Newsgroup: it.comp.os.amiga
Titolo: Post di Ben Hermans sulla corrente situazione (Lungo)

http://www.ann.lu/comments2.cgi?view=1018877275&category=forum&262#message49
Posted by Ben Hermans/Hyperion (134.58.222.78) on 15-Apr-2002 17:01:34
I must point out that at the time of writing, Thomas was unaware of
the Executive Update by Amiga so therefore his answer to it must be
seen in that context. 
Matter of fact is that we are eager to support the Pegasos (as can be
seen by our application for a developer board and our unilateral
approach of bPlan at the recent Amiga show). 
It should however be clear that Hyperion does not dictate the rules
here and if Amiga puts in place a certification scheme (which we
actually think is a good idea), then we abide by that. 
It's a matter of fact that bPlan can apply for certification just like
any other company if they wish to ship OS 4. 
It's a matter of fact that third parties like dealers can buy bPlan
boards in quantity, get them certified by Amiga and ship them with OS
4. 
There really isn't anything sinister about this scheme. 
I should also point out that contrary to popular belief you don't need
to pay Amiga anything for the certification. 
What you are paying for, is OS 4 OEM and obviously the cost of OS 4
should be born by the end-customer, not the dealer or bPlan. 
I fail to see what is so "evil" about this that a company must submit
to certification and ship its product with OS 4 to those users that
have specifically requested it. 
It's not like Amiga is demanding that all these "industrial customers"
of bPlan need to get a copy of OS 4. 
It's not like Amiga is demanding that people interested in getting a
Linux machine only get OS 4. 
This isn't Microsoft where you need to pay for an OEM install of
Windows even if the first thing you do is to install Linux.  
-----------------------------
E ancora:
http://www.ann.lu/comments2.cgi?view=1018877275&category=forum&262#message58
AmigaOS 4.0 on Pegasos : Comment 58 of 262Posted by Ben
Hermans/Hyperion (134.58.222.78) on 15-Apr-2002 17:22:40 
In Reply to Comment 51:
I'm sorry to correct you but I invite you to read the OS 3.x license
agreements. 
It restricts the use of Amiga OS 3.x to Amiga branded or Amiga
licensed computers. 
(And before somebody says that this clause is void in Germany, it
isn't. All doctrinal writings about this subject accept that you can
restrict use of a software package to a single computer or not over
networks. It's the same here, you are protecting legitimate financial
interests. This situation must be distinguished from the situation
where Microsoft would impose this type of clauses because they make no
money with either building or licensing hardware. As a result, they
have no direct legitimate financial interest to protect.) 
Moreover, decompilation is only allowed to ensure interoperability
between software, not between software and hardware. 
You can therefore decompile so that you can say, make use of hidden
API's, file-formats or even to produce software which is a 100%
competitive with the original (without copying code verbatim however).
What you CAN NOT DO (at least in the EU) is to decompile to ensure
interoperability with other hardware. 
To decompile AmigaOS to produce a compatible product running on a
different CPU architecture without reliance on the chipsets is not
allowed under EU law. 
You could decompile say the Prometheus PCI library to produce your own
PCI library for the Prometheus because you're still targeting the same
hardware. You are in that case replacing one piece of software with
another targeting the same hardware. 
There are more legal objections revolving around the concept of
"unfair and parasitic competition" and "incitement to breach contract"
(read: the Amiga license agreement) but I won't bore you with those. 
Amiga's case against MorphOS is rock solid under German and EU law at
least unless they make sure that all compatibility with AmigaOS is
removed and that it is no longer marketed with ANY reference to
AmigaOS veiled or otherwise.  
--------------------------
E per continuare:
AmigaOS 4.0 on Pegasos : Comment 78 of 262Posted by Ben
Hermans/Hermans (134.58.253.113) on 15-Apr-2002 17:57:56 
In Reply to Comment 73:
Brecht, did you read what I posted? 
NOT ON THE SAME HARDWARE. 
x86 = x86 right? Lindows and Windows? 
Besides, EU isn't the States and the legislation I was referring to is
EU legislation enacted only in 1991 and transposed 2 years later so
anything that happened beforehand or not in the EU is not affected by
that. 
(Besides, DOS is not a good example anyway. Again, targeting the same
architecture people. 8066, 80286, 386, you can't really claim that is
different) 
Hennes my boy: I've got a flyer here from bPlan reading "requires
Amiga Workbench". It was distributed by bPlan last November in
Cologne. 
So you are ditching Amiga OS compatibility? 
And also read this quote from the Thendic webpage (put up today) 
"o OS kernel – MorphOS is the kernel. It will boot the machine. Our
intention is to ship this product with Yellow Dog Linux
(
http://www.yellowdoglinux.com
) 
o OS – once the computer starts it can run Linux or the Amiga OS on
top of the kernel. Through emulation it can run many other OS based
applications" 
Whoops.  What where you saying?  
--------------------------------------------------------------
E la ciliegina sulla torta:
AmigaOS 4.0 on Pegasos : Comment 200 of 262Posted by Ben
Hermans/Hyperion (134.58.222.46) on 15-Apr-2002 20:32:44 
In Reply to Comment 182:
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.  
----------------------------
Ancora uno:
AmigaOS 4.0 on Pegasos : Comment 204 of 262Posted by Ben
Hermans/Hyperion (134.58.253.113) on 15-Apr-2002 20:39:16 
In Reply to Comment 194:
Wine and Windows target the same hardware. 
OS 3.x and MorphOS don't. 
That's one of the reasons it's illegal. 
Besides, you are comparing apples and oranges. 
You are applying US law on a European (EU) situation. 
That's nonsense. 
There's plenty of stuff that's illegal in Europe that's legal in the
States and vice versa (software patents anyone?). 
As it happens, EU law is very strict on reverse engineering. 
But like I said, it's really the "unfair and parasitic competition"
law that nails MorphOS in Germany. 
Let's face it, MorphOS was started in a period when it was widely
believed that Amiga Inc or Gateway didn't care about AmigaOS or
protecting the AmigaOS IP. 
So the legal ramifications were never considered by an expert (rather
than the unskilled legally flawed reasoning I see here). 
There never was a reason to do this because nobody cared. 
It's like when a house-owner disappears for years and somebody moves
into his house in the absence. 
Nobody cares until the day the house-owner returns and finds a few
unwelcome tenants who are renting out parts of his house and living in
others. 
That's when the shit hits the fan.  
---------------------------------
AmigaOS 4.0 on Pegasos : Comment 217 of 262Posted by Ben
Hermans/Hyperion (134.58.253.113) on 15-Apr-2002 20:50:12 
In Reply to Comment 210:
Don't get me started on trademark law now! 
There is no basis to sue these people, they are operating in different
markets which requires you to show that they are damaging/taking
advanatge of the reputation of your trademark. 
In fact Hyperion was sued by Hyperion Solutions (
www.hyperion.com
) a
software company with a yearly turn-over of 500 million dollars and
listed on several stock-markets. 
They put a very expensive law-firm on the case. 
And lost. 
This should give you some food for thought that I may just know what
I'm talking about. 
This is what I find so sad about the MorphOS supporters: I have always
acknowledged the technical expertise of people like Ralph Schmidt
(although I care little for his views and attitude). 
Yet the only thing I can see here from MorphOS supporters and
developers including our FastQuake friend from Finland and our Warp3D
cloner from France is personal insults directed towards me, never once
an acknowledgment that I may just know more about the law than you
(who to the best of my knowledge are all amateurs without any formal
legal schooling whatsoever). 
Not that I care ofcourse but it does illustrate the difference. 
 
----------------------------------------
--
When Hell freezes over...
...I'll be snowboarding there too!!

 commerciali, ce ne sono a decine.
Infatti, bisognerebbe che qualcuno glielo facesse notare e chiedesse 
delucidazioni...
-- 
"Everything is vague to a degree you do not realize till you have tried
  to make it precise"
                                       Bertrand Russell
                                       The Philosophy of Logical Atomism

VirtualPC, che ti permette di installare Windows su un Mac.
VirtualPC in pratica e' un emulatore dell'hardware pc, visto che ci devi cmq
installare su Windows (o anche Linux, nonostante non sia ufficialmente
supportato potrebbe girarci sopra).
Tra l'altro mi pare che il produttore di VirtualPC paghi qualcosa a MS,
senz'altro per vendere gli OS packs.
Poi visto che stavate confrontandolo con MorphOS bisognerebbe vedere se le
licenze di Win o MacOS proibiscono di usarli su hw "non certificato", come
pare sia la licenza di AmigaOS 3.x (ed e' questo il punto che hanno
sottolineato).
Bye
   Wiz
--
E-Mail:   
tel...@cs.unibo.it
       (finger for my PGP key)
WWW:      
http://tellini.info
"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes
hurtling down the highway." -- A. Tanenbaum, Computer Networks

Solo in Germania?
Da quello che diceva in un altro thread la legge e' equiparabile in
tutta l'Unione
Luca


tibilita' con AmigaOS.
I rapporti tra il team AROS ed Amiga Inc. sono diversi dai rapporti
tra bPlan ed Amiga Inc.
