Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 20th Sep 2005 19:40 UTC, submitted by jeanmarc
Zeta "Zeta includes quite a lot of open source software. YellowTAB was able to include software like bash, GCC, VLC, to name just a few, with Zeta and thus profit from the work of many thousands of developers. However, programs do not always work straight away when compiled for Zeta and may require changes to do so. We make the necessary changes and fix bugs to make sure that these programs run smoothly on Zeta. Now it's time to give something back."
Order by: Score:
In other words
by Anonymous on Tue 20th Sep 2005 20:01 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

They are doing what the license requires them to do. And yet they want a pat on the back.

Reply Score: 0

RE: In other words
by Anonymous on Tue 20th Sep 2005 22:19 UTC in reply to "In other words"
Anonymous Member since:
---

<em>They are doing what the license requires them to do. And yet they want a pat on the back.</em>

IIUIC the GPL only requires the source code to be available, not that the source must be put on a website. They could just as easily state that people posting them a CD-R and SAE could get it back with all the source code on and be following the requirements of the license.

Reply Score: 2

RE: In other words
by Udo Schroeter on Mon 26th Sep 2005 09:36 UTC in reply to "In other words"
Udo Schroeter Member since:
2005-09-26

Sure, the GPL requires that step - but keep in mind that many companies (including some infamous incidents with Apple) keep having problems with that. I think NOT making a press release about this would have been a severe marketing mistake.

Reply Score: 1

v Good for them
by Anonymous on Tue 20th Sep 2005 20:05 UTC
GPL?
by Anonymous on Tue 20th Sep 2005 20:06 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Much of this software is under the GPL, so this is nothing but a press release about their complience with the law.

I like YT myself, and appreciate their position. There are no real changes to the code, except to get them to operate on Zeta, so there are few gains for other to have such code, except to learn how to program on Zeta. But it's still their legal requirement to release their changes to, say, bash, or coreutils. So this doesn't seem like much but PR.

It would likely be better for everyone involved if Zeta simply tried to be a supported platform for these tools, and moved their patches upsteam, much the way, say, Sun or AIX is in the gcc tree.

Reply Score: 2

damned if they do... damned if they don't
by Anonymous on Tue 20th Sep 2005 20:12 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

First the Be community screams at Yellowtab, calling them all sorts of names, with various developers ceasing all work in protest...

Now they comply, and they are greeted by sneers.

Way to encourage good behavior chaps....

To anyone who did say well done, good for you!

Reply Score: 2

Anonymous Member since:
---

Compliance with the GPL is a requirement. You shouldn't need encouragement to do the right thing.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

Too many companies don't bother with the requirement though, so yeah, I do think a well done is earned, if for no other reason then as to set them apart from many others (Buffalo comes to mind).

But regardless of whether you think it is needed or not, sneering at them is not productive for that same said compliance.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

PR is a bitch isn't it?

I ain't sneering. But if once you screwup, even your cleanup after will look bad - because it all points back to your original screwup.

yT screwed up. Not big time - it's a small company, GPL compliance is a thing you overlook, especially when all you do is make changes to this makefile or that.

But trying to turn licence compliance which is late coming into a "giving back to the community" is silly. Imagine a PR piece which said this "YellowTab partners with Google, and increases Google's revenue by paying their late AdSense bill!" Effectively, this is what yT is claiming with regard to OSS

Reply Score: 5

Anonymous Member since:
---

hahaha i even tought about registering just to mark positively this remark ;)

...but nah, too much accounts already

--gabriel

Reply Score: 0

Pat on the Back
by Anonymous on Tue 20th Sep 2005 20:24 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

They want a pat on the back? I'll give it to them. After all, how many companies are seriously interested in BeOS or Haiku-OS?

Reply Score: 1

Yea!
by Anonymous on Tue 20th Sep 2005 20:29 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I always like to hear about beos stuff!

Reply Score: 0

v heh
by cypress on Tue 20th Sep 2005 20:31 UTC
RE: heh
by Whats That There on Wed 21st Sep 2005 07:45 UTC in reply to "heh"
Whats That There Member since:
2005-09-21

they are not "doing as they have to do".

they can in fact keep ALL copies of gpl code, and only send a copy to people who ask to see it.

I can take gpl software, modify it and release a binary file for everyone to download.

now, if someone WANTS to see my source code, I can make a duplication of the code on disk, and post it to his house, and charge him money for it.

that is the way the gpl works

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: heh
by raver31 on Wed 21st Sep 2005 09:12 UTC in reply to "RE: heh"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

That is the way I thought the GPL worked too. how do some people find it so difficult to grasp the concept ?

Reply Score: 1

Hey
by Anonymous on Tue 20th Sep 2005 20:52 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

At least they aren't stealing..

But as far as competing with the Free Software movement.. well, I just hope that isn't their goal.

Wish them luck, tho.

Reply Score: 0

It isn't just the GPL stuff though
by Anonymous on Tue 20th Sep 2005 21:01 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

They are also releasing code that is under the BSD licence, which has NO SUCH REQUIREMENT to give back.

So yes, I do think they deserve a pat on the back for this.

Reply Score: 2

zerblat Member since:
2005-07-06

Sure. However, it's not like they would gain anything from keeping their patches secret. AFAICT, all they've done is to port the various pieces of Free Software to their OS, and in that case that code is of little use to anyone who isn't using Zeta. Also, maintaining your own patches to someone elses project is a bitch. Getting their patches integrated upstream would mean less work for Zeta.

So, it's not like they're suddenly great champions of Free Software, but at least they're not doing anything evil, I guess.

Reply Score: 3

Mad Penguin covered this OS
by Anonymous on Tue 20th Sep 2005 21:10 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

http://madpenguin.org/cms/?m=show&id=5091

Interesting review actually. Great news to hear they are opening up the code!

Reply Score: 0

Kudos to them
by Anonymous Penguin on Tue 20th Sep 2005 21:14 UTC
Anonymous Penguin
Member since:
2005-07-06

At least they are conscientious enough to give something back and not steal, as somebody else does without any remorse whatsoever.

Reply Score: 1

Definitely Good News
by Nathan O. on Tue 20th Sep 2005 21:18 UTC
Nathan O.
Member since:
2005-08-11

Though this *shouldn't* be newsworthy, it is. It may not be the majority, but there are a number of companies that just *don't* give back like the license says. YT does deserve at least a big thank you.

Reply Score: 1

v RE: Definitely Good News
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Sep 2005 03:17 UTC in reply to "Definitely Good News"
RE[2]: Definitely Good News
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Sep 2005 03:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Definitely Good News"
Anonymous Member since:
---

YT has been stealing sourcecode from the other BeOS-projects

Such as? If you make such bold claims, you better have some hard info to support them.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Definitely Good News
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Sep 2005 04:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Definitely Good News"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Look at all the BSD-licensed code in YT. Legally it's not thieving (but morally it is considering their claims to be supportive of the community), but they haven't give anything back. Despite that, they want us to believe that they're a part of the community, and that they're supporting it.

YT is a bunch of lamers, releasing a hacked version of BeOS with some code from opensource projects. That's why it doesn't work to well, and that's why YT treats developers so badly.

dylansmrjones

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Definitely Good News
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Sep 2005 04:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Definitely Good News"
Anonymous Member since:
---

They're using BSD code. So? There's nothing, absolutely nothing wrong with that, not legally, not morally.

YT is offering a product that is unlike any other BeOS project: It supports the 1.25 GB RAM of my computer. It has a solid TCP stack that does not need to be ackquired illegally through file sharing.They offer a phone hotline. They have commercial backing. If yout think that's worth $99, go buy it. If not - don't buy it. What's so hard about that?

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Definitely Good News
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Sep 2005 05:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Definitely Good News"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Morally it's very wrong, because they (YT) claim they support the community. Well... they don't.

They take the work of other people, claiming they support the community, yet they give nothing back. That's immoral in my mind.

YT is behaving like MS, also in regard to developers.

dylansmrjones

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Definitely Good News
by raver31 on Wed 21st Sep 2005 09:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Definitely Good News"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

they may TAKE bsd code, they may ALTER that code, and they may KEEP the code to themselves.

so what ?

it is in the BSD license that they can do these things. It is not immoral and it definately does not make them thieves.

Microsoft and Apple have done exactly the same thing. Does that make them immoral ? Does that make them thieves ?

Sorry, should not have asked those questions here ;)

Reply Score: 3

v Soon as it works
by Anonymous on Tue 20th Sep 2005 21:19 UTC
RE: Soon as it works
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Sep 2005 23:07 UTC in reply to "Soon as it works"
Anonymous Member since:
---

So you'd be the same guy who moaned on various BeOS mailing lists, and then never responded when most replies said "no problems here"?!

Well... no problems here. Installed on 5 machines now, including a laptop, and had no major issues. Sound on one, and networking tricky on laptop. That was it...

Reply Score: 0

Not all is GPL
by looncraz on Tue 20th Sep 2005 21:31 UTC
looncraz
Member since:
2005-07-24

I am one of the better known anti-yellowTAB folks out there. At least to all the old timers :-)

However, I must commend yellowTAB on this, regardless, for the sake of objectivity.

Not all of the source code that was released was required by the licenses. This means that yellowTAB made a purposeful effort to make the community feel better.

This is, by the way, one of the few instances where I have found something that yellowTAB has done that deserves the recognition it received.

In fact, the only other thing I think comes to mind is some article on Zeta Neo's kernel. Having been working on the Haiku kernel attempting compatibility with various peices of my own code, I have some idea of how tough kernel coding can be.

Of course, yellowTAB supposedly has legal access to Be's code, which means they just did some copy and pasting, and some other little tricks (sounds much easier than reality).

--The loon

Reply Score: 3

RE: Not all is GPL
by mario on Tue 20th Sep 2005 23:39 UTC in reply to "Not all is GPL"
mario Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, I for one don't know you as a particularly "anti-yellowTAB" person. I agree that this gesture from yT deserves recognition.

Generally speaking, I think it's great to have a company like yT, with all it's faults and weaknesses, still backing BeOS. The alternative (no yT) would be much worse.

BTW, I am glad you're still around the 'ol BeOS community. Makes me feel good to still be a BeOS user, knowing this small bunch has people like yourself in it.

Reply Score: 1

Back for help
by Anonymous on Tue 20th Sep 2005 21:33 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

yT needs help from community for progressing fast now, and posting the GPL/* code is the start of this process...

Also, it's cleanup a bit the last week news about yT and community...

Reply Score: 0

v where is the Zeta code?
by Anonymous on Tue 20th Sep 2005 21:49 UTC
RE: where is the Zeta code?
by anevilyak on Tue 20th Sep 2005 22:34 UTC in reply to "where is the Zeta code?"
anevilyak Member since:
2005-09-14

When did yT ever say they were open-sourcing Zeta itself?

Reply Score: 2

v RE[2]: where is the Zeta code?
by Anonymous on Tue 20th Sep 2005 22:37 UTC in reply to "RE: where is the Zeta code?"
RE: where is the Zeta code?
by Big Al on Tue 20th Sep 2005 23:03 UTC in reply to "where is the Zeta code?"
Big Al Member since:
2005-06-29

For the millionth time, yellowTab never said they'd open-source Zeta. This is a ridiculous statement and everytime it comes up we ask for evidence of yT promising to open-source Zeta and no one can every answer where it comes from.

Stop posting this garbage and whoever modded it up should be ashamed of themselves.

Reply Score: 2

Giving back means helping...
by Anonymous on Tue 20th Sep 2005 22:12 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Way to go Zeta!
This is a good start, opening up their versions
of all their open source adaptions, not just the
required ones.
If this is a first step to releasing some of their
own code it's great. If it is just a way to try
and be popular it's just sad.
Giving back to the community means helping the
community, and that takes a little more effort...

Reply Score: 0

As Above...
by Anonymous on Tue 20th Sep 2005 22:28 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

GPL also does not require them to give the changes away to everyone (ala posting it on their website), only their customers...

Reply Score: 1

how aboput cups?
by Anonymous on Tue 20th Sep 2005 22:31 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Anybody for making cups wokr on r5?
It's got to be easier porting from Zeta to Beos than the Linux to Zeta port they did.

Reply Score: 0

Cudos To YT
by Anonymous on Tue 20th Sep 2005 22:49 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

They have done something that should not be taken forgranted by the community. For all the ranting against YT in the past YT deserves a pat on the back for what they are doing here and if they continue then acceptance from the former BeOS community as a viable means of distributing a modern version of BeOS be it what they have based on Dano or future releases based on Haiku.

BTW, I believe the Haiku liscense is based on the BSD one so, no they didn't have to give the code back. Only with software that was GPL'd would they have to give the source code back with changes.

Reply Score: 0

FUCKING DUH!!!
by rm6990 on Wed 21st Sep 2005 00:39 UTC
rm6990
Member since:
2005-07-04

You know, I am sick of all the know-it-alls who seem to like to comment on stuff they know absolutely nothing about on this website.

YellowTAB is NOT required to put all of the source code in an online repository available to everyone including non-paying customers. The GPL states that you only have to provide source codes to those people or companies that you provide binaries to, except for under certain circumstances. So to say that YellowTAB is merely complying with the license shows how little you know about the GPL. I really highly suggest reading it to everyone on here, instead of just commenting on it and assuming you are right.

:)

So to correct the wrong assumptions flying around this forum, if YelowTAB wanted, they could include a source code disc with the binary disc when shipping the product and they would NOT be required to give the source to any non-customer, as they are doing here.

If they ship the product via a secure, password protected FTP server that also contains the source code, then again they do NOT have to give the source code to non-customers.

The only time you have to give the source code to non-customers is if you do not ship the source code on the same download site as the binaries, or physically ship the binaries without including source code. Even under this circumstance, YellowTAB does NOT have to put the code up on a public download server. Instead, they could make you write to them and request the source, and then make you pay shipping and handling, even if you have already received binaries from them.

The reason most people don't know this is because most companies don't make you go through all of this, its easier for both customers and the company to just put the code on an ftp server and forget about it.

Please, people, try to read material before commenting. The GPL is 10 pages long...its not like I'm asking you to read a novel.

Reply Score: 1

RE: FUCKING DUH!!!
by sepht on Wed 21st Sep 2005 01:33 UTC in reply to "FUCKING DUH!!!"
sepht Member since:
2005-07-06

Read the GPL? Have you done it yourself? well then you should already know my point.
The second some customers get the code (through whatever means Zeta wanted to ship it to them), they have a legal right to distribute it themselves; that means they can put it on a public FTP.

They are legally required to give it to people who bought it, but then again, those people then gain the legal right to put the code on a public FTP. The GPL says the consumer has the same rights to distribute and modify as the creator.

Unless Zeta wanted to illegally keep it to themselves, the code would leak out anyways, since some customers would undoubtly post the code on a public repository themselves.

Cheers.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: FUCKING DUH!!!
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Sep 2005 01:56 UTC in reply to "RE: FUCKING DUH!!!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Stick to the topic sepht. Nobody is talking about what customers can do with the source code. It's about what is legally required to do.

Read the GPL? Have you done it yourself? well then you should already know my point.
The second some customers get the code (through whatever means Zeta wanted to ship it to them), they have a legal right to distribute it themselves; that means they can put it on a public FTP.


Then you would already know my point, that once someone gets the GPL source code they can take a shit on the sidewalk too. And no, this is not rm6990.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: FUCKING DUH!!!
by rm6990 on Wed 21st Sep 2005 12:30 UTC in reply to "RE: FUCKING DUH!!!"
rm6990 Member since:
2005-07-04

Did you Read my comment? I specifically said YellowTAB is not required to... How that translated into "You're wrong because the customers are allowed to..." I really don't know. I'm talking about what YellowTAB has to do, NOT what customers are allowed to do. Perhaps some reading comprehension practise is the order for the day for you ;)

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: FUCKING DUH!!!
by sepht on Wed 21st Sep 2005 14:40 UTC in reply to "RE: FUCKING DUH!!!"
sepht Member since:
2005-07-06

My point was simply that YellowTAB is NOT doing anything special. They are simply releasing the code into the general population instead of trying to beat-around the bush. My point is that it's INSIGNIFICANT that they legally only need to give it to customers, because it would hit the public anyways.

Guess I need to spell it out what everything means.

Reply Score: 1

the spin is in
by radkowskij on Wed 21st Sep 2005 02:59 UTC
radkowskij
Member since:
2005-07-06

YellowTab suddenly reminds me of a smaller, german version of Microsoft Corp. The spin on that is awesome, gj yT PR department!

Reply Score: 1

Doh YT!
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Sep 2005 03:16 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

It's GPL so they're only doing what they have to do. But at least they're apparently not violating the GPL. That's a sort-of beginning, at the very least

Reply Score: 0

Wow!
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Sep 2005 05:12 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Wow, Bernad's released a nose hair, lets check it in the cvs.

Dancing in the street, lets all stay up past 11pm and play "Spin the bottle"(c) on Zeta.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Wow!
by StephenBeDoper on Wed 21st Sep 2005 09:36 UTC in reply to "Wow!"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

If English isn't your first language, then you really shouldn't attempt irony in it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Wow!
by Anonymous on Thu 22nd Sep 2005 00:03 UTC in reply to "Wow!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I guess I win the prize! English is my mother language.

I'm guessing your German; as they have no sense of humour.
Yellowtab are creepy and a wannabe Microsoft.
Will they help Haiku and give them the USB2 code? No they give scraps.

BTW your poor attempt at being condescending is very typical European trait so I'll ignore that common disability just for now as sometimes it can be mistaken as an insult.

Reply Score: 0

Licensed code in Zeta?
by scottmc on Wed 21st Sep 2005 05:29 UTC
scottmc
Member since:
2005-07-08

JLG from Be Inc. was asked many times to open the source but said they couldn't, since it would take too much time/money to remove all the licensed code. Does anyone know if yT has to also pay those same license holders or did they yank that code out? Such as the Fraunhofer mp3 encoder and other such technologies? Or did they switch to an open source mp3 encoder?
Also I asked Bernd a few years back if they'd be open to releasing their USB 2.0 driver code and he saw no good reason to do so. Well Haiku still has no working USB driver and yT claims they are helping out Haiku. Yeah right. And I suppose they will do the same with SATA driver, if/when that is done.
Does yT have a road map? Are they going to keep working on Be's kernel or do they plan to someday move over to the Haiku one? Do they want to become the Red Hat of the Haiku world? I'd really like to see yT make it as a company, but I'd like to see a long term plan.

Reply Score: 1

YT gives nothing back.
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Sep 2005 05:34 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

YT has so far given nothing to Haiku. However, they've taken source from Haiku, and claim to support the community.

Legally it's okay, morally it's very wrong.

Reply Score: 0

RE: YT gives nothing back.
by Big Al on Wed 21st Sep 2005 13:22 UTC in reply to "YT gives nothing back."
Big Al Member since:
2005-06-29

You are correct in that they haven't submitted much code, but look at Rudolf's drivers. yT sent him hardware - for free - for use in testing. Now that's not directly submitting code but that's certainly giving to Haiku and benefiting from it themselves.

Morally I'd say that's pretty good.

Reply Score: 1

Zeta
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Sep 2005 08:20 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Anyone got zeta running on a amd64?

Reply Score: 0

RE: Zeta
by stim on Wed 21st Sep 2005 10:29 UTC in reply to "Zeta"
stim Member since:
2005-09-21

Anyone got zeta running on a amd64?

Yep, running it here. Zeta detects its an amd64 as enable some extra optimisations, and I haven't come across any stability issues either.

Reply Score: 1

They're a company
by Emerson on Wed 21st Sep 2005 10:02 UTC
Emerson
Member since:
2005-09-19

A lot of the negitive stories about yellowtab just make me like them more. Frankly, their main goal should be to make money. If people are willing to do free work for them, with that intent or not, yellowtab be fools not to take as much advantage of that as the law allows. Just as much as they shouldn't be giving away their own. And they're putting a spin on the news to make themselves look better? Great, I'm happy to see some evidence that they're paying attention to the marketing and PR angle.

Reply Score: 1

the gpl
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 21st Sep 2005 13:06 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

It's been stated a few times boefe, but I'll repeat: the GPL does *not*, I repeat, does NOT require you to make the source code available in a public ftp.

You only have to distribute the source with "equivelant access" to how you distributed the original copy, and then *only* if someone who legally owns the binary *requests* the source.

It's all relatively easy.

There is, however, some shadiness as to how you must distribute the code. "Equivalent manners", that's easy if you ie. can download the binary; in that case it is mostly normal to also post the src online. However, theoratically, I could tattoo the source code on my ass, take a digital photo of it, and send that photo to whomever requests the source. It would technically be no violation of the gpl.

Might however be a violation of some weird American laws.

Reply Score: 5

RE: the gpl
by rhavyn on Wed 21st Sep 2005 18:31 UTC in reply to "the gpl"
rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

There is, however, some shadiness as to how you must distribute the code. "Equivalent manners", that's easy if you ie. can download the binary; in that case it is mostly normal to also post the src online. However, theoratically, I could tattoo the source code on my ass, take a digital photo of it, and send that photo to whomever requests the source. It would technically be no violation of the gpl.

That is a blatant violation of the GPL. The GPL requires that the source code be distributed as "machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange." A picture of a tattoo on your ass is most definitely not a medium customarily used for software interchange and is not machine-readable source code.

Now, how come we can't mod down "OSN Staff" when they are continually posting crap like this?

Reply Score: 1

Have anybody contacted ACCESS ?
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Sep 2005 13:22 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

As you can read at
http://www.palminfocenter.com/view_story.asp?ID=8033
ACCESS have acquired PalmSource - and with it the right on BeOS.

So, have already anybody contacted ACCESS, if they put BeOS (or parts of the code) under an OpenSource-license, so that Haiku can use it?

Reply Score: 0

BSD code from Haiku
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Sep 2005 13:47 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Yes, yt may take BSD code from Haiku. Without giving anything back. That's not the point, though. They are taking BSD code, without giving anything back, and telling everyone who will listen that they are supporting the community, which they are not. And that's just low.
Add to that stuff like this press release ("look how noble we are, giving you our fixes to gcc"), and you'll understand why I'd never buy anything from them.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

I'd like to see that, please send me a photo of the complete Zeta port of python tattooed onto your ass.
Better use tiny needles to fit it all on.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Definitely Good News
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Sep 2005 22:13 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"Microsoft and Apple have done exactly the same thing. Does that make them immoral ? Does that make them thieves ?

Sorry, should not have asked those questions here ;) "

Forgot where you were for a minute, didn't ya? You're damn right they're thieves. And that's the real problem with Open Source. It tries to be noble in a software industry that's more like organized crime than corporations whether it's by actual strongarm tactics or an army of lawyers churching out lawsuits and patent applicatins as fast as their secretaries can type. Now they get free code and get to charge the same ridiculous prices they always did. And yeah, when people get done patting yT on the back, their in the same boat. They get the BeOS code from Palm and Haiku code from that project plus some apps from Bebits...what exactly to yellowtab people do besides try and iron out bugs anyway?

Reply Score: 0