially with such senseless postings.

[daxb]

Originally Posted by OlafSch

something new... it seems Jens want to get money for P96 from Cloanto or (if they do not pay) urge all amigaforever user to buy licenses from him...

You was a bit too fast with your assumptions. Jens wrote that he can`t know the amigaforever customers. So he can`t urge them. Why spread bad moods? However, everybody should have learned that waiting is a good choice until facts are available. A lof of guesswork/assumptions were wrong.

[Predseda]

There are things known and things unknown.
Everything between are manipulations.

- Venus Art (demo group)

[amigafreak68k]

Originally Posted by daxb

A lof of guesswork/assumptions were wrong.

...were NOW wrong... I don't know, as things were different, if no discussion has exist