>Freeware means only that it doesn't cost anything not that it is free to distribute by whoever wants to.

So what does "Distribute: yes" mean then?

@K-L

That's right, just make personal attacks on me if you can't contribute meaningfully...

>you says you've made programes but noone know you nor what you've done

That's obviously a lie, as your own web site contains multiple references to them. Not that it has anything to do with the topic of the thread anyway.

>but also

I'm really not sure of the relevance of that 8-year old personal attack thread?

>Sources of that?

There's sources for it all over the web, eg. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/19 ... etroactive-license-change
Although I don't see why I should have to prove this to you. Where is your proof that it *can* be changed unilaterally?

>I don't allow you to release my programs on your website.

What part of "freely distributable" don't you understand? And you can't just try to impose restrictions on webmasters via forum postings in this manner. Eg. Linus Torvalds could not try to stop any particular site from distributing (or even selling) an existing version of Linux, it would require a change to the GPL, and such a change would not affect versions that had already been released.

>zzd10h is entirely within his rights to ask for any file he uploaded to be taken down, end of story.

He has the right to *ask*, however there is no obligation on OS4Depot to comply.

>but that doesn't require the author to maintian any availabilty of that package, and an identical package with a new license can also be created.

Correct. But that doesn't mean he can force people not to distribute the release which had the permissive licence.

>Also simply uploading to a filesharing site does not imply freely distributable. It must be specified as so.

It was indeed specified as so. Here's the link again, you must not have read it: https://web.archive.org/web/2014071720 ... ile=audio/misc/atunes.lha
It clearly states:
License: Freeware
Distribute: yes

>Lol only if you dont mind minuous illegally hosting tha archives on his site!

There would be nothing illegal about it, as I already pointed out.

>current users are and still completely free to use his already released software without any extra condition.

The ones who already have it. It's very underhanded the way it was done with no prior warning. Seems silly to for everyone to have to download the entire contents of Aminet and OS4Depot to insure themself against this kind of retroactive withdrawal, even assuming unlimited bandwidth.

>Are you really sure about this ? I have only 2 original .lha packages from zzd10h here on my hard-drive (Sysmon,Fastview) the read-me say nothing about "freeware"

Yes, they are freeware. See, for example, https://web.archive.org/web/2014071720 ... ile=audio/misc/atunes.lha

>IIRC the developer can claim copyright and issue a DMCA takedown

"Freely distributable software is being freely distributed" is obviously not a basis for any kind of valid DMCA complaint.

>he's free to choose whatever he wants to do with his software.

At the time of release, he can put whatever licence on it. But those terms can't just be unilaterally changed later on for the same version of the same program.

>Rich people for a few euro una tantum ? :v

What? You should speak English, this is an English-speaking forum.

>Ah ah ah, asking just few euros for a pack of softwares that I developed since 2 years. That I have (and will) continuously maintained, supported replying to each improvements requests each particular bugs.

So? I have developed my free software for 20 years, and of course I respond to bug reports. I haven't asked anyone for anything despite being close to starvation much of the time, because I don't want to deprive anyone...

>Did you still used one of the programs listed in the first post of this thread ?

I'm not familiar with any of your programs, so of course it won't hurt me personally. However not being selfish I am concerned at the possible effects on other users, and a possible domino effect on other software.

>But I understand that for you it's more a principle problem.

Yes.

>No money, even ridiculous amount, should be asked for the very very lot of time spent in front of a computer...

If someone wants to donate to you, that is one thing. However what we have here is something completely different: removal of existing freeware from a freeware repository. It's not "asking" for anything by any stretch.

The normal course of action when commercializing freeware is to make *future versions* commercial, and normally such versions are considerably better than the older ones. (IIRC this happened with DOpus, DiskSalv, etc.) Not to attempt to suppress something that you have already released for free, you just can't change the licence conditions like that retroactively on an existing piece of software to try to criminalize users.

>Please stop calling hard-working developers "greedy"

The only reason for removal of the existing software is to gouge money out of Amigans who would have formerly been able to obtain said software freely.

>Please present some proof to your statement that "AmiStore is clearly damaging the Amiga community already". AmiStore hasn't been launched yet, so how do you know?

This announcement by zzd10h is itself the proof. AmiStore hasn't even been launched and yet we already have this kind of preemptive retroactive commercialization of freeware going on. As if Apple hasn't already damaged the Amiga enough in the past, we have parts of the Amiga community jumping on their crapp store bandwagon, damaging the Amiga freeware scene. Obviously AmiStore doesn't mean that everything has to go commercial. But it facilitates and encourages it, as we are now seeing. orgin had it right when he said "I guess we'll see more shareware in the future where the software has restrictions such as a 30 day timeout, limited number of starts, timeout popups and such...".

>If you don't want to buy from AmiStore then don't, and buy some bread and butter instead. But please do not tell US what WE should do to support our developers.

If you want to give him money, feel free. But please do not tell US that WE should pay for freeware.

Anyway, in the interest of not forcing users to pay for freeware, I am willing to host any of the listed suppressed software at my site for free download. And no, there's nothing illegal about that as it is all freeware, and it's not possible to retroactively change the licence conditions on existing software releases.

So it looks like lots of software that used to be freeware will now be only for rich people, thanks to the greed of certain developers.

This AmiStore is clearly damaging the Amiga community already, I will never buy anything from it and urge others not to do so either.

You mean like LendMenus()?

@liveforit:

>I just read the Extra info on your profile, what made you write that?

See post #5.

I don't want to have to shun a whole site because of one bad user. The vast majority of the users are OK.

>i just give a fuck about him.
>For me it looks like someone have some real problems outside of amigas, if there is needs for all this crap

This is exactly the kind of thing I mean. Obviously he still feels that that was a reasonable thing to have said, when it should be pretty obvious that it wasn't. I don't want to argue about any of "this crap", that's why I was investigating an ignore feature in the first place. I don't have anything against OS4, all my programs support it. If I make a suggestion that might help the OS3 community he shouts it down with "retro-fag" and other such nonsense. On other forums people treat each other in a civil and respectful manner, I don't know why it is different here.

Well, if you must know, it's kas1e, I haven't made a complaint because most of the flames from him were via PM rather than publically. But having lost any respect for him after being called a "retro-fag" and other stupid insults, I'd rather not have to read anything written by him in the future. It would be a shame if I had to avoid this site entirely because of that, however he seems to comment on most threads so he's pretty much inescapable.

Most forums (eg. EAB) have a way to globally avoid seeing messages by specific offensive people, but I don't see that here...

OK, many thanks.

>Regarding EmulateTags, I guess you have to add ET_RegisterA6,BoardsBase.

Still has the same problem even when using that tag...

I'm trying to use the EmulateTags() function to access a 68K-only library.

I'm getting a crash reported when the following line executes:

BoardInfoPtr = (struct BoardInfo*) EmulateTags((APTR) (BoardsBase - 0x24), ET_RegisterD0, SB_DISABLE_CUSTOMCHECK, TAG_DONE);

The library is already open and its address is in BoardsBase. The function I want to access in this case is AllocBoardInfo() which has an offset of $24.

The 68K version works fine even on OS4 so it seems to be an issue with how I am calling EmulateTags() rather than with boards.library itself. I assume I don't need to use GetInterface() as it's a 68K-only library.

It looks like WINDOW_PopupGadget is (WINDOW_Dummy + 60) ($8502503C) and WINDOW_JumpScreensMenu is (WINDOW_Dummy + 63) ($8502503F). WMHI_JUMPSCREEN is probably (18L<<16) ($00120000).

Why? Their site doesn't even work properly on Amiga browsers. Why not use a site that does, instead of Facebook?

Well, I'd firstly get rid of requiring manual approval of new registrations; there's no need for it.

>That'll be because the SDK is 2-3 years out of date. The little pop-up menu you can have in window borders isn't available to any devs either for the same reason. I'm sure there must be other things that have been added but we have no access to.

I agree, I even asked specifically for those tag values and was told it wasn't important, apparently. If it is so unimportant that no one should bother using it then why was it added to the OS in the first place?

H&P and Commodore before them were always much more professional and had a higher standard of developer support.

OK, I received a reply, it was completely unhelpful though with him just saying it was unimportant

Not very encouraging for those trying to add OS4-specific functionality to their software.

If I was running OS4 I could ascertain the values by trial and error, has anyone done this?

@ssolie:

I did this but received no reply...

Yes, #define values for WINDOW_PopUpGadget and WINDOW_JumpScreensMenu would be useful...

OK, Report+ 6.78 is released and includes CLI-based icon conversion as suggested.

In the future I will probably implement a similar feature for the ASCII conversion.