Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 4th Apr 2007 09:14 UTC, submitted by jeanmarc
Zeta For the first time in its 7 years of existence, some decent statement has been released concering the legality of Zeta. Access, the current owner of Be, Inc.'s IP, states: "We have sent 'cease and desist' letters to YellowTab on a number of occasions, which have been uniformly ignored. If Herr Korz feels that he holds a legitimate license to the BeOS code he's been using, we're completely unaware of it, and I'd be fascinated to see him produce any substantiation for that claim." Update: Bernd Korz has replied on his blog.
Order by: Score:
that's one side...
by mmu_man on Wed 4th Apr 2007 10:01 UTC
mmu_man
Member since:
2006-09-30

the other side I've been told is quite different. What I've been told without saying too much is more like Palm refused to abide by an agreement made before them, causing some longstanding... issues. Which would also explain they didn't want to comment on or claim it. I have no reason to doubt the faithfulness of ACCESS people, yet I have no reason either to constest that of someone who paid me for 1.5 year.

Edited 2007-04-04 10:04

Reply Score: 3

Then why...
by melkor on Wed 4th Apr 2007 10:02 UTC
melkor
Member since:
2006-12-16

Didn't they take legal action? A cease and desist letter isn't really make an effort to protect your IP...if this was a trademark issue, Access would have long since last any legal right to the BE trademarks...

Dave

PS I'm not a supporter or user of BeOS, nor am I fan of YellowTabs exceptionally bad methods of distributing this operating system...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Then why...
by Reiky on Wed 4th Apr 2007 10:11 UTC in reply to "Then why..."
Reiky Member since:
2005-07-07

RTFA...

Reply Score: 5

RE: Then why...
by atezun on Wed 4th Apr 2007 10:30 UTC in reply to "Then why..."
atezun Member since:
2005-07-06

But the fact of the matter is this isn't a trademark issue, it's about whether or not Bernd had the legal rights to distribute Zeta. If he doesn't then he has been effectively making a living off of lying to the entire BeOS community. This isn't about using BeOS's name and trademarks (which they actually didn't do) this is about effectively selling people something that Yellowtab did not own and they certainly gouged their customers for it. They had seven years to make their case that they had the rights to BeOS and the most we got out of them was a few sentences hidden away in their FAQ. The only thing to back Yellowtab's claims is the theory that they had an NDA, which to my knowledge has never been substantiated and everyone seems to know by secondhand knowledge. Colour me paranoid but why would a company sign an NDA that forbids them from claiming they have the legal rights to a product? I don't even think Commodore's management would have agreed to that. Despite having every reason to prove themselves to the community they continued to give off an air of shadiness with issues such as Gobe's claim Yellowtab wasn't paying them for Productive.

Furthermore, if you read the article ACCESS does give their reasons for not pursuing legal action. Though I don't necessarily completely agree with them, legal battles can end up very expensive and even more so if the company you're suing lacks the cash to pay up. Bernd had seven years to give the community a straight answer. In two news posts ACCESS has given far more information than anything that Bernd ever gave us. That says a lot to me.

Edited 2007-04-04 10:35

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Then why...
by biffuz on Wed 4th Apr 2007 13:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Then why..."
biffuz Member since:
2006-03-27

Actually, I've seen some NDAs that forbids you to claim that it exists. Sounds strange, but it's a quite common practice in industry, you can show it only when asked by a tribunal.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Then why...
by shykid on Wed 4th Apr 2007 14:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Then why..."
shykid Member since:
2007-02-22

I think you'd have to be a near fool to agree to one of those NDAs--at least in some cases. The Zeta project is a perfect example: all of the Zeta-retractors (including myself) said that, if Zeta was subject to an NDA, they would disclose that information. The concept of an NDA-on-an-NDA seemed so absurd and conspiracy-theoryish to me that I dismissed that being a possibility. I have since ate my words, but I still think all of the possible FUD resulting from a meta-NDA could cause a PR nightmare.

Edited 2007-04-04 14:24

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Then why...
by melkor on Thu 5th Apr 2007 06:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Then why..."
melkor Member since:
2006-12-16

You are correct of course, you've pretty much said what I wanted to say! I still think Access should have taken legal action against Mr Korz...

Dave

Reply Score: 1

twisting the license wording
by mikesum32 on Wed 4th Apr 2007 10:20 UTC
mikesum32
Member since:
2005-10-22

As far as I know, Bernd had some sort of agreement or contract (?NDA?) with someone at Be Inc.

I'm thinking that it was to distribute BeOS. Anyone remeber BeOS NG ? Anyway, through some sort of liberal reading of the contract, they decided to they could develop it on their own, later using leaked code.

Perhaps Bernd had some legal document, but it probably went beyond the scope of what he did. He didn't exactly instill confidence by keeping his mouth shut.

I seem to remember getting this info from looncraz, as it was his idea for PhOS, and he was associated with Bernd and Yellowtab in some way.

I was looking through my e-mail but couldn't find anything, so take it as hear-say until the facts emerge.

Reply Score: 2

RE: twisting the license wording
by mikesum32 on Sun 8th Apr 2007 00:24 UTC in reply to "twisting the license wording"
mikesum32 Member since:
2005-10-22

See Looncraz's post in the "Timeline of Zeta Developments" thread.

Reply Score: 1

Re: Then why...
by mikesum32 on Wed 4th Apr 2007 10:31 UTC
mikesum32
Member since:
2005-10-22

By melkor (1.93) on 2007-04-04 05:02:01 EST
Didn't they take legal action? A cease and desist letter isn't really make an effort to protect your IP...if this was a trademark issue, Access would have long since last any legal right to the BE trademarks...


Copyrights on the code, but remember Yellowtab didn't call it BeOS; they called it Zeta, so I'm pretty sure there wasn't much in the way of trademark infringement.

As far as I know, in the US anyway, copyright aren't lost if you fail to defend them.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Re: Then why...
by archiesteel on Wed 4th Apr 2007 17:57 UTC in reply to "Re: Then why..."
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

As far as I know, in the US anyway, copyright aren't lost if you fail to defend them.


That is correct. Copyright is automatic (i.e. you don't need to apply for it) and remains valid even if you fail to protect it for an extended period of time.

Trademarks, on the other hand, must be registered *and* actively defended, otherwise they can be lost.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Re: Then why...
by melkor on Thu 5th Apr 2007 06:48 UTC in reply to "Re: Then why..."
melkor Member since:
2006-12-16

I realise this, I was using the trademark as a pointed example of Access failing to protect their IP (including copyrights).

Dave

Reply Score: 1

The plot thickens!
by SReilly on Wed 4th Apr 2007 10:49 UTC
SReilly
Member since:
2006-12-28

So now that that is out in the open, I wonder if we will get a reply from Mr Korz. Frankly, Bernd's timing seems to be spot on, so much so that I wonder if this is another reason for Magnussoft dropping Zeta.

I'm glad that Mr Schlesinger is giving his whole hart support to Haiku and setting up healthy dialog. Who knows, Haiku could gain even more than the rights to publish the BeBook on they're site from Access.

The one thing that does worry me is what was said about BeOS Max. Although Access did not know of Max before the interview, Mr Schlesinger said that he would check it out. Considering what was said about derived works, Vasper could be getting a letter any day now.

It's a shame really, BeOS Max rocks and is currently the only BeOS implementation solid enough to use as an everyday system.

Reply Score: 5

RE: The plot thickens!
by mmu_man on Wed 4th Apr 2007 11:02 UTC in reply to "The plot thickens!"
mmu_man Member since:
2006-09-30

> Bernd's timing
Actually I just wondered the other way around, it's odd as well that this comes right at this time...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: The plot thickens!
by memson on Wed 4th Apr 2007 11:43 UTC in reply to "RE: The plot thickens!"
memson Member since:
2006-01-01

>> Bernd's timing
> Actually I just wondered the other way around, it's odd
> as well that this comes right at this time...

Not really. Magnussoft/yT/Bernd weren't talking about opensourcing the sourcecode before (and whatever that means in reality.) ACCESS have just jumped on the "opensource" part of the equation and have been pushed further to reveal more information by journalists asking more questions. After all, ACCESS have nothing to hide, it seems ;-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: The plot thickens!
by fyysik on Wed 4th Apr 2007 11:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The plot thickens!"
fyysik Member since:
2006-02-19

Agree, I tried to explain it to my friends in similar way. Problem is that opensourcing even innocent (for first look) codepieces may lead to copyright infridgement to much larger number of individuals and maybe companies. Like you cannot opensource some self-written media apps, if those use unpublished till now (and belonging to ACCESS) API.
So it may be really hard for Bernd even with big goodwill to opensource most of work done for Zeta - it may take too much time and efforts to estimate, which can and cannot to be published.

Reply Score: 1

RE: The plot thickens!
by Valhalla on Wed 4th Apr 2007 11:50 UTC in reply to "The plot thickens!"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

SReilly wrote:
-"The one thing that does worry me is what was said about BeOS Max. Although Access did not know of Max before the interview, Mr Schlesinger said that he would check it out. Considering what was said about derived works, Vasper could be getting a letter any day now."

yes, although I didn't quite follow this statement he made: "We realize no income from BeOS, and our belief at this point is that any money we could make from it would be vastly exceeded by the operational costs of doing so. The author of, for example, the Harry Potter books doesn't pursue infringement proceedings against the numerous writers of "fan fiction"--which are clear infringements--for pretty much identical reasons."

was he comparing Zeta to fan fiction in this context (considering that Beos Max hadn't been brought up)? that would be a strange comparison since Zeta was a commercial venture and fan fiction isn't. also it was a poor choice to use J.K Rowlings as an example, as she has stated that she loves fan fiction of all kinds.

anyway, while the fan fiction analogy doesn't really sit well with the Zeta situation, it somewhat does with Beos Max. however, since they haven't taken any legal action towards Zeta who was actually selling their intellectual property I doubt that Vasper needs to gear up with lawyers. that said, a cease and desist letter would likely put an end to any further Beos Max development.

as for Bernd Korz open sourcing the work done on Zeta. since Access stated that, any modifications made to an infringing version of BeOS are likewise infringements of our copyright. that is VERY unlikely to happen. however, drivers, ports and native applications such as the video editor would make a really nice gift to the 'community' and would help by casting a bit of positive light over the Zeta debacle.

pending any response from Bernd Korz, I hope that the statements made by Access finally ends the Zeta/Beos source code squabble once and for all. though I doubt it, since some people seem to live for that very subject...

Beos/Zeta is dead, long live Haiku.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: The plot thickens!
by fyysik on Wed 4th Apr 2007 11:55 UTC in reply to "RE: The plot thickens!"
fyysik Member since:
2006-02-19

" however, drivers, ports and native applications such as the video editor would make a really nice gift to the 'community' and would help by casting a bit of positive light over the Zeta debacle."

See my comment below your. If those use new/unpublished API - it is really really problematic.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: The plot thickens!
by Soulbender on Wed 4th Apr 2007 12:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The plot thickens!"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"If those use new/unpublished API - it is really really problematic."

Unless you have signed an NDA that prevents you from releasing sources there's no problem.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: The plot thickens!
by fyysik on Wed 4th Apr 2007 12:16 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The plot thickens!"
fyysik Member since:
2006-02-19

I meant rather danger for people to use later that API, gotten with unclean in legal sense way.

As you remember maybe, there were always problems with community-made media encoders/decoders in BeOS, as API for those weren't published for R5. Inspite it was available in un-official way.

Reply Score: 1

Bernd's silence and legal rights
by fyysik on Wed 4th Apr 2007 11:42 UTC
fyysik
Member since:
2006-02-19

I'm tend to think that all uncertainity in Bernd's public statements about rights to use (and more important - modify and use modified) source code was result of fear of BeOS community reaction.
With big probability he had rights to distribute some version of BeOS, maybe even gotten/bought indirectly, like from Koch Media, former german BeOS distributor, but no "rights to source". If he would say that directly to community, it would affect badly all that bussines, creating huge frustration in community of current and potential customers. Do you remember all that push

But, on another side, there might be gap between US and German IP laws (at time?), like "all is allowed what isn't explicitely forbidden). So, if his agreement about BeOS with somebody (Koch, Be Europe, Be Inc) had lack of explicit statement about source code etc, it could be interpreted in good for Zeta way.
So, Zeta might be legal in some way, and probably Bernd tried to follow that tricky path on razor's edge as long as he could.

Only question with this theory remains, what happened some time ago, when lot of sceptics after private converastion with Bernd were convinced that thing changed in better for Zeta ways. I remember for example comments of PegasOS developer and author of OsNews Nicholas Blachford here about his meeting with Bernd at one of BeGeistert.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: The plot thickens!
by mikesum32 on Wed 4th Apr 2007 12:21 UTC
mikesum32
Member since:
2005-10-22

I don't think APIs would get anyone in trouble or else WINE and ReactOS would've been stopped a long time ago, not to mention Haiku.

Reply Score: 1

RE: RE[5]: The plot thickens!
by fyysik on Wed 4th Apr 2007 12:27 UTC in reply to " RE[4]: The plot thickens!"
fyysik Member since:
2006-02-19

IMHO ReactOS and WINE do use official, published by owner, API.
Not the case for Dano API.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: RE[6]: The plot thickens!
by MYOB on Wed 4th Apr 2007 12:29 UTC in reply to "RE: RE[5]: The plot thickens!"
MYOB Member since:
2005-06-29

fyysik - WINE implements thousands of unpublished APIs. Hundreds of commercial apps use unpublished APIs. Theres nothing to prevent you open sourcing an app that uses unpublished APIs.

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

and that's not even counting the numerous reverse-engineered drivers for OSS operating systems.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: RE[7]: The plot thickens!
by Elektro on Wed 4th Apr 2007 12:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: RE[6]: The plot thickens!"
Elektro Member since:
2006-08-19

If you signed a NDA yes.

Reply Score: 1

Crouching Haiku, Hidden Source
by Vibe on Wed 4th Apr 2007 12:22 UTC
Vibe
Member since:
2007-03-12

Thanks for the article Thom. It helps provide clarity on many of the issues that have developed since BeOS collapse and suggests things may start coming together soon. The end of Bernd Korz fraudulent Zeta empire clears one big irritation, and Vasper's well meaning but illegal BeOS Max looks set to fade. Meanwhile, Haiku continues to move forward and has the blessing of Access. Well, that's been quite a week.

Reply Score: 4

Too fast to decide
by fyysik on Wed 4th Apr 2007 12:33 UTC in reply to "Crouching Haiku, Hidden Source"
fyysik Member since:
2006-02-19

Why you and people in previous news about Haiku here hate BeOS MAX so much? Try to read thread at Bits of News to the end at least first.

I see there that David in much more softer position about MAX now and even tries to advocate it (before proven to be guilty!) now:
Re: Re: Re: Re: ACCESS Confirms Zeta BeOS Version Infringing

Written by: David "Lefty" Schlesinger, 2007-04-04 11:10:59
"As I've said, I'm not prepared to make any statement vis a vis "BeOS Max". I'd need to investigate and have some discussions internally before I could make a concrete assessment and recommendation as to how this should be approached.

The fact that it's not for profit is a consideration; the apparent implication that this was accomplished (if I understand correctly) via reverse engineering rather than through illicitly-obtained source code is likewise a factor. I'll do my best to make an assessment of the situation there, but I want to be clear that I currently have no position, one way or the other, on this matter..."

Reply Score: 5

RE: Too fast to decide
by Soulbender on Wed 4th Apr 2007 12:40 UTC in reply to "Too fast to decide"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"The fact that it's not for profit is a consideration; the apparent implication that this was accomplished (if I understand correctly) via reverse engineering rather than through illicitly-obtained source code is likewise a factor. "

The MAX case is not about source code but about the fact that it violates the PE license agreement. Unless you have received a written agreement from the copyright holder you are not allowed to distribute copies of PE, even less so modified copies of it.
Considering MAX is not for profit ACCESS may let it slide though.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Too fast to decide
by SReilly on Wed 4th Apr 2007 12:49 UTC in reply to "Too fast to decide"
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

Thanks for posting that, fyysik! If I had any votes left, I'd vote ya up!

I was wondering how Mr. Schlesinger would react to Max. It would be a shame if Vasper was unable to continue his work as he has always given the impression he wants Haiku to succeed. I get the impression that, when haiku R1 comes out, Vasper will either discontinue Max or base any new versions on it.

Max is obviously a derived work but, given that it is a reverse engineered setup that uses software supplied with BeOS 5 PE (as well as some much needed patches) and that it's a non profit release, I really don't see why Mr. Schlesinger and Access would wont it shut down. It's not like Max competes with any of they're products.

Edited 2007-04-04 12:51 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Too fast to decide
by fyysik on Wed 4th Apr 2007 12:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Too fast to decide"
fyysik Member since:
2006-02-19

Vasper mentioned several times that he consulted with greek laywers, and Greece laws allow him to do his work.
It may be real case, aswell as interpretation of German laws which probably allowed Zeta to be afloat for long time, as I commented here before.
Difference is that Vasper stated explicitly, that this is local law specifics, which allows him to do so, wile Bernd was always more than uncertain:)

Another question is about distribution, e.g. from MAX mirrors in other countries. But that's not Vasper's problem but that of mirrors owners:)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Too fast to decide
by Soulbender on Wed 4th Apr 2007 13:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Too fast to decide"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"Vasper mentioned several times that he consulted with greek laywers, and Greece laws allow him to do his work."

Unless Greece totally lacks copyright laws that it is, to put it bluntly, bull.
Even if the PE license hadn't stated it you are STILL not allowed to distribute others work without permission.
If I write a book and give you a copy of it it is sure as hell not your right to make copies of it and give them away.

Reply Score: 3

fyysik Member since:
2006-02-19

In such strong wording, as you use, we should at least send letters of "cease and desist" to ALL THAT PEOPLE who distribute (e.g. via BeBits or BeShare) even unmodified BeOS PE version.
Not to say about other PE-based distribution with "added values" here and there.

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"In such strong wording, as you use, we should at least send letters of "cease and desist" to ALL THAT PEOPLE who distribute (e.g. via BeBits or BeShare) even unmodified BeOS PE version."

*We* should do no such thing, it's up to ACCESS. I doubt they bother though.

"Not to say about other PE-based distribution with "added values" here and there."

Abandonware does not exist in the eyes of the law. If you distribute PE you ARE violating copyright law. I'm not saying anyone should be tried in court or shut down, simply stating the fact that it is a violation.
It's naive to pretend it's not.

Reply Score: 3

fyysik Member since:
2006-02-19

That may be "true", but i have to mention that:
legal issues are very tricky and complicated, especially in IP field and especially in international context. That's why those non-ending battles happen and why army of lawyers had its "bread and butter".
For example, IP license in form of EULA may have no real power in some countries. I'm recalling that case for Finland.
And also "internation law" is actually non-existing thing - this is enforcable only by accepting by state as subject agreements, differently from national law which is enforceable by default.
That means than nor soulblender neither fyysik can decide, what is legal where and at which case, and what isn't - this is actually matter of two-side negotiations, one of those is subject claiming to be IP owner...and you see, if you have eyes, that representative of IP owner figures that fact very well, why he was so modest in his words about case in discussion.

Edited 2007-04-04 13:58

Reply Score: 1

memson Member since:
2006-01-01

> In such strong wording, as you use, we should at least
> send letters of "cease and desist" to ALL THAT PEOPLE
> who distribute (e.g. via BeBits or BeShare) even
> unmodified BeOS PE version.

It's is not, I repeat NOT, illegal to distribute PE. It IS illegal to distribute a derrived work based on PE without ACCESS's permission/license.

PE was freely downloadable from Be's FTP server right up till the day they closed it. So long as you use it in a virtual partition and don't try to install it to your harddrive it's completely legal to own, distribute and use.

Reply Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"It's is not, I repeat NOT, illegal to distribute PE."

Oh yes it is. You should read the license that comes with PE. It spells it out quite clearly and even if it didn't you would still need permission from the copyright holder. Just because they give/gave it away that doesn't mean you are allowed to make copies and give it away.
Of course, this is all rather moot unless ACCESS cares.

Edited 2007-04-04 14:28

Reply Score: 2

fyysik Member since:
2006-02-19

Soulbender wrote:
1)"Unless you have received a written agreement from the copyright holder you are not allowed to distribute copies of PE, even less so modified copies of it." - so discuss it with him, not me.

2)I looked at my PE distro and didn't notice any explicit restriction about installing it onto real partition in bundled texts. Can you help me with explicit quote from your PE version which forbids that action?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Too fast to decide
by BurningShadow on Wed 4th Apr 2007 13:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Too fast to decide"
BurningShadow Member since:
2006-09-07

"Unless Greece totally lacks copyright laws that it is, to put it bluntly, bull."

I don't know Greece law, but what if it is legal in Greece, because it's a discontinued product, and the copyright holder isn't selling it anymore?

I doubt that myself, but it *might* be how it's legal...

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Too fast to decide
by EsoX on Wed 4th Apr 2007 16:15 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Too fast to decide"
EsoX Member since:
2005-08-21

In short: The applicable international legislation in place is the Berne convention and the TRIPS. Both these regulations allow a number of exceptions from absolute CR protection that countries can implement in national legislation, if they wish, without violating their international obligations. One typical example of exceptions are the so called "compulsory licenses". These can come as something you have to apply for with some agency or simply use without applying, to publish a work that is not being worked on the market by the respective CR-holder.

Without looking and the facts of the individual case and national legislation nothing much more can be said.

Best wishes to you all.

Edited 2007-04-04 16:20

Reply Score: 2

Long Live BeOS
by locohijo on Wed 4th Apr 2007 12:47 UTC
locohijo
Member since:
2006-01-03

With the recent spur of news on BeOS/Zeta/Haiku, ACCESS should get the idea that there still are people who would want to see BeOS comes back. I know that there are lots of things to take into account like development cost, etc., but seeing how much interest current/ex Be user still have with their fave OS, it is definitely worth some thinking for ACCESS to bring BeOS back.

Not to mention, those people who are sick with the security issues on Windows, doesn't want to learn Linux and wouldn't want to buy an Apple machine just to run OS X -- these people are the potential switchers.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Long Live BeOS
by shykid on Wed 4th Apr 2007 13:31 UTC in reply to "Long Live BeOS"
shykid Member since:
2007-02-22

I agree with you completely--there's a gaping hole in the OS market just waiting to be filled with something like BeOS/Haiku, and it's disappointing to see that hole still unfilled.

If nothing else, I think ACCESS should release the BeOS code to the Haiku project. I don't see how they have any money to lose in that if they're not going to continue BeOS or give someone else permission to do so. It's true there could be portions of BeOS code licensed from other companies, but in that case they could just release the code that's not licensed.

Edited 2007-04-04 13:34

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Long Live BeOS
by justin.68 on Wed 4th Apr 2007 16:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Long Live BeOS"
justin.68 Member since:
2006-09-16

Same thing as I thought. Why keep tons of code locked up in a safe and do nothing with it? A few years more and all they'll be able to do is print some listings and cut out some nice origami.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Long Live BeOS
by wattsm on Wed 4th Apr 2007 22:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Long Live BeOS"
wattsm Member since:
2005-08-19

With all due respect, I think you're vastly overestimating the size of that "gaping hole waiting to be filled."

I actually joined the Be developer's program around the time of Preview Release 2, and ran all of the Intel versions--from version 4.5 on, as my only operating system, up until the time it was clear that BeOS wasn't going to recover from the BeIA fiasco. (For me, that time was when Gobe announced that Productive 3 would be Windows-only.) I don't relay this just to show geek credentials, but to show that I actually do have a pretty deep understanding of what BeOS was; a lot of the OS's current critics are very clearly talking out of their butts. ;)

What was most revolutionary about BeOS, I'd argue, was the speed and responsiveness. On the same hardware, it felt much faster than Windows and Linux. There were some great ideas beyond that, obviously--the query-able metadata in the filesystem is something I still miss, and the architecture of the underlying media system allowed you to do things that are still absent or clunky on other OSes (things like inserting programs as "filters" in the A/V processing chain, or setting audio levels on a per-application basis). But it was the way it made your hardware feel twice as fast that was amazing. BeOS was designed to be very low-latency in a way no other system was.

But even back then, I figured Be probably had a fairly short window to capitalize on that lead, which they failed to do. Simply put, BeOS's biggest threat was never Microsoft or Apple. It was Moore's Law. The speed advantages BeOS could bring in software elegance could--and inevitably were--also brought by simple hardware brute force.

But wait! you might say. Software that runs twice as fast on old machines still runs twice as fast on new machines, so it's still an advantage! Well, only on paper. The latency difference between 15ms and 30ms is significant--but the latency difference between 1.5ms and 3.0ms, not so much. (And also, of course, other operating systems have been actively developed over the last seven years. Other than additional drivers and tweaks to keep running on modern hardware, none of the BeOS clones, including Zeta, can really say that.)

Don't get me wrong; I think Haiku is a very cool project. Maybe Access can work with them in some fashion to get (legal) access to BeOS source code. But that window of opportunity that was open for BeOS back in 1999--to capture a small but significant part of the "creatives" market, focusing on A/V media the way the original Mac focused on print and design--isn't open anymore, and BeOS doesn't have the breadth of applications that make Linux a good choice for running on "last generation" machines to keep them going. New people who come to Haiku are likely to come to it because they're self-proclaimed "OS geeks," but the not-so-techie creative types aren't going to be there. There's just no reason.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Long Live BeOS
by Bending Unit on Wed 4th Apr 2007 14:50 UTC in reply to "Long Live BeOS"
Bending Unit Member since:
2005-07-06

What makes you think BeOS is more secure than Vista?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Long Live BeOS
by locohijo on Wed 4th Apr 2007 17:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Long Live BeOS"
locohijo Member since:
2006-01-03

Well, with the current state of BeOS now it is less secure than that of Vista as the latter is being actively maintained.

But back in time, while there have been some forms of virii under BeOS, the numbers is still minute compared to that of Windows and these Windows virii, given the perfect chance can and will still infect Vista.

Reply Score: 1

OMG
by Elektro on Wed 4th Apr 2007 12:48 UTC
Elektro
Member since:
2006-08-19

Years later BE finds out that there is a product called Zeta which apparently serves the same plattform...

Reply Score: 1

never mind the legal crap..
by marcof on Wed 4th Apr 2007 12:56 UTC
marcof
Member since:
2005-08-02

What about the people who've spent money on Zeta, and are now left without any support or prospect of future releases. I'd get together as a group and sue the crap out of Yt and Magnussoft, if possible. Get your money back people.

Well, I guess the real name for ZetaOS should have been SeppukuOS..

Reply Score: 4

RE: never mind the legal crap..
by plfiorini on Wed 4th Apr 2007 13:03 UTC in reply to "never mind the legal crap.."
plfiorini Member since:
2005-06-30

I even paid form a Zeta release and never got a damn CD-ROM!! That was before magnussoft distribution.
May Zeta rust in peace.

Reply Score: 1

Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

I paid 100 Euros for Zeta 1.0 + T-Shirt, never received anything. After more than one year, I contacted them, they asked me to send another 15 Euros to get 1.1, which once arrived appeared not to work with my Athlon XP 1700+ (1.5 GB DDR) and still no T-Shirt bundled (but at this point I don't care anymore about the T-Shirt)...

Kochise

Edited 2007-04-04 13:53

Reply Score: 1

RE: never mind the legal crap..
by SReilly on Wed 4th Apr 2007 13:19 UTC in reply to "never mind the legal crap.."
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

...I'd get together as a group and sue the crap out of Yt and Magnussoft, if possible. Get your money back people.

Now that would be cool. The only problem that I see with that situation is that it's really on Bernd's head, not Magnussoft, and he would probably declare bankruptcy. I really doubt the guy has all that much money. Still, it would be justice done if Bernd did not get away with it.

Reply Score: 3

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"Still, it would be justice done if Bernd did not get away with it."

I think honestly you should let it rest.
1, we don't know if he did it in bad faith.
2, you're down maybe $100 individually, he'd be down for a very long time.
3, He *did* employ a good number of BeOS developers who not only wrote code for Zeta but also for Haiku.

I dislike Zeta/YT as much as the next guy but that doesn't mean I want to see Bernd ruined.

Reply Score: 5

SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

I think honestly you should let it rest.

Although I see where you are coming from, and agree for the most part with what you are saying, it's really not my call. I never bought Zeta simply because I didn't want to give Bernd any validity. If, on the other hand, a class action ensued, I can hardly say it's not fair.

Sure, most people are only out 100 but the fact does remain that Bernt has only been allowed to continue with Zeta unchallenged because of a legal loophole. Using that as his basis, he defrauded not only his customers but also the rightful owner of the IP that he was distributing. Don't get me wrong, I'm not the world's greatest fan of IP (I think that as a concept, it's an oxymoron) but no matter my feelings on the subject, fraud is still fraud.

we don't know if he did it in bad faith.

Again, very true but that seem less likely when Mr Schlesinger stated that Access had sent out several letters without reply.

Reply Score: 2

fyysik Member since:
2006-02-19

It seems there are big problems with email communication at YT,

Bernd didn't answer any of my e-mail as BeZilla main developer at time, while communicated more or less successfully with me at IRC:)

Maybe they have super-spam-trash there, where all email come directly into (those from ACCESS incl.), except very few ones in white list:)

Reply Score: 1

mmu_man Member since:
2006-09-30

indeed the pop server (which used to be that of 1und1) was really crappy and very often wouldn't accept my password...

Reply Score: 1

ormandj Member since:
2005-10-09

I think honestly you should let it rest.
1, we don't know if he did it in bad faith.
2, you're down maybe $100 individually, he'd be down for a very long time.
3, He *did* employ a good number of BeOS developers who not only wrote code for Zeta but also for Haiku.

I dislike Zeta/YT as much as the next guy but that doesn't mean I want to see Bernd ruined.


1. I'll withhold my personal opinion and feelings on him, as I'm (unfortunately) not able to read minds, but right now - all signs point to "bad faith/cheat/scam". I'll wait for his "statement". (Hah!)

2. If he did this knowingly, GOOD. If it was unintentional, ignorance is still not an excuse. I can't use any WW2 examples without being threatened, so here's a different one. Let's say somebody gives me a car, and tells me I can drive it. I have no written agreement, just their word. Now, I can drive that car - and hope the person doesn't change their mind and call the police concerning a stolen car.

Furthermore, with the understanding that it's ok for me to drive the car, they also tell me I can drive other people too. I think to myself, hey, great, I can make some money driving people around! So I start driving other folks around in the car.

The guy who originally told me it was ok to drive/drive others around dies. Then his son dies. Now all that's left is his grandson. I never bother to go make sure it's still ok for me to drive the car, and I ignore all communication from the grandson asking me to give back the car. I keep charging people to ride around in it. Does anybody see an issue here?

What's worse - in this case - not only was there a service involved (car rides) - but a product. Now, people who purchased that product, have just been informed even though they shelled out money for it - they cannot legally use it - because they technically never legally owned it, since the seller never had legal rights to sell/distribute it!

I'm sorry, but ignorance or malice, Bernd has really screwed over a lot of people.

3. So, if I setup a website selling babies and make lots of money from it and employ some developers to write code for Haiku, that makes my operation "ok"? No, not at all. Oh, sorry, making exaggerated analogies again. This time it's not a reference to WW2 so maybe I'll be ok...

If Bernd carried this out with malice, he deserves to be ruined. If this was the result of ignorance, then he should face the consequences of his actions, not be let off the hook while thousands of people get screwed out of hundreds of dollars/euros. Just because each individual case isn't "much" (to some people - it is) - doesn't make the overall deed something to overlook.

He went into business, he made a profit, he should have researched things fully and properly - due diligence is required when you start a business and start to sell a product to people. If the legality is questionable, or you don't understand the terms - a lawyer consultation should have been #1 on the list of "todo". Obviously it wasn't, now he's claiming he's got to go talk to a lawyer to figure this out. It's a little late for that, Bernd.

Reply Score: 4

yahya Member since:
2007-03-29

If you are right and Bernd Korz really screwed up people by selling them something that he did not own, then, ACCESS, by maintaining silence over the issue for a number of years has, to put it drastically, made itself complicit in a crime.

If all is as you put it, it would have been the damn duty of ACCESS to go public and warn people that they are getting ripped off.

Why didn't they do it? What would it have cost them?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: never mind the legal crap..
by Vibe on Wed 4th Apr 2007 13:37 UTC in reply to "RE: never mind the legal crap.."
Vibe Member since:
2007-03-12

Now that would be cool. The only problem that I see with that situation is that it's really on Bernd's head, not Magnussoft, and he would probably declare bankruptcy. I really doubt the guy has all that much money. Still, it would be justice done if Bernd did not get away with it.

Bernd Korz looks wide open for a criminal prosecution for mass distribution of copyright infringing work, and fraudulently taking investors and customers for a few million Euros. He's still living in a large castle and seems to have plenty of money to spend on renovating it.

This reminds me of the Robert Maxwell pension fraud scandal. He abused the law, had a charismatic and bullying ego, and lived in a castle. People may not get much back but it may help people shut the door on this sorry episode and look towards the future.

Haiku is going strong and Access seem keen. Whether a prosecution happens or not, the seeds of something credible have been planted. Success has many friends, losers have none. Bernd Korz gambled other peoples shirts and lost, but the future still looks brighter than ever.

Edited 2007-04-04 13:38

Reply Score: 3

RE: never mind the legal crap..
by stew on Wed 4th Apr 2007 13:30 UTC in reply to "never mind the legal crap.."
stew Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't think anyone here paid for the prospect of future releases. No one ever promised that, so I doubt you could sue anyone for that.

Support - I haven't seen any statement that would claim that there is no more support available. Magnussoft announced to continue distributing Zeta until the end of 2007.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: never mind the legal crap..
by yahya on Thu 5th Apr 2007 16:37 UTC in reply to "RE: never mind the legal crap.."
yahya Member since:
2007-03-29

Support would include security and maintenance updates. Now these will certainly not be available after the dismissal of the complete dev team.

Reply Score: 1

Max is really a minumum threat
by GCrain on Wed 4th Apr 2007 13:59 UTC
GCrain
Member since:
2005-07-11

I think the whole BeOSMax thing gets pretty overblown. While under the strick definition, it most certainly violates some copyrights, but it is basically a service pack to keep BeOS running on newer hardware. There are no sales, no money being exchanged.
There would be no Max edition if PalmSource, or ACCCESS would have released a bug-fix update so Be would run on newer computers.
Also, a lot of people, myself included have already purchased the original BeOS Pro. I use the Max edition simply for ease of updates.
It will be interesting to see what ACCESS does with the MAX edition; let it slide since it is a labor of love for Beos users. It is not meant to take over the os world and make money like some others wanted to do.
It does appear that ACCESS is a decent company that does support BeOS users. The BeBook release confirms this.

Reply Score: 1

I said it all along...
by shykid on Wed 4th Apr 2007 14:05 UTC
shykid
Member since:
2007-02-22

Now, you'd have to be completely brain dead to not see Zeta for sham that it is. That is, unless Bernd's keeping something (the elusive Be "NDA") up his sleeve, but I highly doubt he is.

Reply Score: 2

Maybe time to
by korpenkraxar on Wed 4th Apr 2007 14:12 UTC
korpenkraxar
Member since:
2005-09-10

buy some ACCESS stocks if they start to realize their potential :-)

Reply Score: 1

Code Leak
by brewmastre on Wed 4th Apr 2007 14:19 UTC
brewmastre
Member since:
2006-08-01

So who things Bernd/yellowTab will go out with a bang and leak BeOS/Zeta to the world? I'm not a big proponent of leaked code, but it could definitely pursuade Access to opensource it once they lose control over the code. Regardless of what happens to BeOS/Zeta, I'm glad to see the Haiku team making so much headway. They are doing a truly awesome job!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Code Leak
by memson on Wed 4th Apr 2007 14:26 UTC in reply to "Code Leak"
memson Member since:
2006-01-01

Dude, the BeOS code was already leaked in 2001 (as well documented at the time.) All of it. How else did a version of Dano end up being released a couple of years ago for PowerPC? It didn't come from Palmsource and it certainly didn't come from Yellowtab...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Code Leak
by lopisaur on Wed 4th Apr 2007 14:35 UTC in reply to "Code Leak"
lopisaur Member since:
2006-02-27

You mean like the Windows 2000 source code leak forced Microsoft to open-source Windows?
Gimme a break

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Code Leak
by brewmastre on Wed 4th Apr 2007 15:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Code Leak"
brewmastre Member since:
2006-08-01

lopisaur:
You mean like the Windows 2000 source code leak forced Microsoft to open-source Windows?
Gimme a break

Vibe:
The Half-Life 2 source is in the wild but is useless. There isn't anyone who'd go near you if you tried to use it, and using it would be a great way to annoy people you might like to have on board.


Well, those are good examples, but they are also production/commercial pieces of software. Official BeOS development is dormant, why would Access fight that hard to keep BeOS code protected unless they have plans for it that they're not telling us? Owning someone else's IP is pointless unless you have plans for, and as far as I can tell, Palm/Access is planning on reviving the BeIA.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Code Leak
by vasper on Wed 4th Apr 2007 15:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Code Leak"
vasper Member since:
2005-07-22

It seems to me quite logical to own the IP to the worlds best file system, the worlds best media system and the worlds fastest kernel without calling any product you make using it Be(something).

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Code Leak
by Vibe on Wed 4th Apr 2007 15:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Code Leak"
Vibe Member since:
2007-03-12

It seems to me quite logical to own the IP to the worlds best file system, the worlds best media system and the worlds fastest kernel without calling any product you make using it Be(something).

It may make sense from a narrow perspective but runs foul of peoples trademarks. Once Haiku get their head around these issues, maybe, a Haiku Max could be a good thing. In any case, a "Vasper Max" that's "Haiku logo compliant" might be a good thing in any case.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Code Leak
by vasper on Wed 4th Apr 2007 15:45 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Code Leak"
vasper Member since:
2005-07-22

... I meant it makes sense for the people that own the IP and the trademarks to make use of them as they see fit, even if they don't use the trademarks... It wasn't about Max.

Also, "HaikuMax" distro is the name for recognition, so that you know you are talking about the BeOS Max/Haiku implementation not the official name. The official name is WalterOS. Until I decide to change it to anything else and if Haiku doesn't ban the use of Haiku, then "HaikuMax" is a candidate name. Not the offical name....

siiisssh....

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Code Leak
by Vibe on Wed 4th Apr 2007 16:09 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Code Leak"
Vibe Member since:
2007-03-12

Also, "HaikuMax" distro is the name for recognition, so that you know you are talking about the BeOS Max/Haiku implementation not the official name. The official name is WalterOS. Until I decide to change it to anything else and if Haiku doesn't ban the use of Haiku, then "HaikuMax" is a candidate name. Not the offical name....

You seem aware of the issues. One thing I would recommend is you read up on branding. Then there's the issue of focus. I'm no big fan of kitchen sink distributions. They're just too bloated. One thing I would like to see is a distribution that just adds in best of breed core applications. Stuff that gets the job done and is interface compliant. I can see the Dell's of this world going for that.

Edited 2007-04-04 16:10

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Code Leak
by Vibe on Wed 4th Apr 2007 15:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Code Leak"
Vibe Member since:
2007-03-12

Well, those are good examples, but they are also production/commercial pieces of software. Official BeOS development is dormant, why would Access fight that hard to keep BeOS code protected unless they have plans for it that they're not telling us? Owning someone else's IP is pointless unless you have plans for, and as far as I can tell, Palm/Access is planning on reviving the BeIA.

Doesn't matter whether it's useless or not. It's a question of the law, and someone somewhere does own the rights, which they may realise at some point in the future. I know people can get muddled over legal and ownership issues but until a copyright expires someone can sit on something for as long as they like.

It may be possible that the great design of BeOS and market demand is enough to encourage Haiku and Access to come to an agreement we can all get behind. Personally, I see Haiku as a real alternative to OS X and Windows. Who knows, it may stimulate porting of a few key applications and get some major IHV support.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Code Leak
by Vibe on Wed 4th Apr 2007 14:39 UTC in reply to "Code Leak"
Vibe Member since:
2007-03-12

So who things Bernd/yellowTab will go out with a bang and leak BeOS/Zeta to the world? I'm not a big proponent of leaked code, but it could definitely pursuade Access to opensource it once they lose control over the code.

The Half-Life 2 source is in the wild but is useless. There isn't anyone who'd go near you if you tried to use it, and using it would be a great way to annoy people you might like to have on board.

Reply Score: 1

About Max
by vasper on Wed 4th Apr 2007 14:38 UTC
vasper
Member since:
2005-07-22

ACCESS has every right to ask me to stop the development of BeOS Max. The PE license might not be valid in Greece, but I will respect their decision if they feel I should not continue distributing BeOS Max. I had in the past tried to get permission from Palm for the distribution of modified PE, but they never replied. I have now made the same call to ACCESS. If they choose to respond with a yes, so much the better.

In any case, a HaikuMax distro will be coming...

Reply Score: 5

RE: About Max
by Vibe on Wed 4th Apr 2007 14:46 UTC in reply to "About Max"
Vibe Member since:
2007-03-12

In any case, a HaikuMax distro will be coming...

Haiku should add a restriction to their source license to stop people using the Haiku name without a proper licensing agreement. Taking out trademarks internationally is very expensive and this would be a cheap way of stopping people watering down the Haiku brand. Call it Vasper Max for all I care but Haiku Max doesn't get me in a good mood.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: About Max
by mmu_man on Wed 4th Apr 2007 14:51 UTC in reply to "RE: About Max"
mmu_man Member since:
2006-09-30

Like the one that forces the port of Firefox to not be named Firefox ? pfff

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: About Max
by Vibe on Wed 4th Apr 2007 15:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: About Max"
Vibe Member since:
2007-03-12

Like the one that forces the port of Firefox to not be named Firefox ? pfff

Don't care about Firefox. The issue is that Haiku remain independent and not turn into fork hell by a load of crap distributions from scuzzballs and attention seekers. Want Haiku? Get Haiku. Anything else is just people wanting a free ride.

It's the same with OpenGL and Java. If you want to claim your implementation is OpenGL or Java you've got to pass the conformancy tests. The benefit to investors, vendors, and customers is they know what they're getting into. And that matters.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[4]: About Max
by bryanv on Wed 4th Apr 2007 20:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: About Max"
RE[5]: About Max
by petterhj on Wed 4th Apr 2007 20:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: About Max"
petterhj Member since:
2005-08-19

It pisses in the face of everything that was BeOS.

In fact, I think I would say I agree here. *Every* new person that wants to try BeOS gets directed to "BeOS Max", which is sad. Max IMHO is moving away from what BeOS was/is.

It has the patches yes, but those can easily be obtained anyway. What you get instead is a *lot* of bloat and an altered look.

I don't think Haiku aims to be _just_ a _base_ system for a given distro to build upon! Haiku will include the basic yes, but you can easily tailor it to your needs! I don't see the problem with that.

I hope we don't need to see this distro mess in the Haiku world. The best would be if all could work together providing apps/drivers instead of moving in separate directions!

Edited 2007-04-04 20:56

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: About Max
by fyysik on Wed 4th Apr 2007 21:09 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: About Max"
fyysik Member since:
2006-02-19

I added -1 to PetterHJ for agressive ignorance.
There was MiniMax distribution made by same person, including patches not bloat. Bit larger than original PE.
There was always choice in that, and blaiming someone's work (with doing nothing byself - even to clarify situation for self) is not that best way to behave.

I personally directed lot of beginners to MiniMax, and also "BigMax" entry on bebits had link to that minimalistic distro.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: About Max
by petterhj on Wed 4th Apr 2007 21:23 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: About Max"
petterhj Member since:
2005-08-19

There was always choice in that, and blaiming someone's work (with doing nothing byself - even to clarify situation for self) is not that best way to behave.

I don't think you know anything about what I've done in this manner. I haven't made my own distro, your right about that!

In Haiku "patches" won't be an excuse to say that distros is a good thing - in my eyes they aren't. Haiku is collaborative work. Everyone making distros won't help a thing. And why do people feel the need to make distros? Distros seems in my eyes somewhat narcissistic. I'm not saying Vasper is. It may be that he maintains BeOS Max to help people out trying BeOS, and he should be honored for that.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: About Max
by vitae on Thu 5th Apr 2007 04:07 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: About Max"
vitae Member since:
2006-02-20

On the contrary. BeOSmax is perfect for people who are complete noobs to BeOS. Easy to install and includes a variety of apps to try out. Beginners aren't going to want to go through the hassles of messing with PE and then going and downloading a bunch of apps off BeBits which they may not even know about and which they probably don't have the patience to browse through especially considering that half the apps are abandoned by their creators. BeOSmax saves the beginner a whole lot of trouble.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: About Max
by Luposian on Wed 4th Apr 2007 20:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: About Max"
Luposian Member since:
2005-07-27

I downloaded BeOS MAX v3 awhile ago and installed it. I, too, was surprised by how much "stuff" was in it... everything but the kitchen sink!

However, I have noticed one thing in particular... GLTeapot runs NOTICABLY faster in BeOS MAX than in BeOS R5 PE (WIND Distro, which is what I use) or BeOS R5 PE, or Haiku. Something around 120+ fps, when my system gets around 90-109fps.

What is BeOS MAX doing (or what is enabled) that improves software OpenGL so significantly? Tell me what I need to do to get that boost in my Wind distro or Haiku. Please!

To call BeOS MAX such a derogatory title as "$hitware" is quite excessive, in my opinion. To me, BeOS, in ANY incarnation (no matter HOW much stuff is included) doesn't deserve to be called off so disparagingly.

I, personally, would rather have a lean, efficient, fast install of BeOS R5 PE and go looking for the stuff I *WANT* added to it. I think the very least that should be included/enabled is the patches that allow it to run on modern hardware. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Calling BeOS MAX "$hitware" makes you sound more like you hate BeOS, period, than just that you don't like that particular "distro".

Vasper is to be congratulated for his efforts... not beaten down. He's trying to make our lives easier, but having everything at our fingertips.

Do you ram your car into a Boy Scout helping a little old lady across the street, because the light is green and you still have to wait til he's gotten across with her? That's about the equivilent of your insult, concerning BeOS MAX.

Edited 2007-04-04 20:58

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: About Max
by petterhj on Wed 4th Apr 2007 21:01 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: About Max"
petterhj Member since:
2005-08-19

GLTeapot runs NOTICABLY faster in BeOS MAX than in BeOS R5 PE (WIND Distro, which is what I use) or BeOS R5 PE

For gods sake. BeOS Max *IS* BeOS R5 PE (only with 3rd party drivers/apps/patches). If it runs faster it has nothing to do with any changes made to the *system* itself. It's solely based on BeOS R5 PE by Be Inc.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: About Max
by Luposian on Wed 4th Apr 2007 21:18 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: About Max"
Luposian Member since:
2005-07-27

Then what is being done differently? I run my normal BeOS install, I get 90-109fps. I run BeOS MAX (Live CD, mind you) and I get around 115-120fps. Same system. What does BeOS MAX have that I don't? I want it, that's all!

Word is, enabling SSE instructions can give you that kinda boost, but I have yet to figure out (or be shown) how to do it on my system with my other install (Wind distro; no longer available, but has quite a bit less "stuff" in it).

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: About Max
by Vibe on Wed 4th Apr 2007 21:10 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: About Max"
Vibe Member since:
2007-03-12

I, personally, would rather have a lean, efficient, fast install of BeOS R5 PE and go looking for the stuff I *WANT* added to it. I think the very least that should be included/enabled is the patches that allow it to run on modern hardware. Nothing more. Nothing less.

That's a sound enough view. BeOS PE and BeOS (warzed to the) MAX is a bit like the difference between a retail version of Windows and some of the awful vendor versions that have been shipped. Mostly, you'd have to strip it all out and put something worth having on. That's a hassle and amateurish.

I've already said what I'd like to see in a future effort by Vasper based on Haiku, and the same applies here. Most people just want the OS to work out of the box and core best of breed applications. Apple does very well on that basis. The kitchen sink distributions are for the script kiddie brigade.

Vasper can do what he wants but mainstream take up of Haiku is where it's at. Most people just want browsing, email and newsgroups, office applications, image editing, archive and a few other tools like, say, a database server. The rest is noise.

Edited 2007-04-04 21:11

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: About Max
by JPisini on Wed 4th Apr 2007 20:58 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: About Max"
JPisini Member since:
2006-01-24

Where is your BeOS based distro or documentation that you wrote explaining how to setup BeOS for new users? Don't put down Vasper just because you don't care for his implementation make your own.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: About Max
by petterhj on Wed 4th Apr 2007 21:08 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: About Max"
petterhj Member since:
2005-08-19

Don't put down Vasper just because you don't care for his implementation make your own.

I don't think anyone is trying to put him down personally. I for one is just afraid of this distro mess we see in the Linux world where everybody works in separate directions instead of working together.

Where is your BeOS based distro or documentation that you wrote explaining how to setup BeOS for new users?

It should maybe be more accessible yes, and maybe a pre-patched BeOS R5 PE is the way to go, but calling it a distro and distance it from what BeOS was is something different.

Edited 2007-04-04 21:10

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: About Max
by vasper on Wed 4th Apr 2007 14:56 UTC in reply to "RE: About Max"
vasper Member since:
2005-07-22

Actually vibe the name of the "Haiku Max" distro is WalterOS. In any case, if Haiku states that all derived work or Distroes should not use the part Haiku, I will do so.

Firefox only forbids unfinished (unstable) ports being named Firefox.

Edited 2007-04-04 15:00

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: About Max
by fyysik on Wed 4th Apr 2007 15:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: About Max"
fyysik Member since:
2006-02-19

"Firefox only forbids unfinished (unstable) ports being named Firefox."
That was more tricky, IIRC. There was also topic of unpublished/unavailable modification of FF. Even if FF-codebased software seems stable/finished.

MPL allows almost unrestricted use of codebase, but FF trademark puts restriction of name use.

Origin of that restriction (IIRC) is that Mozilla don't wish FF trademark to be compromised from derivative work which code isn't reviewable for security issues.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: About Max
by rabyte on Wed 4th Apr 2007 23:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: About Max"
rabyte Member since:
2005-06-29

Firefox only forbids unfinished (unstable) ports being named Firefox.

Actually every individual Firefox port needs to be approved by Mozilla before being allowed to bear the official name and logo, including every subsequent release of that respective port. It's a pretty strict "security clearance"-mechanism. That's why the Debian people rebranded the Mozilla applications.

Reply Score: 3

the other side...
by mmu_man on Wed 4th Apr 2007 14:49 UTC
mmu_man
Member since:
2006-09-30
RE: the other side...
by fyysik on Wed 4th Apr 2007 14:54 UTC in reply to "the other side..."
fyysik Member since:
2006-02-19

Good. Now it is really topic more for lawyers and for sides who really knows what lies behind:)

Hope we also get some real clarification, but that isn't obligatory anymore, i think:)

Reply Score: 1

RE: the other side...
by memson on Wed 4th Apr 2007 14:54 UTC in reply to "the other side..."
memson Member since:
2006-01-01

That's pretty vague. Bernd on top form again ;-)

Reply Score: 2

Stop the Bernd bashing...
by _yc_ on Wed 4th Apr 2007 16:15 UTC
_yc_
Member since:
2007-04-03

The fact that Access is not aware of YellowTab's license and has sent them notice to stop development does not necessarily mean that YellowTab does not have a license. It may not be worth it for YellowTab to contest at this point because Haiku is almost out and YT could base Zeta on Haiku if they wanted to.

In my view YellowTab made an effort to keep BeOS alive. I for one appreciate that effort and bought into Zeta including the 1.21 version.

Bernd probably lost money on YellowTab and Zeta. I hope Bernd makes what ever code they developed available to the Haiku folks if they wish to use it. (Drivers, Security, Media stuff, UI and Shareware apps, Translator s etc...)

I personally thank Bernd and the YellowTab team for their efforts in keeping BeOS alive and wish them well.

ciao
yc

Reply Score: 3

fyysik Member since:
2006-02-19

YT isn't existing for long time for now:)
So it cannot base anything on Haiku or whatelse:)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Stop the Bernd bashing...
by Lefty on Fri 6th Apr 2007 06:11 UTC in reply to "Stop the Bernd bashing..."
Lefty Member since:
2007-04-05

There would seem to be two possibilities here: either (as we believe) Mr. Korz has no license at all to support his activities (and this is evidently far from the first time this issue has come up), or whatever license he has was not disclosed to Palm at the time the sale of Be's intellectual property assets were being negotiated.

Either way, there's no existing license: if there somehow was a secret, magical, undiscloseable license granted, by Jean-Louis Gassee, the Tooth Fairy, or whomever, since it was clearly never disclosed to Palm when such disclosure was a requirement, Palm (or PalmSource or ACCESS) would certainly not be bound by it.

To provide an analogy, you can't sell a car on which you have an outstanding loan without either settling that loan or disclosing its existence to the purchaser. Certainly, you can't expect the buyer to both pay for the car and pay off your loan on the basis that you simply didn't bother to tell him about it.

I'd note that neither Palm, nor PalmSource, nor ACCESS, has ever seen so much as a wooden pfennig in royalties from sales of Zeta.

Reply Score: 4

Real question after all
by fyysik on Wed 4th Apr 2007 16:16 UTC
fyysik
Member since:
2006-02-19

Wondering what local law-gurus can say about situation with third-party Zeta developers in light of latest ACCESS claims.
Especially, if some of that software is commercial.

Edited 2007-04-04 16:16

Reply Score: 1

"Haiku MAX"
by petterhj on Wed 4th Apr 2007 16:22 UTC
petterhj
Member since:
2005-08-19

Why is everyone so enthusiastic about "Haiku MAX"? Haiku isn't even finished. Let's join hands instead ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: "Haiku MAX"
by JPisini on Wed 4th Apr 2007 19:37 UTC in reply to ""Haiku MAX""
JPisini Member since:
2006-01-24

I can't speak for anyone else but I have always enjoyed Vasper's work at setting up a system so I could very well see me using his Haiku distro.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: "Haiku MAX"
by tonestone57 on Wed 4th Apr 2007 20:10 UTC in reply to "RE: "Haiku MAX""
tonestone57 Member since:
2005-12-31

Well, here is one problem when Haiku R1 gets released.

It will just have the basic OS. Just like BeOS.

You'll have to hunt for programs - applications, games & *additional* libraries to add on. Then you have to manually install *all* of these (and create symbolic links).

Having a distro is better, because it comes loaded with everything you need to get started "right out of the box" - no searching for software, no downloading, etc. People like simplicity and choice.

If someone wants to use Haiku, then so be it, if they prefer to use Haiku Max, then let them. The only issue for me is using Haiku in the name & I'll address this in another post.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: "Haiku MAX"
by Earl Colby pottinger on Wed 4th Apr 2007 21:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: "Haiku MAX""
Earl Colby pottinger Member since:
2005-07-06

"It will just have the basic OS. Just like BeOS.

You'll have to hunt for programs - applications, games & *additional* libraries to add on. Then you have to manually install *all* of these (and create symbolic links)."


Have you used BeOS alot? What hunting? - go to http://www.BeBits.com what was so hard about that? And as for configuration of a new program the only ones I ever found problems with were development systems that have a lot links deep into the OS itself.

Reply Score: 1

RE...
by Anonymous Penguin on Wed 4th Apr 2007 16:37 UTC
Anonymous Penguin
Member since:
2005-07-06

So they were selling an OS they didn't even own for 100 Euro? (not to mention the dreadful hardware support)
Long live Haiku and BeOS Max!

Reply Score: 3

Sorry, but...
by fretinator on Wed 4th Apr 2007 16:42 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

This whole Zeta mess is starting to sound like a B movie.

Reply Score: 5

re: Memson
by Bobthearch on Wed 4th Apr 2007 16:43 UTC
Bobthearch
Member since:
2006-01-27

"So, no mention of installing on real partitions, only that you need to purchase the PRO version to do that... PE was restricted to 500MB virtual partition ONLY."

There is absolutely nothing in the BEOS license that legally prohibited PE from being installed on a hard drive. There is no prohibition in the section that you quoted, and it's not anywhere in the rest of the license either.

"PE was restricted to 500MB virtual partition ONLY."

No, it was NOT. BeOS PE was intended to run on a virtual partition within Windows as a tiral version. But there is absolutely nothing in the license nor the program's capabilities that prevented it from being installed to a dedicated partition.

I can't believe this is still an issue to some folks...

------------------------------------------

Bernd promises to answer the ACCESS allegations after consulting a lawyer. We'll have to wait and see.

I still think it's possible that Yt had a distribution agreement with Be Inc. But did that include the right to upgrade and modify the distribution? Was the agreement legally transfered to Palm? Was it legal to transfer such an agreement to Mangussoft or involve any other third parties? And did it include a system for royalties payments, and if so, where has Bernd Kotz been sending the checks to?

-------------------------------------
OT, but of interest. So Bernd lives in a castle? I thought everyone in Europe did. Why the hostility, is his bigger and fancier than everyone elses'? Castle envy? Anyone have a picture?

-Bob

Reply Score: 2

RE: re: Memson - royalties
by fyysik on Wed 4th Apr 2007 16:59 UTC in reply to "re: Memson"
fyysik Member since:
2006-02-19

That's interesting question about royalties.
When I discussed with Bernd in private chat Zeta's pricing and ability to sell it cheaper in locked-localized form in emerging markets (Eastern Europe e.g., like MS tried to recently do with some Asian/African countries, and like PC games majors do very successfully for long long time), he claimed that he simply cannot to sell it below certain price due to "obliged" payments-per-copy to third parties.

Reply Score: 2

RE: re: Memson
by ormandj on Wed 4th Apr 2007 18:27 UTC in reply to "re: Memson"
ormandj Member since:
2005-10-09

OT, but of interest. So Bernd lives in a castle? I thought everyone in Europe did. Why the hostility, is his bigger and fancier than everyone elses'? Castle envy? Anyone have a picture?

-Bob


I'm really hoping this is complete sarcasm, not ignorance. It's hard to tell, you didn't use any smilies! ;)

That said, I think Bernd living a relatively "well to do" lifestyle off other people's money that he obtained through illegal means (we'll call it "questionable" pending his "response") is disgusting. Then again, everybody already knows my viewpoint on this topic.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: re: Memson
by Vibe on Wed 4th Apr 2007 19:00 UTC in reply to "RE: re: Memson"
Vibe Member since:
2007-03-12

That said, I think Bernd living a relatively "well to do" lifestyle off other people's money that he obtained through illegal means (we'll call it "questionable" pending his "response") is disgusting. Then again, everybody already knows my viewpoint on this topic.

Don't forget the upgrade to palatial offices, the two residences, and company cars. All we need is some chandeliers and flowing champagne to paint a picture as seedy as the Barlow Clowes affair. This raked in over 90 Million of peoples money only for it to be frittered away on lavish lifestyles.

I know people who got burned by Barlow Clowes and Robert Maxwell. These people bent the law and hid behind a veil of secrecy, and lived lavish lives. When their empires collapsed many people were ruined. Korz may not be in this league but he's lost investors money and left customers stranded.

However this sorry affair ends, I'm glad we have Haiku and the kind support of Access. The Haiku team are hard working and Access have been very generous. As much as I'd like to see Korz thrown in jail I'm hoping nothing takes peoples eyes of the bigger picture. Haiku lives!

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: re: Memson
by ormandj on Wed 4th Apr 2007 19:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: re: Memson"
ormandj Member since:
2005-10-09

However this sorry affair ends, I'm glad we have Haiku and the kind support of Access. The Haiku team are hard working and Access have been very generous. As much as I'd like to see Korz thrown in jail I'm hoping nothing takes peoples eyes of the bigger picture. Haiku lives!


Well said.

Reply Score: 2

Max and Open Sourcing BEOS
by Tyman on Wed 4th Apr 2007 17:28 UTC
Tyman
Member since:
2007-04-04

There is probably some third party code in Beos that would make it legally difficult to open source the OS or officially sanction BEOS Max. My guess is that the "no opinion" stance on Max will remain for a long time. There is no real business interest in going after them, and some negative feedback may result. Palm and access probably would have released it long ago if it was an easy task. At a minimum it would require a full code audit, and it would likely require them to track down a lot of former coders who worked on it. We also have no idea if the code is well documented or commented. Remember, when Netscape released it's source, it wasn't used. Sometimes starting from scratch is the best approach. I would suggest that Access begin an open-source project for a next generation embedded OS.

Reply Score: 1

Bernd Sez
by Vibe on Wed 4th Apr 2007 17:30 UTC
Vibe
Member since:
2007-03-12

"I'm aware of the recent allegations and I have taken note of them. I will be consulting with my lawyer on next Thursday and will follow up with a clear statement regarding this issue of legality."

Recent allegations? These have been dogging Bernd Korz from day one and he calls them recent? Talk, talk, talk. That's all we get from Korz. Anything short of independently verified proof and Korz is nothing but a criminal in my book. Yeah, buddy. Get that lawyer cranked up because you'll be needing one to keep your ass out of jail.

Edited 2007-04-04 17:30

Reply Score: 3

RE: Bernd Sez
by bryanv on Wed 4th Apr 2007 20:20 UTC in reply to "Bernd Sez"
bryanv Member since:
2005-08-26

If I had votes, I'd mod you up.

Brilliantly worded with the 'cranked up'. I needed that chuckle.

Reply Score: 2

re: royalties
by Bobthearch on Wed 4th Apr 2007 17:32 UTC
Bobthearch
Member since:
2006-01-27

"he claimed that he simply cannot to sell it below certain price due to "obliged" payments-per-copy to third parties."

He could have been refering to royalties on the BeOS operating system, but I bet he was only talking about third-party apps that are included with Zeta. Gobe Productive, for instance.

-Bob

Reply Score: 1

RE: re: royalties
by fyysik on Wed 4th Apr 2007 17:39 UTC in reply to "re: royalties"
fyysik Member since:
2006-02-19

IIRC they agreed on bulk license for 10 000 for Gobe, but bit later Gobe tried to refuse that agreement.

Reply Score: 1

One way or another
by zizban on Wed 4th Apr 2007 18:22 UTC
zizban
Member since:
2005-07-06

This whole thing, years of doubt, etc, will end once and for all. And for that I'm thankful.

Reply Score: 2

re: castle envy
by Bobthearch on Wed 4th Apr 2007 18:37 UTC
Bobthearch
Member since:
2006-01-27

Yep, "castle envy" was sarcasm. Here's a smiley:

:)

-Bob

Reply Score: 2

RE: re: castle envy
by ormandj on Wed 4th Apr 2007 18:43 UTC in reply to "re: castle envy"
ormandj Member since:
2005-10-09

+1! Well played, good sir!

Reply Score: 2

After... 7 years ?!?!
by csynt on Wed 4th Apr 2007 18:45 UTC
csynt
Member since:
2006-03-19

"For the first time in its 7 years of existence, some decent statement has been released concering the legality of Zeta."...

After 7 years... what did they wait for ? or better... are they planning something ?

Reply Score: 1

RE: After... 7 years ?!?!
by tonestone57 on Wed 4th Apr 2007 19:20 UTC in reply to "After... 7 years ?!?!"
tonestone57 Member since:
2005-12-31

I was a little surprised because it wasn't even an official statement on the Access site. It was posted as a reply to an article on another website and the poster (David) had to be verified as working for Access.

If Access knew that Zeta was illegal, then they should have made an official statement on the Access website and I'm sure OSNEWS (& other sites) would have picked up on it. That alone would have made Zeta tougher to sell.

Access only had the rights to BeOS for 1 or 2 years now. Why didn't Palm say or do anything for those other years? Only thing required would have been a public statement saying Zeta was considered to be illegal by PalmSource.

Ok, why the post by David Lefty? Well, because Bernd announced Open Sourcing the code and that got Access worried since who knows what Bernd would make available to Haiku and the rest of the community. My take, parts that *do not* use original BeOS code should be allowed to be open sourced (ie: sata drivers, ndis wrapper, etc.). Anything that came from BeOS source code should not.

BeOS is the property of Access, they paid for it and own the right to the OS. So, of course they would want to protect it. And I don't believe Access will be doing anything with BeOS itself - developing or selling it is probably not going to happen. And well, Haiku is the best bet, but it'll take some time (hopefully R2) to catch up to Zeta which is further ahead.

Edited 2007-04-04 19:32

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: After... 7 years ?!?!
by fyysik on Wed 4th Apr 2007 19:48 UTC in reply to "RE: After... 7 years ?!?!"
fyysik Member since:
2006-02-19

>"If Access knew that Zeta was illegal, then they should >have made an official statement on the Access website"

But if that "secretive NDA" don't allow also other side (ACCESS in our case) to state anything officially?:)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: After... 7 years ?!?!
by tonestone57 on Wed 4th Apr 2007 20:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: After... 7 years ?!?!"
tonestone57 Member since:
2005-12-31

But if that "secretive NDA" don't allow also other side (ACCESS in our case) to state anything officially?:)

Then they probably shouldn't be stating it unofficially either.

Access said there is no licensing agreement with them (or PalmSource) and Bernd, Yellowtab or Magnussoft.

It'll be interesting to hear Bernd's side of things. Just have to wait & hear his reponse to this (if he gives one). And going to the lawyer, taking 1 week to respond shows that Bernd is being very cautious or careful.

Right now I believe Access, but It'd be nice to know both sides before rendering judgement.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: After... 7 years ?!?!
by bryanv on Wed 4th Apr 2007 20:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: After... 7 years ?!?!"
bryanv Member since:
2005-08-26

Screw that.

I've been rendering judgement for about five years now.

This is what sentenced them for me:
http://www.osnews.com/story.php/5250/yellowTAB-and-beunited.org-co-...

What a load of bullshit backpeddling.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: After... 7 years ?!?!
by umccullough on Wed 4th Apr 2007 20:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: After... 7 years ?!?!"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

I've been rendering judgement for about five years now.

Damn, I just ran out of mod points too ;) otherwise I'd bump that one!

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: After... 7 years ?!?!
by Vibe on Wed 4th Apr 2007 20:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: After... 7 years ?!?!"
Vibe Member since:
2007-03-12

It'll be interesting to hear Bernd's side of things. Just have to wait & hear his reponse to this (if he gives one). And going to the lawyer, taking 1 week to respond shows that Bernd is being very cautious or careful.

Bernd has had long enough to get a grip on this, and I'm not sure I'll believe anything the guy has to say in any case. Bernd has nothing to lose by covering his ass with lies. I'm at the stage where the only thing I'll trust is independently verified proof. That means contracts on paper with ink signatures, sworn statements, and lawyers who aren't in Bernd's pocket.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: After... 7 years ?!?!
by ormandj on Wed 4th Apr 2007 20:22 UTC in reply to "RE: After... 7 years ?!?!"
ormandj Member since:
2005-10-09

If Access knew that Zeta was illegal, then they should have made an official statement on the Access website and I'm sure OSNEWS (& other sites) would have picked up on it. That alone would have made Zeta tougher to sell.


As stated repeatedly, doing so would have opened them up to lawsuits for libel, even if they were factually correct. ACCESS stands to lose a lot more from such a lawsuit than they gain, so it was not a "wise" decision to go public with such statements in an official capacity.

This was even commented on in the response by "Lefty". I don't understand what's so hard to comprehend about this.

It's unfortunate, that I do agree on, because perhaps the ignorant masses who blindly followed Bernd (or the unlucky few non-techies who got scammed into purchasing something that was misrepresented) would have been made aware of the illegal nature of the OS. Perhaps not. Either way, ACCESS made the best decision for their business, and I don't think any of us can fault them for that.

If you want to place blame, place it where it truly lies, with Bernd - regardless of his actions being based on malice or ignorance - it's still his "fault".

Reply Score: 3

Here's the license
by LinXG on Wed 4th Apr 2007 20:56 UTC
LinXG
Member since:
2006-11-23

Here is the text of the BeOS 5 Personal Edition

BE INCORPORATED - BeOS 5 Personal Edition - LICENSE AGREEMENT
NOTICE: READ THIS BEFORE INSTALLING BeOS Personal Edition.
BY INSTALLING THIS VERSION OF BeOS 5 Personal Edition YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE READ THIS LICENSE, THAT YOU ACCEPT AND ARE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS, AND THAT IT IS THE ONLY AGREEMENT BETWEEN BE INCORPORATED AND YOU REGARDING THIS VERSION OF BeOS 5 Personal Edition , THE INCLUDED DOCUMENTATION, AND ANY THIRD PARTY APPLICATIONS INCLUDED HEREIN THAT DOES NOT COME WITH ITS OWN SEPARATE LICENSE AGREEMENT (TOGETHER, THE "PROGRAM").
IF YOU DO NOT ACCEPT THESE TERMS, YOU MUST DISCONTINUE ANY USE OF THE PROGRAM AND DESTROY(OR PERMANENTLY ERASE) ALL COPIES YOU HAVE, INCLUDING ANY COPIES INSTALLED ON YOUR COMPUTER.
PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU MAY NOT USE, COPY, MODIFY OR TRANSFER THE PROGRAM OR DOCUMENTATION OR ANY COPY, EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED IN THIS AGREEMENT.
LICENSE. This Program is licensed, not sold, to you. You have a non-exclusive and nontransferable right to use the Program for personal and non-commercial use. The Program can only be used on a computer located in the United States and its territories or any other country to which this Program is legally exported. You agree that the Program belongs to Be Incorporated and its licensors. You agree to use your best efforts to prevent and protect the contents of the Program from unauthorized disclosure or use. Be Incorporated and its licensors reserve all rights not expressly granted to you.
LIMITATIONS ON USE. You may not use the Program for purposes other than your personal use. You may not rent, lease, sell or otherwise transfer or distribute copies of the Program to others. You may not modify or translate the Program without the prior written consent of Be Incorporated. You may not reverse assemble, reverse compile or otherwise attempt to create the source code from the Program. You shall not use Be Incorporated's name or refer to Be Incorporated directly or indirectly in any papers, articles, advertisements, sales presentations, news releases or releases to any third party without the prior written approval of Be Incorporated for each such use. You shall not release the results of any performance or functional evaluation of any portion of the Program to any third party without prior written approval of Be Incorporated for each such release.
BACKUP AND TRANSFER. You may make one copy of the Program for backup purposes if Be Incorporated's copyright notice is included. You may not sublicense the Program, or assign, delegate or otherwise transfer this license or any of the related rights or obligations for any reason. Any attempt to make any such sublicense, assignment, delegation or other transfer by you shall be void.
COPYRIGHT. The Program is copyrighted. You may not copy the Program except to provide a backup copy and to load the program into the computer as part of executing the Program. Any and all other copies of the Program made by you are in violation of this license.
OWNERSHIP. You agree that you neither own nor hereby acquire any claim or right of ownership to the Program or to any related patents, copyrights, trademarks or other intellectual property. You own only the magnetic or other physical media on which the Program is recorded or fixed. Be Incorporated and its licensors retain all right, title and interest in and to all copies of the Program as recorded on the original media and all subsequent copies of the program at all times, regardless of the form or media in or on which the original or other copies may subsequently exist. This license is not a sale of the original or any subsequent copy.
TERM AND TERMINATION. This license is effective until terminated. You may terminate this license at any time by destroying the Program and all permitted backup copies. This license automatically terminates if you fail to comply with its terms and conditions. You agree that, upon such termination, you will destroy (or permanently erase) all copies of the Program.
WARRANTY DISCLAIMER. BE INCORPORATED AND ITS LICENSORS PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND EITHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. BE INCORPORATED AND ITS LICENSORS DO NOT AND CANNOT WARRANT THE PERFORMANCE OR RESULTS YOU MAY OBTAIN, OR THE INTERACTION WITH OTHER PROGRAMS AND/OR DATA YOU HAVE ON YOUR COMPUTER BY YOUR INSTALLATION AND/OR USE OF THE PROGRAM.
Some states do not allow the exclusion of implied warranties, so the above exclusion may not apply to you. This warranty gives you specific legal rights and you may also have other rights which vary from state to state.
BeOS 5 Personal Edition may have been delivered to you bundled with third party software applications not owned by Be Incorporated. SUCH THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED TO YOU "AS IS" AND WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND BY BE INCORPORATED EITHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. Your rights and warranties, if any, regarding such third party software are governed by such third party's own end user license agreement and not by Be Incorporated.
LIMITATION OF REMEDIES. IN NO EVENT WILL BE INCORPORATED OR ITS LICENSORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT DAMAGES OR OTHER RELIEF ARISING OUT OF YOUR USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM OR ANY THIRD PARTY APPLICATIONS INCLUDING, BY WAY OF ILLUSTRATION AND NOT LIMITATION, LOST PROFITS, LOST BUSINESS OR LOST OPPORTUNITY, OR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF SUCH USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM OR ANY THIRD PARTY APPLICATIONS, EVEN IF BE INCORPORATED, ITS LICENSORS OR AN AUTHORIZED BE INCORPORATED DEALER, DISTRIBUTOR OR SUPPLIER HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES, OR FOR ANY CLAIM BY ANY OTHER PARTY.
Some states do not allow the exclusion or limitation of incidental or consequential damages so the above limitation or exclusion may not apply to you.
GOVERNING LAW AND GENERAL PROVISIONS. This license will be governed by the laws of the State of California as applied to transactions taking place wholly within California between California residents. This license will not be governed by the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, the application of which is expressly excluded. If any part of this agreement is found void and unenforceable, it will not affect the validity of the balance of the agreement, which shall remain valid and enforceable according to its terms. You agree that the Program will not be shipped, transferred or exported into any country or used in any manner prohibited by any U.S. export control laws.
NOTICE TO U.S. GOVERNMENT END USERS. The Program is a "commercial item," as that term is defined at 48 C.F.R. 2.101 (OCT 1995), consisting of "commercial computer software" and "commercial computer software documentation," as such terms are used in 48 C.F.R. 12.212 (SEPT 1995) and is provided to the U.S. Government only as a commercial end item. Consistent with 48 C.F.R. 12.212 and 48 C.F.R. 227.7202-1 through 227.7202-4 (JUNE 1995), all U.S. Government End Users acquire the program with only those rights set forth herein.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Here's the license
by memson on Wed 4th Apr 2007 23:12 UTC in reply to "Here's the license"
memson Member since:
2006-01-01

"LIMITATIONS ON USE. You may not use the Program for purposes other than your personal use. You may not rent, lease, sell or otherwise transfer or distribute copies of the Program to others. You may not modify or translate the Program without the prior written consent of Be Incorporated. You may not reverse assemble, reverse compile or otherwise attempt to create the source code from the Program."

I think that covers most of what BeOS MAX is doing. As for the whole "real partition" debate: "You may not modify [..] the Program without the prior written consent." I would think that would stand up in many courts as an indication that installing to a real partition is against the EULA. Hell though, IANAL, so I guess we could all argue about it.

Also "You have a non-exclusive and nontransferable right to use the Program for personal and non-commercial use." I think that re-oinforced the 500MB virtual partition thing, as the "personal" version was intended to be used that way.

If you read between the lines of legaese, this secction could be used to also prohibit both MAX and PE on a real partition in general: "BACKUP AND TRANSFER. You may make one copy of the Program for backup purposes if Be Incorporated's copyright notice is included. You may not sublicense the Program, or assign, delegate or otherwise transfer this license or any of the related rights or obligations for any reason. Any attempt to make any such sublicense, assignment, delegation or other transfer by you shall be void." Take "transfer" to mean, litterally, transfer of mediums. i.e fropm Virtual to physical partitions.

A good lawyer could argue any of those clauses in favour of ACCESS disalowing PE.

That coupled with, as pointed out by others, PE not being legally distributable in general (as laid out in the license) and technically PE becomes very, very unlikely to be legal anymore. Unless ACCESS start to allow it to be downloaded, or sanction MAX.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Here's the license
by vasper on Wed 4th Apr 2007 23:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Here's the license"
vasper Member since:
2005-07-22

memson, you are absolutely right about the license. Just that it doesn't hold water in Greece due to lack of laws.

Now, if Access asks me to stop Max, I will.

As for the partition debate, you are wrong. I you install PE and use the included installer you can install the PE on a real partition and use it. The EULA doesn't prohibit you from doing that. Transfer means Transfer the license. Not the data on the HD...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Here's the license
by memson on Wed 4th Apr 2007 23:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Here's the license"
memson Member since:
2006-01-01

"As for the partition debate, you are wrong. I you install PE and use the included installer you can install the PE on a real partition and use it. The EULA doesn't prohibit you from doing that. Transfer means Transfer the license. Not the data on the HD..."

The installer is just an app in the build tree. Let's face it, I think I remember reading that R5 only happened because the developers pushed for it. The free PE version was also thrown together (else they would have though a little about leaving room for the dev tools too.) I've played around with enough BeIA builds to know that Be left some really weird stuff in the build tree sometimes. Stuff that didn't even work under BeIA for example. So, it's a real "aaargh" situation.

If the installer had not been included, you could have written an installer. In fact, you don't even *need* the installer. Load DriveSetup, create a BFS partition, mount it, ccopy all your files to it, run "bootman" from the terminal, you're done. PE wasn't all that restricted. Better the devil you know, I guess.

In reality, they'd have had to completely cripple PE to stop you copying it to a partition. Let's face it, who would have used it if they had? No bfs tools, no drivesetup, no mounting other BFS partitions, restricted file copying. It wouldn't have worked.

EDIT: But that still doesn't get away from the fact that installing PE to a real partition is against the spirit of PE, and also contributed to the lack of R5 revenue that pushed BeIA further into dominance.

At the end of the day, whether it's legal or not, it's morally wrong and breaks with the spirit in which PE was given to the community.

Edited 2007-04-04 23:41

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Here's the license
by vasper on Wed 4th Apr 2007 23:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Here's the license"
vasper Member since:
2005-07-22

Installer and DriveSetup are only needed to create BFS partition and move a working system to it. So they could have been removed without crippling the system.

If the EULA doesn't explicitly disallow this then the spirit is not violated by installing on a real partition from PE virtual drive. Max however does violate the spirit of the EULA and I know it. I couldn't think of any other way to help keep BeOS alive until Haiku R1.

You are right about the ability to write a new install system. It is quite easy. But I only did the absolutely needed changes to Max that would insure maximum install base for BeOS. The same will go for any Haiku distro I make.


As for apps, people can be assured that I am not going to install 3 different calculators and 4 kinds of Tetris... Overlapping apps are annoying to me too.

Reply Score: 1

About Max take 2
by vasper on Wed 4th Apr 2007 21:53 UTC
vasper
Member since:
2005-07-22

It is funny how people attack the work I did, but I never received any emails from them telling me what they think is wrong. I mean it could really help if I had people telling me I forgot to erase some temp stuff from the home folder, but as to the looks... Well :-) Too bad you don't like the default blue color Max Background... Just select a new one.

Also I don't remember twisting anyones arm to download and install BeOS Max, nor do I remember getting money for it, except for a 15$ donation that I forwarded to Haiku with about 200$ more of mine. Have those guys that attack my work given a dollar to Haiku?

Also, I own BeOS 5 Pro, Gobe Productive, Pixel, Refraction, Zeta, Robin Hood, Arline Tycoon, Civilization, Corum III, Personal Studio. All are installed on one of my system and work fine. Did those guys complaining about bloated FREE Max ever put out a penny for original software?

Complains... complains... :-) Cool down guys.

About performance, it has to do with SSE. Using an AMD processor I think brings out best results. I don't have an Intel machine so I don't know the difference.

Edited 2007-04-04 21:55

Reply Score: 4

RE: About Max take 2
by petterhj on Wed 4th Apr 2007 22:22 UTC in reply to "About Max take 2"
petterhj Member since:
2005-08-19

Have those guys that attack my work given a dollar to Haiku? (...) Did those guys complaining about bloated FREE Max ever put out a penny for original software?


What on earth does this have to do with anything? I don't think I even need to defend myself here.

Complains... complains... :-) Cool down guys.


I'm not interested making any enemies in this lovely and friendly community. I hope you don't misunderstand my intentions. But we need to be able to talk about things like this without needing to compare our possesion of BeOS Software, donation status or how much/how long we've been using BeOS.

Edited 2007-04-04 22:24 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: About Max take 2
by vasper on Wed 4th Apr 2007 23:07 UTC in reply to "RE: About Max take 2"
vasper Member since:
2005-07-22

As I said cool down. Of course we don't need to compare anything. An email about a problem would compare with everything. A google search to find what you want would solve a lot of misunderstandings.

Expressing an opinion as how a distro should be made is valid, but understand no one can take into account the wants and needs of 1000 different people and keep them all happy. Heck as US President Bush said "I even disagree with my self sometimes". I am just glad he is not as smart to use BeOS...

Edited 2007-04-04 23:10

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: About Max take 2
by yak8998 on Thu 5th Apr 2007 07:30 UTC in reply to "RE: About Max take 2"
yak8998 Member since:
2006-07-28

Have those guys that attack my work given a dollar to Haiku? (...) Did those guys complaining about bloated FREE Max ever put out a penny for original software?

What on earth does this have to do with anything? I don't think I even need to defend myself here.

- I think he is saying that its free, you don't have to use it, theres other stuff available

And everyone is getting onto you, because calling it $hitware was waaaaaaaay out of line. If you think it is, then you can at least have the decency to put it into more civilized terms.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: About Max take 2
by petterhj on Thu 5th Apr 2007 09:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: About Max take 2"
petterhj Member since:
2005-08-19

And everyone is getting onto you, because calling it $hitware was waaaaaaaay out of line. If you think it is, then you can at least have the decency to put it into more civilized terms.

Well, I didn't call it "$shitware", that was someone else. Be careful with such accusations.

Reply Score: 1

RE: About Max take 2
by tonestone57 on Wed 4th Apr 2007 23:20 UTC in reply to "About Max take 2"
tonestone57 Member since:
2005-12-31

Vasper, don't take it too seriously. You did a good job keeping BeOS alive after Be Inc. disappeared. I've used MAX and it was good, but after using Zeta, you can feel/see the difference (& tell that it is outdated).

I (as well as others) appreciate the work you've put into MAX and in keeping BeOS name alive. Many people downloaded and used BeOS MAX as seen by your BeBits page.

PeterHJ is worried that Haiku will become the next Linux in terms of distros. And believes that there should be only *one* Haiku OS (no distros). Well, one size doesn't fit all. People have different preferences and that is why having distros will give greater choice to users.(I prefer only a few distros, less than 10, don't need to go crazy).

Example:
If I take 100,000 people and ask them to choose between 3 BeOS distros; 1) BeOS MAX, 2) BeOS Wind & 3) BeOS PE. Do you think everyone will choose the same distro? Answer: No. The percentages will differ according to what people want or think is best for them.

Reply Score: 1

BeOS Source code access
by shiva on Thu 5th Apr 2007 12:28 UTC
shiva
Member since:
2007-01-24

I never believed that Bernd Korz had no access to BeOS souce code (leaked or not). Nobody can make deep improvements or modications on an operating system using only binary patching on executables and libraries.

For me BeOS has no future, even the supposed free software HaikuOS (nobody guarantees that Haiku has no BeOS patents or source code fragments).

Linux, Solaris and *BSDs are the only viable free softwares at this moment. There are no space for another "alternative" operating systems.

Reply Score: 1

bout Max take 3 and FINAL
by vasper on Thu 5th Apr 2007 14:22 UTC
vasper
Member since:
2005-07-22

I have talked with David Schlesinger, the Director of Open Source Technologies at ACCESS on the matter of BeOS Max, and he told me that he sees no reason to interfere with the project. He has also seen the website and all the info is at ACCESS's disposal.

Mind you, this is not official support, but it is the best we can do for now. We will see about official support, but I don't think it will be needed since Haiku is close to be finished.

Reply Score: 3

RE: bout Max take 3 and FINAL
by tonestone57 on Thu 5th Apr 2007 15:53 UTC in reply to "bout Max take 3 and FINAL"
tonestone57 Member since:
2005-12-31

I also thought they would allow your BeOS MAX distro because:

1) BeOS MAX is NOT FOR PROFIT. Zeta was for profit and made lots of money (profit in the first few years). Access unofficially declared Zeta *illegal* but didn't go after Bernd/yT or sue them. Access could have received tons of $$$ (maybe $1 Million or more) from a Zeta lawsuit.

2) Access is mostly worried about you or others possessing and modifying the BeOS source code. Doing a distro based on the binaries of BeOS PE does not matter to them. Working with BeOS source is another matter and would cause them concern.

3) Access appears to have shelved BeOS. They are not interested in developing it further (only to maintain the IP to it). In other words, BeOS earns Access NO profit or revenue. Another reason why they wouldn't come after you.

Reply Score: 1