Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?

Discussion in 'PowerPC Macs' started by G4fanboy, Dec 16, 2015.

  1. G4fanboy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Location:
    Andalucia Spain
    #1
    It came to my attention the interest on improving MacOS9 on some folks in MacOS9Lives!:

    http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=2727.0

    I know most of MR PPC members are centric on MacOS X, but maybe with this call some of you could help, give encouraging words for the developers or share some documentation.

    Nanopico is making a poll on what things could be improved in MacOS9, on the system itself and another poll for apps support.

    There is also some interest on developing a H264 solution for MacOS9, http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=2403.0

    I beg every user with interest go there (join MacOS9Lives! if you still aren't a member) and comment.
     
  2. eyoungren macrumors P6

    eyoungren

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2011
    Location:
    Online
    #2
    I cannot begin to fathom the legal issues that may arise out of this.

    First and foremost there is the OS9 EULA. Then you're talking distribution of a copyrighted OS (I would assume this project is so not just the devs would be using it and that it would be provided free).

    It'd be one thing if Apple put OS9 in the public domain, but everything from 7.6.1 and up is not public domain.

    There are apps that modify certain things of course so you can get versions of OS9 on unsupported Macs. But those are apps and not code rewrite.

    I applaud the effort, but I don't see macos9lives existing for very long if this gets out. Lawsuits, Cease and Desist and takedown orders have a way of torpedoing things.

    Just my take…unless you tell me someone's found some legal loophole?
     
  3. T'hain Esh Kelch macrumors 601

    T'hain Esh Kelch

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2001
    Location:
    Denmark
  4. happyfrappy macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Location:
    Location eh?
    #4
    Going by info I've seen in the past of such OS 7-9 projects it looks more like creating custom enablers & drivers to support newer hardware or add functions that a 3rd party program wasn't allowed under the original Apple Developer Connection terms.

    In my opinion its still a legal nightmare, ADC had strict toolbox access limitations for non-hardware developers and for example if someone had worked at Apple at any point in time could be in breach of employee knowledge--ReactOS was forced into a code audit by Microsoft when suspicions of insider knowledge due to certain frameworks being able to be installed for Internet Explorer 6.0 to work/run.

    Having said that, since I deal with OpenSource projects often I've been afraid to accept a job at Microsoft as off-the-clock work could be subject to employee side project audits.
     
  5. eyoungren macrumors P6

    eyoungren

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2011
    Location:
    Online
    #5
    Yeah, still not something I would touch even if I knew how to code.

    Writing enablers for newer hardware is one thing. Aggregating it all together with the OS, advertising it as a new version build of that OS and then distributing it is just red meat for lawyers.
     
  6. G4fanboy thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Location:
    Andalucia Spain
    #6
    Nanopico has said those will be third party patches to the system. You could consider addons to original 9.2.2 OS.
    The MacOS9Lives! page has been the best mirror for latest 9.2.2 OS for years without a single call from Apple. They are more worried about iPhones and iPads than on Obsolete hardware/software as all Macrumors PowerPC members know. They simply do not care a **** about MacOS9. They also do not care much about OSX PPC.

    We have regular access to Apple Developer Conference (ADC) thru Internet Archive. It is more or less open. At least MacOS7 to 9 and most of MacOSX. No one has to be agree with the EULA to reach those documents.

    Some topics we are sorting out:
    The 2040 issue. http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=2862.0
    Mac OS 9 Development Requests (Application and Non-OS Level) http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=2838.0
    Mac OS 9 Development Requests (OS Level Items) http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=2837.0
    H264 codec, the "video game" is over in Mac Os 9. http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=2403.0
    MacOS 8&9 Devices doc. for drivers develop http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=1931.0
    Mac OS 9.2.2 Maximum RAM and Real world observations http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=2101.0
    That post derived on
    1.5GB Limit (some answers) http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=2860.0
     
  7. bunnspecial macrumors 603

    bunnspecial

    Joined:
    May 3, 2014
    Location:
    Kentucky
    #7
    If you can pull this off(and I certainly would love to see it barring any legal red tape) one big thing I'd like to see added is hardware acceleration for newer video cards.

    As it is now, although many of my systems dual boot, I effectively have to make video card choices to optimize the system for one OS or the other. In G4s, for example, I often end up using a GEForce 4Ti for the best OS 9 operation(although I only have two of those) while an OS X-intended system gets a Radeon 9600 or something along those lines. The 4Ti works well enough under X, but is handicapped by its lack of core image support. The 9600, on the other hand, does much better in 10.4/10.5 thanks to CI support, but makes OS 9 miserable.
     
  8. G4fanboy thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Location:
    Andalucia Spain
    #8
    Yes. ATI's 9200 and up and Gforce 5200 and up. I would love ATI 9650 and 9800 working in OS9... In fact, any CoreImage card going OS9 with 2D and 3D accel would be a gift.

    We need to get to the nVidia and ATI developers on that age too. They could help with PowerPC OSX cards to have accel 2D and 3D in OS9.

    I have posted in MacOS 8&9 Devices doc. for drivers develop http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=1931.0
    All info I could get about. It seems like drivers developers have migrated to new platforms and do not miss MacOS 9 at all. :(

    IMHO until 10.3.9 MacOS X were just beta versions. MacOS 9 offered more. At least in Music production. I use Logic (4 to 7) and Protools (5 to 7) on OS 9 still today as they do their work flawless.

    I have on my MDD dual 867 only OS9 sound card (STUDI/O) and a OSX only seritek 2e4. I know what is to choose between OS9 quick graphics or coreimage graphics, so I asked nanopico about it. He is weighting what is doable and asking OS9 users what other features they would like to see on those third party patches to the system.

    I guess Radeon 9800 and GeForce 5200/6200 are the most used on G4/OSX.
     
  9. bunnspecial macrumors 603

    bunnspecial

    Joined:
    May 3, 2014
    Location:
    Kentucky
    #9
    Around here, I tend toward the 9600 for OSX, although have one 9800 in service along with a couple of FireGl X3s(flashed to an X800XT). My preference for the 9600 has to do with the ready availability of the Mac specific version along with how easy it is to adapt it to a G4 tower. The only 5200 I use is the PCI version(good for the B&W/Yikes).

    The 9800 is popular because it will work in a 2x AGP system(Sawtooth, GigE). The 6200 will also work, and has the advantage-at least in some configurations-of being small enough to fit in a Cube.

    I would use more of the FireGl(actually one of the top PPC cards period) but it is touchy in Quicksilvers and GigEs.
     
  10. eyoungren macrumors P6

    eyoungren

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2011
    Location:
    Online
    #10
    Just because Apple has not come after anyone in the past does not mean they will not in the future.

    Ask the devs of f.lux for the iPhone about their takedown order when people started sideloading f.lux on stock iPhones.
    Ask iFixit.com about their app being yanked from the App store because they "violated" the terms of their dev agreement when they tore down a recent Apple product.

    Do not get me wrong. I think that the idea is great. I'm just not sure about the legalities.
     
  11. weckart macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    #11
    Both those actions involved Apple's cash cow, so Apple's lawyers were bound to act to protect the interests of the shareholders. Something that is much less likely, if not impossible, with obsolete hardware and IP.
     
  12. eyoungren macrumors P6

    eyoungren

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2011
    Location:
    Online
    #12
    You're arguing that the chances are good that they get away with this. Fine. It's obsolete, Apple's chosen to ignore certain things. I get all that.

    My point was simply about the legality - not the probability of legal action. If Apple ever does decide to do something though, no one involved can claim innocence simply because Apple didn't take them to court any earlier.
     
  13. redheeler macrumors 603

    redheeler

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2014
    #13
    From the very post you quoted:
    Mac OS 9 can be considered abandonware. It is no longer being sold by Apple, it won't run without emulation on any newer Macs, and has been out of support for over a decade. Recent hardware and software is a different matter entirely, especially when an agreement allowing iFixit to receive a $150 current-generation Apple TV at no extra cost is violated.
     
  14. weckart macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    #14
    True but then MG and numerous other sites distributing MacOS releases in plain sight for several years have yet to receive a DMCA takedown notice, let alone a subpoena. It is more a question of Apple's managing resources. Your point stands, nonetheless.
     
  15. nanopico macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2015
    #15
    So I'm the one that started this over at macos9lives.com
    The legality of it comes down to the following. (as this is what I'm basing most of the work off of).
    The EULA for MPW, Inside Macintosh and OS 9.
    MPW and Inside Macintosh are provided as documentation on building applications and extensions for the Mac OS. (In fact Inside Macintosh has quit a bit of info on ROM resource patching and System Folder patching/extensions so based on the license of those documents and it being documented in those documents, it's fair game to use that info to do what I am doing).
    OS 9's EULA is that you won't distribute the OS.
    What I will be building are extensions/patches and that's what I will provide. I will not be providing a full distribution of the mac os. The whole 9.3 thing is just my way of saying "Hey I'm going to build these extensions that might add enough functionality that someone would consider it a new revision of the OS."
    Depending on how things are handled, there are definite legal concerns, but for this specific project, there isn't any violation of terms from Apple. I'm not a lawyer, I'm a developer so I may be missing something here.

    I'm not trying to stir the pot here, but I just wanted to clarify what I'm actually attempting to do.
     
  16. eyoungren macrumors P6

    eyoungren

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2011
    Location:
    Online
    #16
    Thank you for the clarification.

    Extensions/patches are an entirely different matter and I do believe fall well within legal bounds.

    My initial scepticism was based on the term "OS 9.3", which to me implies modifying the OS and distributing it. As that is not the actual case and based on your clarification I no longer see any issue here.
     
  17. nanopico macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2015
    #17
    Your welcome!
    It's still going to be quit the effort due to the nature of the patches I'm looking at implementing.
     

Share This Page