Available now: AmigaOS 3.1.4

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by roondar

It would technically be illegal even for quite a few open/free software licenses given that a number of them (definitely including GPL in any of its versions) require you to reproduce the license agreement in an easy to access user-readable form alongside any copy you make

no, it is not required on your own copies/backups

I will admit it's unlikely to be seen as a problem for most people using such a license, but the text of (for instance) the GPL 3.0 makes it crystal clear you need to include the license text itself alongside any copy you make of a program covered by it:

still not, read your own quote carefully:

...keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.

this applies only if you distribute the software in some way, but it does of course not influence what you do with it on your own systems.

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by roondar

That's not entirely true. Amiga Forever comes with several "legitimate versions of Amiga OS" and as such should be a valid target.

In fact, as long as a license holder of any version of Amiga OS sells (or gifts) you a "legitimate version of AmigaOS" aimed at use in an emulator you should be fine, given the text ends with that whole "or for which a legitimate version of AmigaOS was or is available." bit.

True to some point.
But I doubt that an emulator qualifies as "computer system"....

Anyways: to run it on UAE you need to purchase "Amiga Forever" first.

And than you need to delete all other versions of AmigaOS, since the license allows only one "AmigaOS" to exist...

[kolla]

Originally Posted by roondar

That scheme would almost certainly be a violation of the original license by Commodore as well, or in fact most commercial licenses currently in existence.

No, rather the contrary, all major commercial OS manufacturers not only allow, but encourage installations over networks, and their licenses are accordingly.

You are confusing two things - GPL is a license that deals with *distribution*, the software license from Hyperion deals with *use*.

[kolla]

I have asked Hyperion to clarify what they mean in their license, but they totally refuse to do so.

[roondar]

Originally Posted by Gorf

no, it is not required on your own copies/backups

still not, read your own quote carefully:

this applies only if you distribute the software in some way, but it does of course not influence what you do with it on your own systems.

I am not a lawyer, but that doesn't appear to me to be what it means, given that you can yourself clearly be a recipient of a copy that you've made.

I.E. if I send a copy of an e-mail to myself, I am the recipient of that e-mail, even though I'm also the sender. Edit: I'm even fairly sure that such an action would be covered by Copyright law. As strange as that may seem to be.

Originally Posted by kolla

No, rather the contrary, all major commercial OS manufacturers not only allow, but encourage installations over networks, and their licenses are accordingly.

I agree that remote installation is encouraged. However, unless I misunderstand what you're going, your method isn't installing anything but copying from another source every time you boot up.

Then again, I'm not a lawyer so I agree I could be mistaken on the subtle potential difference between up/downloading a ROM every time you boot up a computer and installing software.

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by kolla

I have asked Hyperion to clarify what they mean in their license, but they totally refuse to do so.

You should inform the European Consumer Centre:
www.forbrukereuropa.no

If you live in the EU, in Iceland or in Norway, and you have a complaint against a company in another European country, or if you want to know more about your rights as a consumer, contact your country's European Consumer Centre.

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by roondar

I am not a lawyer, but that doesn't appear to me to be what it means, given that you can yourself clearly be a recipient of a copy that you've made...

As kolla pointed already out: the GPL regulates only distribution (to OTHERS) and not usage.

[roondar]

Originally Posted by Gorf

As kolla pointed already out: the GPL regulates only distribution (to OTHERS) and not usage.

To which I can only say: I agree, but this is ultimately not relevant. Surely the only thing relevant here are the actual terms of the license? Copyright law also holds for personal copies after all.

Which means that if the license (whether inadvertently or not) limits your rights or increases your obligations, you'd still be obliged to comply - even if any copy you make doesn't leave your house.

But I'll admit - I may have misread/misunderstood it.

It all comes down to my understanding of the why of the license: AFAIK the GPL exists to prevent rights of sharing or copying being taken away. To me then, it seems logical for it to demand you keep the license as part of any copy you make - otherwise you may just end up with confusion or non-compliance by 'bad actors' later.

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by roondar

But I'll admit - I may have misread/misunderstood it.

you did:

If I only make copies of a GPL-covered program and run them, without distributing or conveying them to others, what does the license require of me?
Nothing. The GPL does not place any conditions on this activity.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq...onRequirements

[UberFreak]

Never in my life have I ever bothered to read a single sentence of a software license.
Know why?

It simply does not matter.

[kolla]

Right, so why don't we all just share and enjoy.
Like those apollo core guys.

[Gorf]

BTW - also Cloanto hit a new low recently:

The "8-Bit-Guy", who has one of the most famous retro-computing channels on youtube (886K subscribers!) is building his dream 8-bit computer and wanted to license and modify the original C64 "Kernal".

Cloanto did not even bother to answer to his request, despite numerous emails, phone calls and tries via the contact form on Cloanto's webpage...

Now he is doing a kernel from the scratch ...

All remaining parties in this game are utterly stupid.

[kolla]

It's the C64 and not exactly an OS, he's better off doing his own.

[Gorf]

his version will probably not have any functionality beyond the C64 ROM ... on purpose.

still you are right: a fresh start is better in his case - but not even to bother with an answer still demonstrates the stupidity of Cloanto.

(you can bet for sure that the 8-Bit-Guy will sell a couple of thousand of this boards, no matter how good or bad they turn out to be. Probably more than all Vampires to this day.)

[E-Penguin]

This thing? An unholy marriage of a 65816 and an FPGA for video. I'd rather have a vampire 4 stand alone

https://hackaday.com/2019/03/02/the-...-bit-computer/

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by E-Penguin

This thing? An unholy marriage of a 65816 and an FPGA for video. I'd rather have a vampire 4 stand alone

https://hackaday.com/2019/03/02/the-...-bit-computer/

Yep.
(the video fpga is a cheap arduino shield to provide some output during development - the final decision for video output has not been made yet)

Sure: you and me would rather buy a vampire, but we are not the targeted audience.

The latest video about this project has over 600 thousand viewers and if just 1% of them decides to buy this board (once its done), it would have more customers than any Amiga related hardware these days. No matter what we think of it.

[kolla]

Originally Posted by Gorf

You should inform the European Consumer Centre:

I did. And from what I gather, it resulted in Hyperion posting the license on the "direct download" page, so potential customers can read it prior to purchase. As required. It did not, however, result in Hyperion clarifying anything in the license. As it remains vague and contains rather unreasonable requirements that contradict both "fair use" and legal position in most legislations, one can assume that the entire license is void.

[Locutus]

Maybe they couldn't afford a lawyer either....

[dissident]

Hi,

is it planned to release developer docs about the new/changed OS library functions for OS 3.1.4 ?

In my case I would be interested in the exec.library function CacheControl(). What are the changes to support the 68060 CACR bits (e.g. Store Buffer, Branch Cache) ?

Thanks.

Dissident

[Thomas Richter]

Originally Posted by dissident

is it planned to release developer docs about the new/changed OS library functions for OS 3.1.4 ?

There is only one change, and this is how handlers are informed on DirectSCSI/NSD, and this is on Aminet. Everything else stays the same.

Originally Posted by dissident

In my case I would be interested in the exec.library function CacheControl(). What are the changes to support the 68060 CACR bits (e.g. Store Buffer, Branch Cache) ?

CacheControl() did not change. It still takes the same bits as it always did. You can control data and instruction caches on or off. Essentially, it is using the bit assignment the 68030 used, and emulates these bits on all other processors. CacheControl() cannot modify the branch cache settings. Use the CPU command for that.