OSNews: http://www.osnews.com/story/17628/Timeline_of_Zeta_Developments Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2009, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Fri, 11 Dec 2009 03:46:14 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif OSNews.com http://www.osnews.com Comment by ormandj http://osnews.com/thread?227553 http://osnews.com/thread?227553
This short timeline elicits a few interesting questions. Why did Palmsource decline to talk with Bernd Korz? Why did Palmsource never took any legal action against YellowTAB (that we know of)? Why has Access been so secretive about their actions against Zeta? Why did they choose a comments' section on a news site to speak in public about this for the first time? Are the recent talks between Access and Haiku a mere coincidence?


Those questions have already been answered time and again in multiple posts in the previous articles.

1) They had no interest in selling BeOS/giving rights to BeOS. Why waste time if there is no intention to ever part with the source?

2) I've stated it a billion times. Legal reasons. It did not behoove ACCESS to make public statements concerning Zeta, as it would have cost them far more than they could have ever gotten out of it. Simple economics/business.

3) English errors not withstanding, see #2.

4) Why not? They didn't feel it merited front page exposure on their website, "Lefty" was trying to avoid negativity on ACCESS's pages, etc. There are surely a million reasons.

[Edit: The above are just some possible reasons. I am not speaking on "Lefty"'s behalf, only suggesting some possibilities/logical reasons - of which there are MANY.]

5) From what I understand, the talks have been ongoing, and ACCESS has always been cooperative with Haiku.

What exactly is the point of this "timeline" and commentary? Another defense in disguise? That's what it sounds like. If you're attempting to bring the "other side of the story" to light, you might have wanted to wait until Bernd's official statement is out, joke as it might be.Edited 2007-04-04 21:52 UTC Wed, 04 Apr 2007 21:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (ormandj) Comments RE: Comment by ormandj http://osnews.com/thread?227559 http://osnews.com/thread?227559 What the hell are you talking about? This is just listing the FACTS. Wed, 04 Apr 2007 21:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Thom_Holwerda) Comments RE: Comment by ormandj http://osnews.com/thread?227563 http://osnews.com/thread?227563 OrmandJ, you are overreacting and it seems that you have made up your mind, so I will stop responding right here. Wed, 04 Apr 2007 21:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Eugenia) Comments I figured it out http://osnews.com/thread?227570 http://osnews.com/thread?227570 The reason there is so much secrecy is probable due to the innumerable lines of SCO code involved. Wed, 04 Apr 2007 22:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (fretinator) Comments someday... http://osnews.com/thread?227575 http://osnews.com/thread?227575 I should dig my IRC & mail logs and make my own timeline... but I'd have to sue myself for disclosing that ;)
Still, that would explain lots. Wed, 04 Apr 2007 22:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mmu_man) Comments RE: Comment by ormandj http://osnews.com/thread?227584 http://osnews.com/thread?227584 After Koch got stiffed, YellowTab Bernd money, until Zeta became a lost Korz.

'Nuff said. Wed, 04 Apr 2007 22:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE: I figured it out http://osnews.com/thread?227587 http://osnews.com/thread?227587 AH-HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh, *THAT* was funny! I modded you up one, for that joke alone!

Keep 'em laughing, Fret! Keep 'em laughing! :-D Wed, 04 Apr 2007 22:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Luposian) Comments RE: Comment by ormandj http://osnews.com/thread?227589 http://osnews.com/thread?227589 What exactly is the point of this "timeline" and commentary? Another defense in disguise? That's what it sounds like. If you're attempting to bring the "other side of the story" to light, you might have wanted to wait until Bernd's official statement is out, joke as it might be.

Calm down dude. After Thom was all testy he's dished out a list of the key dirt on the Zeta affair. There's no need to flip into overdrive. Another reason to calm down is flipping out could give Bernd an edge before he's issued a statement. I don't trust that shady character or put anything past him. Give him one excuse to clam up or weasel out and don't be surprised if he grabs it with both hands. Wed, 04 Apr 2007 22:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE[2]: Comment by ormandj http://osnews.com/thread?227590 http://osnews.com/thread?227590 Modded you up one for some seriously creative use of names, there! Good going! Funny, too! Wed, 04 Apr 2007 22:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Luposian) Comments Strange sounding sentence. http://osnews.com/thread?227591 http://osnews.com/thread?227591 The article says "Why did Palmsource never took any legal action against YellowTAB (that we know of)?"

Shouldn't the word "took" be "take"? Even then, the sentence sounds weird, but it's an improvement. Wed, 04 Apr 2007 22:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (blixel) Comments Speculations http://osnews.com/thread?227592 http://osnews.com/thread?227592 Eugenia, since you're familiar with the "BeOS world", what do say about these speculations?

Btw, Thom, you seem to overreact from time to time too. How about we all take a chill-pill? I was a frequent consumer when I was living in the Netherlands ;) Wed, 04 Apr 2007 22:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (felipe) Comments RE[3]: Comment by ormandj http://osnews.com/thread?227596 http://osnews.com/thread?227596 Modded you up one for some seriously creative use of names, there! Good going! Funny, too!

Thanks. Not quite sure what side of the line it's on but I've been waiting for a chance to use it. Maybe, if everyone can have a laugh it might help ease some of the frustration and anger around here. Wed, 04 Apr 2007 22:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE[2]: Comment by ormandj http://osnews.com/thread?227597 http://osnews.com/thread?227597 Didn't you miss the bit about yT employees still waiting for owed monies? It's a fact however ugly.

"On 23rd March this year, Bernd Korz and his team part ways with Magnussoft."
I thought Magnussoft did the parting. It's the same thing, but paints a different picture.

I share David's viewpoint, this does seem more like Bernd's version of events. It's boggling that you need to remind people how things happened, OSNews. Wed, 04 Apr 2007 22:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Beta) Comments RE: Speculations http://osnews.com/thread?227606 http://osnews.com/thread?227606 Which speculations? Wed, 04 Apr 2007 22:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Eugenia) Comments RE: Strange sounding sentence. http://osnews.com/thread?227607 http://osnews.com/thread?227607 It doesn't matter. Wed, 04 Apr 2007 22:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Eugenia) Comments regarding Koch media http://osnews.com/thread?227608 http://osnews.com/thread?227608 "So. It's 2001. Be, Inc. is in talks with a German company (Koch Media, more here) to grant them distribution rights of BeOS 5 in Germany and the rest of Europe"

I don't think that statement is correct. Koch media definately already produced boxed BeOS R5 Pro CD's at least from around the release of R5. Way before BeOS NG or Zeta. I have a copy of it. In the UK they were the only version of BeOS that was ever "on the shelves" in stores (including PC World, where I got my Koch media copy.) I got my copy about a year before Be went under. I never saw a copy of the GoBE CD until a few years later. The Kock distro is almost identical, except it is bi-lingual (English and German) as is the rather thick manual that comes in the box, you get a "shareware and freeware" CD too, and the MP3 player (soundplay is it?) that GoBe installs to /boot/home is not present. I think everything else is the same fairly well. The CD is red and black. The box is silver black and has coloured writing, screen shots and is bi-lingual. Both PPC and Intel are on the CD as with GoBe.

Maybe they wanted to extend their rights?

Anyway, Wed, 04 Apr 2007 22:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (memson) Comments I'll tell you why... http://osnews.com/thread?227610 http://osnews.com/thread?227610 Why did Palmsource decline to talk with Bernd Korz?

Because they probably had no interest in licensing something that wouldn't generate revenue. And I think that's something that gets overlooked in all the zeal about how great Be was. It wasn't a great business, it wasn't a great business model, and it wasn't greatly demanded by the public.

There's a very practical reason Be died, why Palm did little if anything to resuscitate it themselves, and why everything associated with it since then has failed: there's not enough commercial demand for Be to make it economically feasible. There weren't enough users when it was contemporary, there aren't enough now to make it worth resurrecting. If there were, we wouldn't be discussing who's distributing or not distributing Zeta this particular week.

(After reading Eugenia's World Plan on her blog last weekend, I'm pretty sure the economics and business part of it is totally lost on her.)

Why did Palmsource never took any legal action against YellowTAB (that we know of)?

For the same reason Access says they haven't: it wouldn't be in their financial interest to do so. For the same reason bank robbers rob banks and lawyers rob insurance companies and auto or gun manufacturers instead of poor people actually responsible for crashes and gunshot wounds: it's all about who has the money.

YellowTab and Magnussoft don't have deep pockets, the product never sold like gangbusters, and Bernd (if he went beyond whatever license agreement he had) isn't important enough to sue. The only remaining reason anyone would sue is out of principle, and it would be more costly for them than anyone they accused of IP infringement.

Napster was a prime example of when someone would sue for IP infringement. Millions of people were using it and the media companies feared losing their shirts over it. BeOS/Zeta aren't used by millions, there's no groundswell for BeOS or Zeta, so there's no interest protected in suing.

Why has Access been so secretive about their actions against Zeta?

Because nothing is served by giving the issue any publicity. Sometimes it's best to conduct these matters privately and let things wither naturally. Do you really think they ever feared Zeta would catch on like wildfire and take over the world's desktops? Hahaha! If they had ANY fear of that, it would've been a big deal. Letting Zeta die as quickly as possible served all their interests.

Why did they choose a comments' section on a news site to speak in public about this for the first time?

How certain are you that that's actually the case? And what difference does that make if they indeed own the IP related to Be and Zeta is an infringement?

Are the recent talks between Access and Haiku a mere coincidence?

Maybe your tinfoil hat is a little snug. It could all be coincidence, it may not be. It's irrelevant if the people at Access are accurately stating the situation between their IP and Zeta. It doesn't matter what Access wants to do if Access holds the Be intellectual properties. Those would be their rights, not Zeta's. Wed, 04 Apr 2007 22:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucky13) Comments RE[2]: Speculations http://osnews.com/thread?227622 http://osnews.com/thread?227622 Speculations was maybe the wrong word, the "interesting questions" posed near the end. Wed, 04 Apr 2007 23:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (felipe) Comments RE: regarding Koch media http://osnews.com/thread?227624 http://osnews.com/thread?227624 1 2nd this. my copy of r5 is from koch, and one of the first they made (i have to install r5 from the shareware-disk because they mixed up the lables ;) ) Wed, 04 Apr 2007 23:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (smashIt) Comments RE[2]: Comment by ormandj http://osnews.com/thread?227625 http://osnews.com/thread?227625 I answered all your questions. That should cover what the first 90% of my post was "talking about".

As to the remaining 10%, it was simply pointing out this kind of "defense" should have waited until Bernd made his statement concerning what occurred. Read below for why I classify the post as a hastily thrown together defense.

You and I have two differing opinions on what constitutes a fact.

Eugenia does not know if these talks were ever finished, nor does she know if anything finalized got signed (although some draft contracts could have been signed).


...but we don't know what ever happened after their meeting.


These are two obvious non-factual events, as there is uncertainty involved.

In fact, the entire statement:

So. It's 2001. Be, Inc. is in talks with a German company (Koch Media, more here) to grant them distribution rights of BeOS 5 in Germany and the rest of Europe. Eugenia does not know if these talks were ever finished, nor does she know if anything finalized got signed (although some draft contracts could have been signed). Eventually, YellowTAB buys that contract from that company.


is debated further down in the comments on this story.

[Edit: http://www4.osnews.com/permalink?227608 Wed, 04 Apr 2007 23:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (ormandj) Comments RE[2]: Comment by ormandj http://osnews.com/thread?227629 http://osnews.com/thread?227629 Fair enough. Also, you are quite correct, I made up my mind about Bernd a long time ago. There was more than enough evidence in how he conducted himself/his business to prove (in my mind) beyond all doubts what was going on. My thoughts have now been proven correct. It wasn't blind luck or some such, it's just common sense - everyone should have seen it coming from a mile away.

That said, the one thing I debate, did Bernd intentionally screw over people, or was it out of ignorance?

His follow-up to the "statement" he made today should clarify that completely. I'm leaning towards "he screwed people knowingly", but I won't say one way or another if this is the case. I will say, however, he did a terrible job in either case.Edited 2007-04-04 23:23 UTC Wed, 04 Apr 2007 23:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (ormandj) Comments RE[3]: Comment by ormandj http://osnews.com/thread?227631 http://osnews.com/thread?227631 No, the article does not take the side of anyone. This is clear when we say that the Koch contract was only about BeOS 5 and not Zeta and so forth. We simply layed out what we know about the case. Nothing more, nothing less.

>is debated further down in the comments on this story.

YellowTAB *did* buy the contract from Koch. The question is only if Zeta could be sold under that contract or not. Wed, 04 Apr 2007 23:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Eugenia) Comments RE: I'll tell you why... http://osnews.com/thread?227633 http://osnews.com/thread?227633 YellowTab and Magnussoft don't have deep pockets, the product never sold like gangbusters, and Bernd (if he went beyond whatever license agreement he had) isn't important enough to sue. The only remaining reason anyone would sue is out of principle, and it would be more costly for them than anyone they accused of IP infringement.

Didn't Zeta sell more than BeOS originally did?

How much did that gross?

Why didn't Palm or Access see any money?

Where did the money go?Edited 2007-04-04 23:29 Wed, 04 Apr 2007 23:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE[2]: Comment by ormandj http://osnews.com/thread?227634 http://osnews.com/thread?227634 He's likely to do that (clam up) either way, he doesn't need an "excuse" - it's been his modus operandi for years. I'm anxiously awaiting his "statement". That said, I'll quit pointing out slants in articles, quit pointing out flaws in arguments, and in general let people be clowns. I've done enough commentary on this subject as it is, people have got to be getting tired of me parroting the same things over and over (no matter how true they are.) ;)

Somebody else want this torch? Looks like it's going to be burning for at least another week or two while Bernd talks with his "lawyer". ;) Wed, 04 Apr 2007 23:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (ormandj) Comments RE[2]: I'll tell you why... http://osnews.com/thread?227639 http://osnews.com/thread?227639 Didn't Zeta sell more than BeOS originally did?
Hardly a measure of success given that Be started giving it away after the Apple deal fell through.

How much did that gross?
Not enough to justify continued development and sale, apparently.

Why didn't Palm or Access see any money? Where did the money go?
What money? You're equating sales with profit, and I don't think BeOS or Zeta were ever in the black. From everything I've been able to gather, Be was floating on venture capital and never came close to realizing a profit. I wouldn't expect Zeta to have fared any better. Wed, 04 Apr 2007 23:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucky13) Comments RE[3]: I'll tell you why...did I miss smth. in history? http://osnews.com/thread?227641 http://osnews.com/thread?227641 "Hardly a measure of success given that Be started giving it away after the Apple deal fell through."
what means "giving away" - "for free?".

If so, the deal failed in about 1996, and "free" BeOS saw the light in march/april 2000. Wed, 04 Apr 2007 23:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (fyysik) Comments RE[4]: I'll tell you why...did I miss smth. in history? http://osnews.com/thread?227644 http://osnews.com/thread?227644 what means "giving away" - "for free?".
Yes, the limited PE. How many copies were downloaded or distributed before Be sold its assets?

If so, the deal failed in about 1996, and "free" BeOS saw the light in march/april 2000.
Like I wrote, AFTER the deal fell through. You have to remember the climate in the late '90s with venture capital flowing like crazy. Be's misfortune came when the tech bubble burst and the rivers of VC dried up -- which was about the same time the free PE was released. That wasn't enough to save the company because there just wasn't demand for its operating system. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 00:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucky13) Comments RE[5]: I'll tell you why...did I miss smth. in history? http://osnews.com/thread?227648 http://osnews.com/thread?227648 " How many copies were downloaded or distributed before Be sold its assets?"
There are two different questions here. Downloads number reached million in first months. +CD copies in several magazines. Sales was measured merely in tenths of thousands, AFAIK.

"Like I wrote, AFTER the deal fell through." - AFTER is useless then in your first posting.
4 years is really huge huge time in IT-bussiness world.
So, if it meant under hood "immediately after" - that's wrong.
If it was meant as reason-replacement word ("due failure with Apple deal") - that's also very uncertain, as lot of things really happened inbetween, each of these adding its own reasoning summarized to that "shifting focus to BeIA and giving desktop version for free" decision. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 00:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (fyysik) Comments RE: I figured it out http://osnews.com/thread?227649 http://osnews.com/thread?227649 """
The reason there is so much secrecy is probable due to the innumerable lines of SCO code involved.
"""

Billions and billions!

-Carl Sagan Thu, 05 Apr 2007 00:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (sbergman27) Comments RE[6]: I'll tell you why...did I miss smth. in history? http://osnews.com/thread?227650 http://osnews.com/thread?227650 AFTER is useless then in your first posting.

No, it isn't.

as lot of things really happened inbetween, each of these adding its own reasoning summarized to that "shifting focus to BeIA and giving desktop version for free" decision.

Not really. Be's business model was dependent on licensing/selling BeOS to Apple for the Mac, with which they were never going to be able to compete with their own BeBoxes. Everything that happened after Apple brought Jobs back was contingency, not to mention entirely inadequate to float a sinking ship. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 00:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucky13) Comments Zeta's dead... http://osnews.com/thread?227665 http://osnews.com/thread?227665 so... torrent please Thu, 05 Apr 2007 01:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (YoYoYoYo) Comments RE: Zeta's dead... http://osnews.com/thread?227666 http://osnews.com/thread?227666 http://sikosis.com/haiku/haiku.image.bz2 Thu, 05 Apr 2007 01:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mikesum32) Comments RE: Zeta's dead... http://osnews.com/thread?227682 http://osnews.com/thread?227682 Ok, I know I really shouldn't, but here you go. Enjoy! :-)

http://www.bebits.com/app/3892Edited 2007-04-05 02:54 Thu, 05 Apr 2007 02:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tonestone57) Comments RE[2]: Zeta's dead... http://osnews.com/thread?227684 http://osnews.com/thread?227684
Ok, I know I really shouldn't, but here you go. Enjoy! :-)

http://www.bebits.com/app/3892Edited 2007-04-05 02:54


Ok, I know I really shouldn't either, but here you go. Enjoy! ;-)

http://beos.spb.ru/program/84/PhOSb5.iso.zip Thu, 05 Apr 2007 02:59:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (nicholas) Comments RE: I'll tell you why... http://osnews.com/thread?227685 http://osnews.com/thread?227685 lucky13 wrote:
"-(After reading Eugenia's World Plan on her blog last weekend, I'm pretty sure the economics and business part of it is totally lost on her.)"

missed that one, but this one she wrote made me kind of sad:

-"One could argue that the future of BeOS lies with Haiku. But the reality is, the future of BeOS doesn't even exist. The "operating system days" where several hobby/alternative OSes made the round in the news outlets are long gone. Linux has taken that 3rd place in the OS market and nobody gives a shit anymore about OSes like SkyOS, Syllable, ReactOS or Haiku. These OSes make a much smaller impact today than they used to do back in 2001.

This is why I tried to drive OSNews away from OSes and more into the general technology campground. There is no money to be made in operating system [news] anymore."

ouch. I have no illusions that Haiku is ever going to be anything remotely mainstream (I would SO love to be proved wrong though) but that doesn't mean I don't give a shit about it, or other alternate operating systems either for that matter. it's actually the reason I come here. I can find info on the mainstream systems practically anywhere on the web. I come here to fuel my interest for all operating systems, but those alternate ones in particular. ahwell... Thu, 05 Apr 2007 03:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Valhalla) Comments RE[2]: I'll tell you why... http://osnews.com/thread?227693 http://osnews.com/thread?227693 missed that one

I haven't seen anything so extensive in support of centralized planning since the Berlin Wall came down.
http://eugenia.blogsome.com/2007/03/26/the-perfect-society/

I come here to fuel my interest for all operating systems, but those alternate ones in particular.

So do I. I understand (and agree with) what she means, though. OSNews does a better job covering those alternative OSes than anyone else does, but they have to cover stuff that can pay the bills, too. And in fairness, the alternative OSes are still getting covered (and by Eugenia) -- just look at this article and thread. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 04:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucky13) Comments Such a tall tempest http://osnews.com/thread?227719 http://osnews.com/thread?227719 in such a tiny teapot.

1) Be *never* licensed the rights to modify and distribute BeOS. Not to anyone.

2) Palm(source/one) obtained *all* rights to Be IP.

3) Palmsource ended up with all those rights during the Palm engulf, devour, and eject exercise of buying out Handspring and Be and spinning off Palmsource and PalmOne

4) Access ended up (after paying far too much money) with *all* of PalmSource's assets, except for the rights to the Palm name, which Palmsource had recently sold back to Palm(one) which immediately dropped the 'one' from its name.

In other news: Be was a failure for two main reasons:

A) It had no business model that made sense

and

B) It had an operating system that had no market

It is (barely) possible that if Be had been formed a decade later that their approach to multimedia OS design would have been suitable to the hardware and there would have been a market for it, but even with perfect timing they never really stood a chance from a business perspective.

As to why PSRC never offered BeOS to anyone, I would imagine it was because they were busy totally failing to capitalize on their Be acquisition with their effort to develop Cobalt. You don't sell (or license) IP that you're trying to use in developing your own competitor in the market place.

It makes sense for Access to loosen up on Be IP now, say to the extent of permitting the republication of the Be Book, because they've moved on to Linux and enough time has passed to make the actual Be source code irrelevant in the commercial market place. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 07:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Cloudy) Comments RE: I figured it out http://osnews.com/thread?227723 http://osnews.com/thread?227723 Yes indeed, there is SCO code in Zeta! Just an example:
;
^ that's SCO code!!! Thu, 05 Apr 2007 08:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mmu_man) Comments RE: Such a tall tempest http://osnews.com/thread?227724 http://osnews.com/thread?227724
1) Be *never* licensed the rights to modify and distribute BeOS. Not to anyone.


Were you part of the head managment to be able to assert this so sincerely ? Thu, 05 Apr 2007 08:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mmu_man) Comments RE[2]: Such a tall tempest http://osnews.com/thread?227728 http://osnews.com/thread?227728 One does not have to have been part of the head management to know this. Lefty was not and he knows, for example.

When a company such as Be is sold, the potential buyers perform due diligence investigations of the property owned by the company being sold.

A license to modify and distribute BeOS would have had a significant financial impact and would be disclosed during such an investigation. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 09:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Cloudy) Comments RE[4]: Comment by ormandj http://osnews.com/thread?227729 http://osnews.com/thread?227729 You and I have two differing opinions on what constitutes a fact.

Eugenia does not know if these talks were ever finished, nor does she know if anything finalized got signed (although some draft contracts could have been signed).

...but we don't know what ever happened after their meeting.

These are two obvious non-factual events, as there is uncertainty involved.

What? This is 100% factual! It would be non-factual if we had started to speculate about what happened during the meeting-- but since we do not know, we just said, "we don't know". THAT is factual.

ormandj, you seem hell-bent on attacking Zeta, yT, and Bernd. This is fine by me, we live in a free world, but pleae do not force YOUR biased ideas on to Eugenia and I, who are just trying to be as close to the facts as possible.Edited 2007-04-05 09:07 Thu, 05 Apr 2007 09:06:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Thom_Holwerda) Comments the sad thing is.. http://osnews.com/thread?227735 http://osnews.com/thread?227735 The really sad thing is that BeOS and Zeta, how technically nice they are, because of all this legal stuff and fights is becoming the laughing stock of the OS-es.. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 10:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (marcof) Comments I am a bl**dy ignoramus but... http://osnews.com/thread?227738 http://osnews.com/thread?227738 I have other questions:

1) Can anyone draw-up a whole timeline for the demise of Beos, the rise and fall of Zeta, the rise of Haiku, and the status of things like Cosmoe, PhOS, etc. over the intervening time since Be died? I think that would be far more informative.

2) Palm: it's been a question bugging me for some time, what did Palmsource do with the Beos code itself? The question is partly and apparently answered in articles like this one:

http://www.palminfocenter.com/news/7375/palmsource-acquires-china-m...

i.e., that Palmsource did make use of Beos code, seemingly, in Palm OS, but I keep hearing that Palmsource never had any interest in the Beos code or 'developing' Beos (which it would have been doing, albeit under a certain guise, if Beos code has been used at all).

As I say, I have no idea about all this, but my curiosity got the better of my ignorance. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 10:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (orfanum) Comments RE[2]: Speculations http://osnews.com/thread?227742 http://osnews.com/thread?227742 Speculations about the contract with Koch.

It seems to me it covered making derivative works and branding. How did Koch came in possession of source code etc. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 10:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Elektro) Comments RE[2]: I'll tell you why... http://osnews.com/thread?227744 http://osnews.com/thread?227744 'Linux has taken that 3rd place in the OS market and nobody gives a shit anymore about OSes like SkyOS, Syllable, ReactOS or Haiku. These OSes make a much smaller impact today than they used to do back in 2001. '

Well, Reactos is an upcoming operating system which development will strengthen also Wine. In 2001 nobody discussed Reactos.

And Freedos is a good choice for embedded technology, which comnpetes pretty well with MS Dos 6.

Haiku is a Beos reservate but hey, there are still Amiga supporters out there and I love Geoworks.

Mac OS X was in a very similar state despite they had more money and a critical mass of customers. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 10:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Elektro) Comments RE: I'll tell you why... http://osnews.com/thread?227746 http://osnews.com/thread?227746 Why did Palmsource never took any legal action against YellowTAB (that we know of)?

For the same reason Access says they haven't: it wouldn't be in their financial interest to do so.

However, this does not explain, why the company never publicly clarified the legal situation before April 4th. This would have come at no cost. If there was no business relationship between both companies and if they were really so annoyed about yellowTAB as to send them cease-and-desist letters "on multiple occasions, it is hard to understand why they never went public before yesterday. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 11:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (yahya) Comments RE: I'll tell you why... http://osnews.com/thread?227747 http://osnews.com/thread?227747 I disagree with your assessment:

And I think that's something that gets overlooked in all the zeal about how great Be was. It wasn't a great business, it wasn't a great business model, and it wasn't greatly demanded by the public.


Yes, it was a terrible business model from the point of view that it took far too long to kill off the PowerPC system and the port - quite frankly, it was a money loseing waste of an effort to continue developing a machine that occupied a niche within a niche within a niche.

Lets say they went right off the bat with BeOS, killed off PowerPC and hardware business long before R4, and focused on purely on the x86 platform - they wouldn't have had the mirrade of issues which plagued them.

They would have retained alot more money which they could have then pumped back into development rather than propping up their hardware business - but even then, it was an operating system going for a niche, and we all have seen those who occupy a niche - they eventually die, there isn't the volume to keep up with the rising costs that are associated with software development.

The only real hope, is the opensource implementation in the form of HaikuOS - I said it around 8 years ago, the only way that BeOS can survive is for the opensource community rally around; companies come and go, but if the code is opensource, there is always going to be someone or something willing to pick up the ball and run with it. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 11:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (kaiwai) Comments RE[2]: I figured it out http://osnews.com/thread?227748 http://osnews.com/thread?227748 It's clear now: SCO didn't sue IBM because they wanted to be bought by them: that was just a diversion. The hidden purpose was that they wanted to be bought by yT. When it comes to strategy no-one can outsmart SCO! Thu, 05 Apr 2007 12:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (justin.68) Comments RE[5]: Comment by ormandj http://osnews.com/thread?227749 http://osnews.com/thread?227749 Thom,

>What? This is 100% factual!

It is and it isn't. Your wording made it sound like Koch never produced a R5 distro, when in fact they did for years. In fact, you could still buy R5 a year after Be went under in the UK. Koch media CD's mind you. As I said, GoBe never made it over here in a big way. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 12:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (memson) Comments RE[2]: Comment by ormandj http://osnews.com/thread?227751 http://osnews.com/thread?227751 Thom,

FACTS don't have question marks at the end.

Sadly the timeline you present presents little of value because you don't actually know and facts about the various contracts that may or may not exist.

I don't know why those questions were there, in that form. Given the prior statement from Access regarding the lack of upside to compensate the costs of press releases, legal actions etc, they seem out of place and bizarrely oriented toward conspiracy theory.

James Thu, 05 Apr 2007 12:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (jmansion) Comments Waste of time http://osnews.com/thread?227753 http://osnews.com/thread?227753 You are all so busy speculating and flaming about this issue, while NOBODY here knows the exact details (or even a tiny bit of the truth for that matter.).

Just accept Zeta is gone (I don't mind by the way) and Access has the Be IP and won't do nothing with it.

Look ahead and focus on Haiku or look back and waste your time here on discussing the legality of something that doesn't exist anymore.Edited 2007-04-05 12:52 Thu, 05 Apr 2007 12:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (testadura) Comments Changing mood... http://osnews.com/thread?227755 http://osnews.com/thread?227755 Geee... things have really got heated on OSNEWS of late... I think everybody just needs to calm down. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 12:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (hhcv) Comments RE: Changing mood... http://osnews.com/thread?227757 http://osnews.com/thread?227757 Easter's coming - time to hug a bunny, methinks! Thu, 05 Apr 2007 13:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (orfanum) Comments Nobody knows the facts http://osnews.com/thread?227758 http://osnews.com/thread?227758 Nobody knows the facts or at least nobody knows the details. Nobody knows how the agreement between yT and Be, Inc. evolved if they (yT) could bring their improvements to BeOS R5 (in fact libzeta and other stuff seems to be separated from the main BeOS trunk) and sell a new product.
Maybe Bern took the leaked code and made his stuff on that codebase, maybe here, maybe there, maybe, maybe, maybe... We really don't know the details, we only know that Zeta never got to be a viable business and Access didn't allow them to use their IP.

These are facts. And I think that we never know any detail...

As far as I remember from the first Zeta reviews, Eugenia always pointed her finger to Bernd/yT because she always had the suspect (as other people) that yT never had the rights to use the BeOS source code. And I guess she hasn't changed her opinion, with the article she is only telling what everybody knows about the facts - it's not an article to defend Bernd. At least it doesn't seem to be to me. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 13:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (plfiorini) Comments Better close this chapter http://osnews.com/thread?227759 http://osnews.com/thread?227759 Better close this chapter and look out...
BeOS died, Be, Inc. died, yT and Zeta died, BeOS Max will die soon. May they rust in peace forever.

Haiku is something people should concentrate on because it's the only future for this (still hobby) OS. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 13:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (plfiorini) Comments Storm in a teapot ? http://osnews.com/thread?227760 http://osnews.com/thread?227760 BeOS dead for years... Zeta market share 0.00001% (not a fact).

I loved BeOS big time, but I mourned BeOS and moved on...

This all seems like an exercise in futility. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 13:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Ikshaar) Comments RE[3]: Comment by ormandj http://osnews.com/thread?227761 http://osnews.com/thread?227761 Meanwhile there has been some sort of a statemend by Korz: On April 4th, the German IT news site Golem.de also reported on the story and approached Korz with an inquiry, presumably on the legality of ZETA.

Korz' response takes an even more bizarre turn than I had expected. He says, he was unable to comment because these issues were beyond his knowledge, since they were the business of yellowTAB with whom he is no longer involved and hasn't been for more than 12 month. yellowTAB, he says, is represented by the court-appointed insolvency administrator. See http://www.golem.de/0704/51528-2.html, last paragraph.

It looks like Korz is the Zaphod Beeblebrox type of personality. He cannot recall, what his former self, the then executive director of yellowTAB did.

And even though after the demise of yellowTAB he has continued to develop ZETA, he maintains, that he is unaffected by these legal issues.Edited 2007-04-05 13:29 Thu, 05 Apr 2007 13:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (yahya) Comments YT may have a case http://osnews.com/thread?227762 http://osnews.com/thread?227762 I remember that Gobe also retained distributorship after Be went belly up. They were also authorized to print their own CDs for R5... that's where I got mine. Be had stopped selling it directly at that point. Several years later (about 2002?) when I bought Gobe Productive for Windows they were still hawking copies of BeOS long after it was sold off. I remember from the press at the time, Gobe was given large leeway to "support" their "distro" of BeOS. Perhaps yT believed they "bought" similar arrangements. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 13:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mabhatter) Comments RE[4]: Comment by ormandj http://osnews.com/thread?227764 http://osnews.com/thread?227764 He cannot recall, what his former self, the then executive director of yellowTAB did.

I have no recollection? Classic. The number of times that's been said by people who wound up disgraced or in the slammer is legion. Once the big press starts sniffing it's not long before the police start knocking on the door. This could get big... fast.

I reckon there could be a book deal in this, and nobody is better placed or more involved than people at OS News to deliver that. Robert X. Cringely did well with Triumph of the nerds, and there's no reason to suppose it's not worth calling an agent on this one. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 13:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE: YT may have a case http://osnews.com/thread?227765 http://osnews.com/thread?227765 sure the deal you mentioned is about redistributing unaltered binaries, not about a new derivative work based on the sources. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 13:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (yahya) Comments RE[2]: YT may have a case http://osnews.com/thread?227766 http://osnews.com/thread?227766 sure the deal you mentioned is about redistributing unaltered binaries, not about a new derivative work based on the sources.

That's always been my understanding of the limit of the contract Bernd Korz got his hands on. How he managed to twist it into something else takes my breath away. If a game company shuts down and all its intellectual property rights get put into limbo or transfered, it doesn't give the publisher the right to sell modified copies of the game. If there was a code leak and hungry fan base, you couldn't use it to create and sell a fresh version, and a patch would be so deep in murky territory it's not funny. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 14:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE[2]: Strange sounding sentence. http://osnews.com/thread?227767 http://osnews.com/thread?227767
It doesn't matter.


It doesn't?

What a sad state of affairs when proper english
"doesn't matter" on an english based, news focused website. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 14:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (aesiamun) Comments RE[3]: Comment by ormandj http://osnews.com/thread?227771 http://osnews.com/thread?227771 I'd argue that if he knowingly screwed people, he did a marvelous job at it.

I have reason to suspect that he did, and this timeline is missing many facts that haven't been made public yet. These haven't been made public for the benefit of the community. As long as Zeta had a chance at becoming viable (Even if it was a very very slim chance with Mr. Korz in charge), there was no good reason to help destroy it by exposing some of the actions that were quite clearly knowingly carried out.

At this point, I and I suspect others are waiting to see what kind of statement Mr. Korz makes after consulting with is lawyer before saying any more.

The last thing I want to do is open myself or someone else up to potential law suits, weather that's slander, libel, or otherwise. So until this thing is really dead, my lips are sealed.

Mr. Korz has pulled several "all hope is lost, oh wait I found another gullible idiot" stop / starts with Zeta now. I want to make sure this horse is dead before I kick it some more. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 14:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (bryanv) Comments RE[4]: Comment by ormandj http://osnews.com/thread?227772 http://osnews.com/thread?227772 I'd argue that if he knowingly screwed people, he did a marvelous job at it.

Korz may have deluded himself. Like some of the more notable figures of history, he may have acted in the belief he was right. That he found himself fighting on two fronts, with legal and market difficulties, didn't help. Beaten by an "expeditionary force" of questions and the "cold winter" of crushing debt his retreat to the bunker of Schloss Korz is a sad inevitability.

Achtung Haiku! Thu, 05 Apr 2007 14:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE[5]: Comment by ormandj http://osnews.com/thread?227775 http://osnews.com/thread?227775 Could you all please stop linking Bernd Korz's business failures to Nazi Germany/WW2? And if I wanted stylistically bad usage of German words, I'd go play Wolfenstein 3D. Vibe, your post is over the top, racist and just not funny at all. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (rabyte) Comments RE[5]: Comment by ormandj http://osnews.com/thread?227776 http://osnews.com/thread?227776 there were two "official" persons in YT, Bernd and some man from former half-fake German "multimedia" company.
Maybe Benrd points on deals of that person? Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (fyysik) Comments RE: Comment by ormandj http://osnews.com/thread?227778 http://osnews.com/thread?227778 I've stated it a billion times. Legal reasons. It did not behoove ACCESS to make public statements concerning Zeta, as it would have cost them far more than they could have ever gotten out of it. Simple economics/business.

They didn't take legal action for legal reasons? Nice one. That's a highly vague, and speculative, reason. No normal company of any kind waits around while someone else uses their source code - if they're in the right. Also, there is no way that it would make any kind of economic sense to PalmSource/Access at all. Someone else is using their source code, they believe, illegally. It also doesn't explain why they just didn't come out and say it.

Why not? They didn't feel it merited front page exposure on their website, "Lefty" was trying to avoid negativity on ACCESS's pages, etc. There are surely a million reasons.

Again, vague and speculative. Any company that believes it has been wronged in an illegal way makes it very well known and takes appropriate action. Apart from an exceedingly vague "if Bernd Korz holds a legitimate license to the BeOS code..." statement, there is nothing. You're the ones who supposedly own this code Access. You tell us! A comment on a forum just doesn't cut it if they have something to say.

Why exactly would you think that this would cause Access negative publicity?

The above are just some possible reasons. I am not speaking on "Lefty"'s behalf, only suggesting some possibilities/logical reasons - of which there are MANY.

Yer. Unsubstantiated speculation. You were accusing the article of doing.....what exactly? Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (segedunum) Comments RE[6]: Comment by ormandj http://osnews.com/thread?227779 http://osnews.com/thread?227779 Could you all please stop linking Bernd Korz's business failures to Nazi Germany/WW2? And if I wanted stylistically bad usage of German words, I'd go play Wolfenstein 3D. Vibe, your post is over the top, racist and just not funny at all.

People make mistakes. Bernd Korz made a few mistakes. These things happen. I think, it's better to accept them, learn from them, and look forward.

Banzai! Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE[2]: Comment by ormandj - new conspiracy theory for fun http://osnews.com/thread?227782 http://osnews.com/thread?227782 Just invented it - "blame MS":

ACCESS canot say anything officially for same reason why YT cannot. Super NDA with super penalties.

Next question - why the hell they signed such thing?
Answer - Be Inc inheritance ownned by PalmSource.

Question - Inheritance?

Answer - do you remember MS and Be settlement/agreement when MS paid USD 23000000 to Be Inc?

We may suspect, that there was hidden part of contract, where Be Inc took obligation never ever to try to enter x86/PC market.

And it was inherited by Palm, so, when Palm/PS did the deal with YT, agreement was still in power. Thus, Palm couldn't admit that they licensed IP to someone who tries to work at PC market, so, to play in MS playground.

And thus all that silence and secrets:)Edited 2007-04-05 15:49 Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (fyysik) Comments RE: YT may have a case http://osnews.com/thread?227784 http://osnews.com/thread?227784 > Be had stopped selling it directly at that point.

AFAIR, R4.5 was the last direct sale Be Inc did. R5 was only sold to the general public by GoBe, Koch media and a French licensor of whose name I forget. There might have been a Japanese one too, I'm not sure. I think the R5 CD's Be Inc produced were only for developers and people who they always gave free upgrades to (BeBox owners for example), but I may be wrong. I certainly never remember Be ever selling directly from late 1999 to 2001. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (memson) Comments RE[2]: Comment by ormandj http://osnews.com/thread?227786 http://osnews.com/thread?227786 "Why exactly would you think that this would cause Access negative publicity? "

There really is no such thing guys any publicity that gets your name in front of thousands of potential customers is good publicity.

I used to work for a company that would spend the whole weekend junk faxing people, it didn't matter that it was illegal the fine was $500 we would make that within 15 minutes of opening Monday morning so if not when we got caught it didn't matter. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (JPisini) Comments RE[3]: Comment by ormandj - new conspiracy theory for fun http://osnews.com/thread?227788 http://osnews.com/thread?227788 > Question - Inheritance?

> Answer - do you remember MS and Be
> settlement/agreement when MS paid USD 23000000 to Be
> Inc?

> We may suspect, that there was hidden part of
> contract, where Be Inc took obligation never ever to
> try to enter x86/PC market.

AFAIR, the MS deal happened way after the IP was sold to Palmsource, so this is absolutely not the reason. Be can't retrospectively add clauses to a contract of sale. Otherwise, let me sell you a house ;-) Oh, next year I'll add a clause to the contract to say you have to sell it back to me for €10... you'd be okay with that tho, wouldn't you? ;-) Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (memson) Comments RE[2]: I'll tell you why... http://osnews.com/thread?227789 http://osnews.com/thread?227789 this does not explain, why the company never publicly clarified the legal situation before April 4th. This would have come at no cost.
I addressed that matter by noting that Access had time on their side and only had to wait for Zeta to die. It was bound for failure. Zeta was an unprofitable venture. Ask Be's old developers and the VC people who probably got pennies on the dollar for their investments in Be. Ask Yellow Tab. Ask Magnussoft. Ask anyone else who's willing to waste time looking at the amount of resources it would require to (1) produce in retail-worthy volumes, (2) continue code development, (3) advertise, and (4) even provide Zeta with a website and the look at the demand for Be or Zeta and how the income would never match the costs required to continue its development.

There was no need for Access to do anything that would give Zeta any publicity (good or bad). All they had to do was wait and let Zeta fail. They did that. They don't have to clarify anything to anyone if they hold the Be IP -- that's their call and they owe no one an explanation for how or why they do business. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucky13) Comments RE[4]: Comment by ormandj - new conspiracy theory for fun http://osnews.com/thread?227790 http://osnews.com/thread?227790 are you sure about dates and responsibilities?:(
Sad if that is.
Inspite "Fools Day" is over, I thought it might be Really Big Conspiracy Theory:( Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (fyysik) Comments RE[3]: I'll tell you why... http://osnews.com/thread?227791 http://osnews.com/thread?227791 Well, if Bernd Korz screwed up people by selling them something that he does not own, it would have been the damn duty of ACCESS to go public and warn people, that they are getting defrauded. One could say that, by staying silent for so long, ACCESS has made itself complicit in this fraudulent operation, all under the condition that Korz had no legal rights to use the BeOS sources. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (yahya) Comments RE[3]: I'll tell you why... http://osnews.com/thread?227793 http://osnews.com/thread?227793 There was no need for Access to do anything that would give Zeta any publicity (good or bad). All they had to do was wait and let Zeta fail. They did that. They don't have to clarify anything to anyone if they hold the Be IP -- that's their call and they owe no one an explanation for how or why they do business.

Taking legal action can get expensive and messy very quickly, and suck up management time that would be better spent on shipping product and looking after customers. Business reputation is important, so Access may not want to have seen their name tarnished by a shady company, or have customers think they've lost focus. Why ruin a good business for small beer?

Well, if Bernd Korz screwed up people by selling them something that he does not own, it would have been the damn duty of ACCESS to go public and warn people, that they are getting defrauded. One could say that, by staying silent for so long, ACCESS has made itself complicit in this fraudulent operation, all under the condition that Korz had no legal rights to use the BeOS sources.

Access have done nothing wrong. If anyone should be investigated and charged with criminality it's Bernd Korz. I agree that customers being sold a product with no future (distribution cut off date) or support (no rights to source code) have been badly served but that doesn't make Access complicit. They're a victim as well. This is why I think the police should take charge.Edited 2007-04-05 16:26 Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE[2]: I'll tell you why... http://osnews.com/thread?227794 http://osnews.com/thread?227794 I disagree with your assessment:

My assessment was that it was a bad business built on a worse business model. Then you describe how it was a bad business built on a worse business model. So just how do you disagree? By hypotheticals!

You can play hypotheticals all you want but that doesn't change what Be was or that it's defunct today. There was no demand for it on any platform -- not to the extent that anyone could make money from it. There weren't profits to be made that could be rolled back into development.

Open sourcing BeOS wouldn't have done anything that Be didn't try -- and they had plenty of venture capital money to play with. I have nothing to say about the Haiku project except that I admire its progress; I haven't used it, and I doubt I ever will. Technically and with respect to consumer demand, I don't think it has better legs under it than Be ever did.

Now for some tough love -- and I promise this isn't flame bait, it's just the cold hard reality. I wrote on my blog last night:
...I think that's one of the great ironies: Be paid no homage to the past with support for legacy hardware — BeOS was intended only for current hardware. In recreating an open source BeOS, will Haiku be relevant to our increasingly smaller wireless future or will it be relegated to our increasingly archaic desktops?
http://lucky13.blogsavy.com/2007/04/04/another-beos-spin-off-bites-...

In trying to be a modern desktop system, Haiku already way behind the eight ball. I don't care how technically superior it may be to Windows, Mac, Linux, BSD, or anything else. The modern desktop isn't where Linux and other OSes are trying to get more share. That war's pretty much over with a few minor skirmishes for small turf advances remaining. The next frontier where the battle is being fought in earnest is away from the desktop -- mobile, smaller, scalable, secure. That's where Linux is battling for big share, and winning:
http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=21904&hed=Linux+%E...

How many phones will Haiku run on in five years? What will their market share of mobile devices be in the next decade? Probably less than their share of the desktop market in 2007.

Be wasn't something consumers wanted in the 1990s. I don't think consumers want Haiku or will want it in the foreseeable future, on desktops or otherwise. Be was ahead of its time; Haiku is behind the times. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucky13) Comments RE[4]: I'll tell you why... http://osnews.com/thread?227796 http://osnews.com/thread?227796 Well, if Bernd Korz screwed up people by selling them something that he does not own, it would have been the damn duty of ACCESS to go public and warn people
How many people actually bought Zeta? Do you REALLY believe it's worth siccing a corporate lawyer who specializes in international IP issues and bills at $500 per hour with a 200 hour per case minimum on a little band of Zeta developers?

One could say that, by staying silent for so long, ACCESS has made itself complicit in this fraudulent operation
In which case one would be wrong. Their silence is neither complicity nor a culpable action of fraud. Besides, they made private contact with the party they believed was violating their IP. That's all that matters. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucky13) Comments RE[3]: I'll tell you why... http://osnews.com/thread?227799 http://osnews.com/thread?227799 Be wasn't something consumers wanted in the 1990s. I don't think consumers want Haiku or will want it in the foreseeable future, on desktops or otherwise. Be was ahead of its time; Haiku is behind the times.

The world's full of experts who say something will fail, and when it succeeds they want a slice of the action. The potential for Haiku is tremendous. The hard part is realising that potential. Getting to R1 will shut a lot of mouths who said it would never happen. The rest? I think you get the idea... Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE[5]: I'll tell you why... http://osnews.com/thread?227801 http://osnews.com/thread?227801 Do you need a lawyer to make the statement David Schlesinger just made? Even without suing yT/Korz, a issuing a simple warning in time would have had a tremendous impact. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (yahya) Comments RE[6]: I'll tell you why... http://osnews.com/thread?227803 http://osnews.com/thread?227803 ...it would have been the damn duty of ACCESS to go public and warn people...

As the IP owners they always were/are/will be the only ones to decide what to do about the whole affair. I agree that 100 Euros are quite a lot of money, especially for a niche OS, but the questions "what about source access?" and "is this legal?" have remained unanswered by Bernd for seven years. IMHO, if people are gullible enough to buy a product of questionable legal status, that's their own problem.

How many people actually bought Zeta?

It's quite telling that magnussoft dropped Zeta stating it didn't sell well enough. As a small company they certainly didn't expect any big sales figures when taking over the project, so my guess is that sales must have been really, really low. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (rabyte) Comments RE[6]: I'll tell you why... http://osnews.com/thread?227804 http://osnews.com/thread?227804 Do you need a lawyer to make the statement David Schlesinger just made? Even without suing yT/Korz, a issuing a simple warning in time would have had a tremendous impact.

As Access have stated, they're not aware of any rights Bernd Korz claims but they're not just some internet mouth. Their own business is at stake if they just go firing off. If Bernd Korz could screw millions out of them on some technicality that's loss of reputation, management time, and possible loss of jobs. That's the difference between some random mouth on the internet and a company operating in the real world. Lets see you put your house on the line before you bash Access. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE[4]: I'll tell you why... http://osnews.com/thread?227805 http://osnews.com/thread?227805 The potential for Haiku is tremendous.

The genuine momentum of Linux is greater than any perceived potential for Haiku. Haiku won't do any better than BeOS on the desktop, and in looking at its roadmap I see no plans for scalability so it can run on anything but x86 desktops and maybe PPC. Where's anything about being able to run on mobile devices? It doesn't even have a fully-operable network stack yet.
http://haiku-os.org/glass_elevator
http://dev.haiku-os.org/roadmap

In addition to cell phones, Linux is targeting (and reaching!) the next wave of PDAs:
http://www.brighthand.com/default.asp?newsID=12928

This isn't flame-bait. Just the facts. Haiku's focus isn't on the future (mobile), it's on the past (desktop). That's not what I call potential. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucky13) Comments RE[6]: I'll tell you why... http://osnews.com/thread?227806 http://osnews.com/thread?227806 Do you need a lawyer to make the statement David Schlesinger just made?
That's the whole point. They didn't have to do anything because Zeta was dying on its own. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucky13) Comments RE[5]: I'll tell you why... http://osnews.com/thread?227807 http://osnews.com/thread?227807 In addition to cell phones, Linux is targeting (and reaching!) the next wave of PDAs:
http://www.brighthand.com/default.asp?newsID=12928

Did you happen to notice big editor's note at the top of that article?

"Editor's Note: This article is an April Fools Day joke. It is entirely fictitious."Edited 2007-04-05 16:59 Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (atezun) Comments RE[6]: I'll tell you why... http://osnews.com/thread?227809 http://osnews.com/thread?227809 http://haikunews.org/index.php?id=1184

;-) Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:59:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (rabyte) Comments RE[5]: I'll tell you why... http://osnews.com/thread?227810 http://osnews.com/thread?227810 I just don't get you Linux advocaters coming on here & bashing Haiku.

All I hear is "Haiku won't make it. Forget Haiku & BeOS; They're not worth it.", etc.

Well. When Linux started out, 1) how many users did it have? 2) In the first 5 years, what did the number of pc users grow to? 3) What platforms did it support? 4) How good was it overall?

It has taken Linux many, many years before gaining lots of users and popularity. Haiku will do the same over time, though today, it has to compete with Linux. What are you afraid of, that Linux will lose the battle? You like Linux so much, then stick with it and let the rest of us enjoy BeOS/Haiku.

I think Haiku will make it, but won't happen in 2 years, but take something like 5 years to start being noticed *and* Linux / Windows will lose users to Haiku.

This isn't flame-bait. Just the facts.
I didn't realize you had a crystal ball and could see 10 years in the future & know what Haiku will or won't have. Linux didn't offer much in the start either, it took a couple of years *after* the first release to get things going. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 17:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tonestone57) Comments RE[5]: I'll tell you why... http://osnews.com/thread?227811 http://osnews.com/thread?227811 The genuine momentum of Linux is greater than any perceived potential for Haiku. Haiku won't do any better than BeOS on the desktop, and in looking at its roadmap I see no plans for scalability so it can run on anything but x86 desktops and maybe PPC. Where's anything about being able to run on mobile devices? It doesn't even have a fully-operable network stack yet.

Well, that's an opinion. There are others. I prefer mine. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 17:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE[6]: I'll tell you why... http://osnews.com/thread?227812 http://osnews.com/thread?227812 That editor's note was NOT on it when I first read it (early morning of 1 April). At least I caught on to the one about Ballmer joining the Linux Foundation. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 17:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucky13) Comments RE[6]: I'll tell you why... http://osnews.com/thread?227814 http://osnews.com/thread?227814 When Linux started out

BeOS isn't just starting out. Neither is Haiku.

Haiku will do the same

No, it won't. It will appeal to the same people BeOS appealed to.

won't happen in 2 years, but take something like 5 years to start being noticed

Meaning 2012, at which time people will be using Linux on cell phones and mobile devices without knowing a single thing about command lines or bash scripts.

Linux / Windows will lose users to Haiku

And pigs will fly and monkeys will fly out of all our...

Linux didn't offer much in the start either, it took a couple of years

We're not a "couple years" into the lifespan of BeOS and its open source offspring, we're a couple years past its relevance. There are very major differences in how each platform has developed. Linux was suited not only to immediate relevance (80836), but relevance that would extend beyond (Pentium) and into the future (scalability for use in mobile devices). Haiku has no such strategy. It's trying to recreate Be with an open source license. I don't have anything bad to say about that (read what I wrote on my blog -- I admire what they're doing). I just think it's creating its own obsolescence by tying itself to the desktop. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 17:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucky13) Comments RE[6]: I'll tell you why... http://osnews.com/thread?227815 http://osnews.com/thread?227815 It has taken Linux many, many years before gaining lots of users and popularity. Haiku will do the same over time, though today, it has to compete with Linux. What are you afraid of, that Linux will lose the battle? You like Linux so much, then stick with it and let the rest of us enjoy BeOS/Haiku.

Haiku has a core philosophy and responsible team of people managing it. That's a good sign. One big hurdle for Linux is that it's a mess. OS X is exclusive. Windows is a walled garden. Haiku doesn't suffer from those impediments.

Right out of the box Haiku has a good design and documentation. Anyone who has Haiku will have the same experience on another machine. It's not drowned in bloatware, and porting key applications is no real bother. How can it not do well? Thu, 05 Apr 2007 17:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE[7]: I'll tell you why... http://osnews.com/thread?227816 http://osnews.com/thread?227816 BeOS isn't just starting out. Neither is Haiku.
BeOS was abandoned (dead!) in 2001; had it continued to today, then it would have been a different story. Haiku doesn't even have a release. The first Haiku release (R1) is when I consider an OS to make its first apperance. (Imagine me working on an OS for 10 years, but haven't finished it. Do you think anyone can or would use it?) As I see it, an OS isn't *ready* until the First Release (R1) *and* that is when it begins its *actual* life.

Yes, 5 years. Haiku has to catch up. It'll be usable from R1, but recognition / user adoption won't come till R2 or R3. RedHat 5 attracted many people to Linux, do you think RedHat 1, 2 or 3 were even noticed?

BeOS ceased in 2001, so how can you say it still exists today? It is like taking Windows 98 & comparing it to the current version of Linux in 2007 *and* then saying, look how great Linux is. Is that fair? Haiku doesn't even have R1 out and won't be able to compete with Linux till at about R3. (Comparing a *new* OS, Haiku, to one that has been around for many years, Linux is not fair. And Haiku is *new* because it is built from the ground up, with no BeOS source code to go on).

I agree that Linux is further ahead and has gained lots of momentum and support. Reason why Haiku is having trouble getting finished; tough to get developers, because they either go to Linux or Windows.

Haiku may just go for the Desktop and that will be good enough for me and many others. It *may* also go after the embedded market in the future and that would be even better. Who can say. It is *capable*, but who knows what will happen. Linux has a strong presence and it'll be tough to gain support on embedded devices.Edited 2007-04-05 18:01 Thu, 05 Apr 2007 17:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tonestone57) Comments RE[3]: Comment by ormandj http://osnews.com/thread?227819 http://osnews.com/thread?227819 The whole notion of their being no such thing as bad publicity is obviously wrong. Its like most things, it depends. I guarentee you if CNN ran a story about how the meat in Burger Kings burgers was actually recycled feces I think that they might not like that. Wouldn't be good for sales.

Seriously Proctor & Gamble, Walmart etc spend millions and millions countering bad publicity every year. If bad publicity was good for them why bother. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 18:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (andrewg) Comments Magnussoft cease distribution of Zeta http://osnews.com/thread?227830 http://osnews.com/thread?227830 According to the statement of Access Co. Ltd., neither yellowTAB GmbH nor magnussoft Deutschland GmbH are authorized to distribute Zeta.

http://zeta-os.com/cms/news.php?extend.50 Thu, 05 Apr 2007 19:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (jeanmarc) Comments RE[8]: I'll tell you why... http://osnews.com/thread?227840 http://osnews.com/thread?227840 BeOS was abandoned (dead!) in 2001; had it continued to today, then it would have been a different story.

Agh, such circular reasoning. Welcome to the real world. It's not a different story. It failed. Totally. You can make believe and play what "might have been" all you want, but it doesn't alter reality. And that reality is, BeOS and its imitations, clones, whatever you want to call them, are irrelevant.

BeOS ceased in 2001, so how can you say it still exists today?

It exists in the (now deceased, may it all RIP) attempts to recreate it atop Linux kernels, hacks of leaked code, "improved" versions like BeOS Max, Zeta, etc. And Haiku. How relevant did any of them become?

It is like taking Windows 98 & comparing it to the current version of Linux in 2007

No, it isn't.

I agree that Linux is further ahead and has gained lots of momentum and support. Reason why Haiku is having trouble getting finished; tough to get developers, because they either go to Linux or Windows.

I don't find your reasoning very convincing. Developers tend to go to where the real action is and where the real demand will be. That excludes BeOS, PhOS, Cosmoe, Zeta, and Haiku. How many of those are really relevant today?

Haiku may just go for the Desktop

Which will only assure its future irrelevance.

BTW, I mentioned your comments on my blog (I'm not going to keep linking it here, so find it up in the thread). I was almost as polite there as I've been here. I addressed this point there that I didn't in my previous reply:

What are you afraid of, that Linux will lose the battle? You like Linux so much, then stick with it and let the rest of us enjoy BeOS/Haiku.

Here's my response:
Well, I do use Linux for the most part. I also use OpenBSD and Windows XP (very rarely for work), and I have an old computer with NT Workstation that never gets used anymore. For a long time, I ran BeOS PE on this very computer and even added a BeOS partition to the NT computer. I'm not tied to any single operating system. I'm no fanboy, I'm no zealot. I have no fear of Linux "losing" anything, nor do I fear Haiku or any other OS ascending in usage. I just doubt that's going to happen. (See below: I've heard this tired refrain for years. How long will you sing it while the rest of the world passes you by?) Thu, 05 Apr 2007 19:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucky13) Comments RE: Magnussoft cease distribution of Zeta http://osnews.com/thread?227844 http://osnews.com/thread?227844 Mr. Korz stated towards our lawyer that he would not be interested in cooperating with magnussoft Deutschland in this matter.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, why the h311 not?

Magnussoft is not in a position to judge the statement of Access Co. Ltd. We do not have any notice of potential contracts or arrangements between Mr. Korz and the legal owner(s) of the BeOS source-code.

What kind of company doesn't get that checked out from day one?

/humming mickey mouse club theme Thu, 05 Apr 2007 19:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucky13) Comments RE[9]: I'll tell you why... http://osnews.com/thread?227853 http://osnews.com/thread?227853 Well, I do use Linux for the most part.

Yeah, so? Why don't you leave that crap in a Linux topic. You might not care much for Haiku's chances but other people think otherwise. Get over it.Edited 2007-04-05 19:40 Thu, 05 Apr 2007 19:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE[4]: Comment by ormandj http://osnews.com/thread?227855 http://osnews.com/thread?227855 I guarentee you if CNN ran a story about how the meat in Burger Kings burgers was actually recycled feces I think that they might not like that.

Apples and oranges and a very bad analogy. First, Access doesn't have the influence on public opinion and public reaction CNN has (or can have). Second, there's a huge difference between some merry band of free-lance developers -- with or without the right to modify certain OS code -- moving around from basement to basement in Germany and BK. Third, there's the issue of libel. Wild claims like what you offer by way of analogy would be actionable if untrue. CNN would have to verify that's actually BK's practice or BK would sue the feces and recycled feces out of CNN. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 19:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucky13) Comments RE[10]: I'll tell you why... http://osnews.com/thread?227857 http://osnews.com/thread?227857 Yeah, so?

I was asked a question about that, and I answered it.

Why don't you leave that crap in a Linux topic.

I was qualifying the point which you saw fit to snip.

You might not care much for Haiku's chances but other people think otherwise.

Just like the true believers said about BeOS in the '90s. Don't let reality get in your way.

Get over it.

I am. Why aren't you, fanboy? Thu, 05 Apr 2007 19:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucky13) Comments Kill A Zeta http://osnews.com/thread?227858 http://osnews.com/thread?227858 http://www.mexiconews.com.mx/miami/24013.html

Talking of criminals, Zeta looks like a bad brand name if you're trying to sell into Mexico. It turns out Zeta is a criminal gang some people are calling to be beheaded. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 19:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE[11]: I'll tell you why... http://osnews.com/thread?227861 http://osnews.com/thread?227861 spoken like one true fanboy to another...eh! Thu, 05 Apr 2007 19:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (El-Al) Comments RE[12]: I'll tell you why... http://osnews.com/thread?227866 http://osnews.com/thread?227866 spoken like one true fanboy to another...eh!

What part of this do you not comprehend?

Well, I do use Linux for the most part. I also use OpenBSD and Windows XP (very rarely for work), and I have an old computer with NT Workstation that never gets used anymore. For a long time, I ran BeOS PE on this very computer and even added a BeOS partition to the NT computer. I'm not tied to any single operating system. I'm no fanboy, I'm no zealot.

I don't advocate people not use any particular OS, I only pointed out that BeOS is dead and Haiku's not ready for prime time and that it's not going to have much of a future beyond the desktop, which itself isn't the future, without a roadmap that includes mobile devices.

Too bad I can't cure your poor comprehension of what that actually means.Edited 2007-04-05 20:01 Thu, 05 Apr 2007 20:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucky13) Comments RE[13]: I'll tell you why... http://osnews.com/thread?227870 http://osnews.com/thread?227870 "Too bad I can't cure your poor comprehension of what that actually means."

Nah! My comprehension of what you _actually_ mean is clear.

Too bad I can't actually agree with just about everything you say. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 20:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (El-Al) Comments "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?227895 http://osnews.com/thread?227895 I've communicated directly with Thom regarding some of the "interesting questions" mentioned in this posting. With the exception of the "coincidence" of our agreement to release some legacy BeOS documentation under a Creative Commons deed subsequent to Jorge's request (yes, it was a coincidence), there seems unaccountably to have been no update here, so I guess I'll simply have to supply one myself.

"Why did Palmsource decline to talk with Bernd Korz?"

Can't say, specifically; not even if, in actual fact, we did. I'm unaware of any efforts that Mr. Korz made to contact PalmSource, personally. Our legal department is, as far as I know, likewise unaware of any such efforts, and I know that they're quite interested in having a chat with him. I'd think that any money we could possibly realize for granting such a license wouldn't make up the cost of the legal time required to negotiate a contract, write the document and administer the license. Time really is money.

Moreover, we're not in the business of producing, not to mention supporting, desktop operating systems: we make an operating system, and other software, for mobile devices, set-top boxes and other things. Not desktops.

"Why did Palmsource never take any legal action against YellowTAB (that we know of)?"

As I've pointed out, we demanded, in no uncertain terms, that YellowTab cease and desist their sales of Zeta, to no particular avail. Otherwise, see above: pursuing legal action could easily cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, essentially to prove a point. Seems like a poor return on investment to me.

"Why has Access been so secretive about their actions against Zeta?"

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, it's nobody's business but our own. I don't feel we've been "secretive", we're simply not in the habit of conducting such matters in public fora unless it seems absolutely necessary. Mr. Korz's suggestion that he was going to give away our property, however, persuaded me that a response was required. I've seen the claim that he has a license elsewhere, but it didn't seem worth responding to, until these latest developments.

"Why did they choose a comments' section on a news site to speak in public about this for the first time?"

I responded to the news that Mr. Korz was planning on making public source code to which he has, to the very best of my knowledge, no rights, where I discovered it. I'm responsible for open source-related activities, including licensing and compliance, within ACCESS. Nobody gets to release our code under an open source license without my involvement, advice and approval. Particularly not when it's entirely unestablished that they have any rights to it in the first place.

I see that Magnussoft has done the responsible thing and ceased distribution of Zeta. This seems a wise decision on their part. I've subsequently written to them directly, confirming my statements for them.

I further note that, earlier today, having been unable to locate an email address for Mr. Korz, I posted a comment to his latest blog entry asking that he--while he's waiting for his lawyer to free up an hour--provide me with a copy of the license he claims allows him to produce and market Zeta. The comment, initially "marked for moderation", was promptly deleted. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I've had no word from Mr. Korz in response to my request.

Evidently Mr. Korz is not only uninterested in talking to me, he's equally uninterested in talking to his (ex-)distributor's lawyer. Presumably, he realized some income from sales of Zeta; even with the severing of the relationship between Mr. Korz and Magnussoft, one would have to assume--if he indeed had some legitimate support for his claims--that he'd have some degree of interest in producing it for them.

As we say in Brooklyn, "Do the math."

Again, I invite, and strongly encourage, Mr. Korz to provide, to me, or here, or wherever, some substantiation of his claims to hold a license entitling him to modify and sell anything based in any way, shape or form on the source code which comprised BeOS. I'm not planning on holding my breath.

David "Lefty" Schlesinger
Director, Open Source Technologies
ACCESS Co., Ltd. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 20:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Lefty) Comments RE[13]: I'll tell you why... http://osnews.com/thread?227904 http://osnews.com/thread?227904 so, lets just summarize it, you think the desktop has no future and unless you are aiming for mobile devices your efforts are wasted.

now, if Haiku was a commercial venture I would definately agree that trying to enter the desktop space would be futile. but Haiku isn't. as I see it, the Haiku developers are working on recreating the Beos desktop OS because they want to use it on their desktops. this makes it relevant to them, and that's pretty much the only reason they need. whether or not you or anyone else see or do not see any future for it is likely totally irrelevant to them in their pursuit.

that Haiku would ever attract a following even the size of what Beos had at it's peak is something I doubt (though I really hope otherwise).

I will however predict that, in terms of relevance (since you lean on that word so very much), their work on Haiku OS will largely overshadow anything you will ever achieve on your blog. so if you practice what you preach, you might aswell shut it down right now. it's just not relevant. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 21:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Valhalla) Comments RE[9]: I'll tell you why... http://osnews.com/thread?227906 http://osnews.com/thread?227906 It exists in ... "improved" versions like BeOS Max, Zeta, etc. And Haiku. How relevant did any of them become?

Ok, lets do the comparison to figure it out,
Hmmm, BeOS MAX is just BeOS PE (from 2000) loaded with shareware & freeware applications. So, still uses the old BeOS *binary* code, nothing new there. Just BeOS PE loaded with programs.

Zeta is a commercial product selling for $100 Euros + update costs, etc. I'm certain Bernd said their user base was *over* 100,000 in one of the OSNEWS stories while charging money for it & using a *small* development team.

Next is Haiku. Wait a minute, there isn't even a R1 release yet. I'm surprised you can even judge Haiku since it isn't even ready or *officially* released or not really useable yet.

Ok, lets look at Linux. Hmm, Linux started in 1992. It is like 15 years old. Linux is FREE. Linux has lots & lots of developers, over 350 distros and corporate entities invested in it, because it was *similar* to original Unix & so became popular as free, alternative to Windows.

So, I wonder why BeOS isn't so popular today or in your words "relevant"? BeOS MAX is outdated, Zeta was an overpriced commercial product, and Haiku isn't even done yet (& has to catch up too).

Developers tend to go to where the real action is and where the real demand will be. That excludes BeOS, PhOS, Cosmoe, Zeta, and Haiku. How many of those are really relevant today?

How relevant was Linux in 1993, 1994, 1995, when it first began? Haiku has a tougher time now, because they have to compete with Linux which is very dominant, *but* I can definately say that Haiku / BeOS *is* a better OS (the feel, performance, simplicity, etc.)

I use Windows XP mostly, but also, Linux, BeOS & Zeta. They are all great OSes and things I like and dislike for each.

I really believe Haiku will become the 3rd major OS for *general* x86 systems, #1 Windows, #2 Linux / BSD #3 Haiku

It is ok to speculate, but that is all you're doing is just *trying* to predict the future. You could be right *or* you could be wrong. Only time will tell. I'm entitled to what I believe, just as you are. And I'm sure I can't convince you otherwise, like you can't for me.

I've heard this tired refrain for years. How long will you sing it while the rest of the world passes you by?)
About 5 years after the release of R1. If I don't see Haiku gaining ground / popularity, then I may rethink things and decide that Linux (& Windows) are just too dominant and maybe the better choice, but I'm holding off on any judgements and truly believe Haiku will get noticed and make an impact, but not until R2 or R3; which I think is 5 years off from R1.Edited 2007-04-05 21:24 Thu, 05 Apr 2007 21:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tonestone57) Comments RE[10]: I'll tell you why... http://osnews.com/thread?227911 http://osnews.com/thread?227911 Oh! And there is MORE!

I'm pretty sure that Haiku DOES run in its own partition, unless I've been dreaming for the last 6 months ;o)

The last network stack commit to the tree was approx 30 minutes ago. Not bad for a small dev team on a regular Thursday night IMO. In fact, I'd like to take this opportunity to congrat hugosantos for his remarkable contribution to the network stack of late. Keep up the good work guys.

Edit typo and add:

Yes, I did read your blog and agree, somewhat irrelevant.Edited 2007-04-05 21:35 Thu, 05 Apr 2007 21:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (El-Al) Comments RE: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?227914 http://osnews.com/thread?227914 so if Korz hadn't mentioned opening the source code, Access likely wouldn't have bothered speaking up. I suspect someone is in the market for a time machine ;D

thank you for providing the missing pieces of the puzzle 'Lefty', maybe now this debacle will finally be put to rest. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 21:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Valhalla) Comments RE: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?227915 http://osnews.com/thread?227915 Moreover, we're not in the business of producing, not to mention supporting, desktop operating systems: we make an operating system, and other software, for mobile devices, set-top boxes and other things. Not desktops.

RiscOS makes money in the desktop and set-top box space. I'm curious why Access never made anything of BeOS but can understand why you want to focus on what you do best. The cost of bringing BeOS up to speed and building market share may not be the best use of your companies resources. This is understandable.

I see that Magnussoft has done the responsible thing and ceased distribution of Zeta. This seems a wise decision on their part. I've subsequently written to them directly, confirming my statements for them.

They seem to have acted in good faith. Fair play.

Again, I invite, and strongly encourage, Mr. Korz to provide, to me, or here, or wherever, some substantiation of his claims to hold a license entitling him to modify and sell anything based in any way, shape or form on the source code which comprised BeOS. I'm not planning on holding my breath.

If you hear no response from Herr Korz why don't you make a formal complaint to the police? If there is substance to the claim they'd handle the investigation and prosecution for what appears to be mass copyright infringement and fraud to the tune of a few million Euros. I'm sure there's no shortage of police officers who'd like a stab at case that large.

Whatever happens, thanks for the update Dave! Thu, 05 Apr 2007 21:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?227925 http://osnews.com/thread?227925 Welcome David to OSNEWS.

I and others appreciate you taking the time to clarify your / Access' position.

Once I saw Bernd, AKA Herr, hmm two different names :-)
Korz's Blog about him going to the lawyer, it told me everything I needed to know.

Meaning actions speak louder than words, and Bernd will likely release a formal statment with little or no information because he is looking more & more guilty & I'm sure wants to protect himself from legal action (prosecution).

I'm sorry you guys didn't get any financial compensation from Zeta (for using BeOS code), but I have to say that Zeta helped further BeOS, create a greater presence / awareness of BeOS and some of us will be sorry to see it gone (even though we are now told it is illegal), because it is pretty good.

As for Magnussoft, they were basically duped by Bernd and are a reputable company who want to do the right thing. They were unaware that Zeta was considered to be illegal by Access, something Bernd would have neglected to tell them. Once the legal status of Zeta is determined, and *if* illegal, then maybe Access can work out a license agreement with Magnussoft, ie: take 10-20% of the profits, to let them distribute Zeta 1.21 & 1.5, because Magnussoft will lose out too from not being able to sell Zeta anymore (& they funded the development costs for 1.21 & 1.5 and I believe were innocent of any wrong doing).Edited 2007-04-05 22:02 Thu, 05 Apr 2007 21:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tonestone57) Comments RE[2]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." - still doubtful http://osnews.com/thread?227927 http://osnews.com/thread?227927 explanation for current Access reaction and former silence.
Bernd was always "gready" about releasing source changes even for GPL-ed software until very recent time. Not to say about BSD or MPL-ed software even...

In order to avoid clashes to original code, they created, even for fundamental changes separate lib - libzeta, trying to leave libbe.so/libroot.so etc untouched.

And in his last postings I really don't see clear intention to spend his time to publish any code, not to say about Be/Palm/Access one. What I saw was promise to look and what can be opensourced. So Lefty's reaction looked bit tough - but it can be judged if he/Access really tried to contact Herr Kortz,and Kortz ignored those attempts.

But Bernd may be bad bussinessman, liar for someone, but not person who looks like candidate for suicide or someone liking to spend time in jail. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (fyysik) Comments RE[2]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?227929 http://osnews.com/thread?227929 Once the legal status of Zeta is determined, and *if* illegal, then maybe Access can work out a license agreement with Magnussoft, ie: take 10-20% of the profits, to let them distribute Zeta 1.21 & 1.5, because Magnussoft will lose out too from not being able to sell Zeta anymore (& they funded the development costs for 1.21 & 1.5 and I believe were innocent of any wrong doing).

I want to see Zeta die. It's a legal and PR disaster. Starting afresh with Haiku looks like the better option, and Magnussoft could find some way of commercialising it if they were interested and up to the job. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE: I am a bl**dy ignoramus but... http://osnews.com/thread?227931 http://osnews.com/thread?227931 The rationale I've seen (not authoritative by any means, take with grain of salt, etc) is that Palm was much more interested in the remaining Be Inc. software engineers than the BeOS itself. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (StephenBeDoper) Comments RE[2]: I am a bl**dy ignoramus but... http://osnews.com/thread?227936 http://osnews.com/thread?227936 I believe that would be true of almost anyone is Steve Sakomans (sp?) position at that time. IIRC he moved from Be to Palm shortly _before_ Be went tits-up. If I was Steve I would definately try to procure the best staff from the company I was leaving...especially if I knew that those guys/girls were gifted, talented, valuable members of the team. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (El-Al) Comments RE[3]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?227938 http://osnews.com/thread?227938 Starting afresh with Haiku looks like the better option, and Magnussoft could find some way of commercialising it if they were interested and up to the job.

Well, if Access & Magnussoft worked out a licensing agreement then Zeta would no longer be illegal *and* both these companies could benefit financially (earn profit). I'm sure Magnussoft took a loss in the development of Zeta (so parted ways with Bernd) & Access lost out on licensing fees for all Zeta versions. Might as well get something out of it. (I doubt Bernd would challenge Access, since he isn't providing proof of his right to make & distribute Zeta).

Also, whatever happened to individual choice? Shouldn't each person decide for themselves if they want to buy Zeta or not. I'm happy you've made up your mind Vibe, but everybody has to decide for themselves what they prefer to do.

And, it is doubtful that Magnussoft could make updates to Zeta. Why? Because Bernd would have the source code to Zeta/BeOS. You think he'd give this to Magnussoft? Magnussoft would only have the binaries, so they could only create new applications / programs & update most libraries (which come from open source), but wouldn't be able to "fix" the OS itself (get rid of bugs, make OS improvements, etc). I *feel* very certain that Bernd (& his developers) have the source code & *not* Magnussoft, but can't say for sure. And even *if* Magnussoft had the source, they wouldn't develop it without the consent of Access, because they follow the legal system.

PS Instead of 10-20% of profit, they should just rework the agreement with taking out Bernd & replacing it with Access (Maybe Bernd was getting 50% of profit? or less, because Magnussoft paid for the development costs?). I'm sure they could figure something out.Edited 2007-04-05 22:32 Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tonestone57) Comments RE[3]: I am a bl**dy ignoramus but... http://osnews.com/thread?227941 http://osnews.com/thread?227941 Ah, I had thought it was primarily a situation of Palm being able to get a group of talented people on the cheap - but that makes even more sense with the Sakoman connection. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (StephenBeDoper) Comments RE[4]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?227944 http://osnews.com/thread?227944
because Magnussoft paid for the development costs?

Last I heard from remaining devs the fact remains to be asserted if they actually paid what they told they would.

This whole story is getting really insane. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mmu_man) Comments RE[4]: I am a bl**dy ignoramus but... http://osnews.com/thread?227946 http://osnews.com/thread?227946 cheap devs yeah.. cheap and throwable it seems, as they all went out quite soon (1y ?) later when Cobalt got finished IIRC. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mmu_man) Comments RE[4]: I am a bl**dy ignoramus but... http://osnews.com/thread?227948 http://osnews.com/thread?227948 meh! One can't help but think that there was at least some orchestration involved. JLG must have known for some time that the company was going to hit the ropes (no matter what).

A good boss will at least _try_ to place his workforce somewhere if the axe should fall/sh*t hit the fan.

I remember chatting one-to-one/file sharing on BeShare as far back as 2000 with core members of the Be dev crew. They were real nice people, totally into what they were doing.

Ah! Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (El-Al) Comments RE[2]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?227969 http://osnews.com/thread?227969 @tonestone

Um... "Herr" is not an aka or a name. It means "Mr." in German.

"Herr Korz" means "Mr. Korz".

Thanks! Fri, 06 Apr 2007 00:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Mage66) Comments RE[3]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?227973 http://osnews.com/thread?227973 Hi Mage66,

Thanks for the correction.

I thought it was a first or middle name, but I wasn't ruling it out as an alias either.

Unfortunately I don't speak German so I missed that one and was wondering why David referred to him as Herr Korz & not Bernd Korz. Fri, 06 Apr 2007 00:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tonestone57) Comments RE[3]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." - still doubtful http://osnews.com/thread?227974 http://osnews.com/thread?227974 I honestly hope he DOES release some of the source for anything that he/his team wrote. Some of that code may actually help Haiku (especially drivers - note only parts still missing from Haiku are useful to Haiku now).

Unfortunately with this whole debacle, he'll probably have to run all that code by ACCESS and Lefty before he'll be allowed to ;)

Once it has received blessing from ACCESS as truly non-intrusive of their IP, I think maybe it would be safe for Haiku to use some of it.

But, somehow I doubt ANY of it will see the light of day now. Fri, 06 Apr 2007 00:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (umccullough) Comments irrelevant eh? http://osnews.com/thread?227979 http://osnews.com/thread?227979 Some of the Linux fanboys may think Haiku/BeOS/Zeta are irrelevant but the no of comments on these last few stories seem to show quite the opposite.

By the way, the moment Haiku starts to show any ambition for winning the world in mobile computing, cellphones and PDAs, I think I will lose interest right away (I don't own any of these toys).

I really like that our little OS stays on focus for the best desktop OS experience for power users that like to know how the whole system sort of works. With every other bigger OS, there is a thousand times more stuff under the hood and in the system folders than I ever want to know about and could ever hope to know.

I also hope also that Access can allow yT Zeta apps and drivers to stay out of the mess and be given back, maybe as a payback for misuse.

Posted on a slightly broken Ubuntu system. Fri, 06 Apr 2007 01:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (transputer_guy) Comments Why all the speculation? http://osnews.com/thread?227980 http://osnews.com/thread?227980 This says it all right here:

Bernd Korz and YellowTAB start work on Zeta - something they are not allowed to do as far as the distribution rights go, since they only have distribution rights of BeOS 5, and nothing more. Debate immediately arises in the BeOS community about Zeta's legality.

There were questions about the legality of zeta and if they had beos sources from day one. Those questions were never answered by anyone. So why now is it a big deal to hear Access say yt/whoever doesn't have one? Fri, 06 Apr 2007 01:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (VTPower) Comments Timeline of public announcements http://osnews.com/thread?227984 http://osnews.com/thread?227984 For those of the readers who would like to get an overview of public statements made by Bernd Korz, Magnussoft and David "Lefty" Schlesinger, to build their own opinion, I made a compilation at my blog

http://haikudev.blogspot.com/2007/04/zeta-dead-summary-of-most-inte...

You can also find translations to the german texts, but please be aware that they might not be 100% accourate, as I'm not a native english speaker. However, they should be better than automatic translations. Fri, 06 Apr 2007 01:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (marcusoverhagen) Comments RE[2]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?227986 http://osnews.com/thread?227986
Can't say, specifically; not even if, in actual fact, we did. I'm unaware of any efforts that Mr. Korz made to contact PalmSource, personally. Our legal department is, as far as I know, likewise unaware of any such efforts, and I know that they're quite interested in having a chat with him.


But there is one how probably knows more.

take a look at this artikle on Bebug

http://www.bebug.be/newsitem.php?index=152&language=3



regards

Bobby Fri, 06 Apr 2007 01:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (doppeljot) Comments RE[5]: I am a bl**dy ignoramus but... http://osnews.com/thread?228009 http://osnews.com/thread?228009 They weren't cheap, even by valley standards, and the vast exodus of former Be employees from PalmSource/Access to (mostly) Google/Android happened not at the completion of Cobalt, but rather after Access' acquisition of PalmSource led to a redirection of PalmSource's development effort away from PalmSources PalmOS on top of Linux program toward Access' ALP, which de-emphasized PalmOS, Cobalt, and BeOS like features. Fri, 06 Apr 2007 03:15:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Cloudy) Comments RE[3]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?228013 http://osnews.com/thread?228013 @Marcus Overhagen - Haiku Developer

Thanks for your blog. It is a good account of what has been said by Bernd, David (Access), & Magnussoft on the legal status of Zeta. I hope you update this blog post when more is revealed since it makes it easy to follow what is being said by the three main people involved.

Go Haiku go!

@doppeljot
Good post, I recall Bernd meeting with Jean-Louis Gassee (Be Inc CEO) and figured something had been worked out. At the very least it seems possible Bernd may have obtained a distribution agreement for BeOS 5.

But it is *possible* that he holds some type of development & distribution license for Zeta. But, if this was the case, were licensing fees paid to PalmSource and/or Access? No? And we should definately hear Bernd's response (side of things) *and* if he doesn't prove his rights, then Access should be granted ownership of Zeta.

@mmu_man
Last I heard from remaining devs the fact remains to be asserted if they actually paid what they told they would.

I can't comment if Magnussoft paid the Zeta developers what they were owed. I do know that Bernd parts ways with Magnussoft and then posts that he wants to open source Zeta (give to Haiku) some days later after the split. Seemed like he was upset with Magnussoft & wanted to get back at them (that is the vibe I was getting).

Well, legal or illegal, that has to be worked out with Bernd & Access. So, let them figure this out because none of us have written proof of any of the agreements reached and only can guess.

I hope at least the following occurs:
#1 Zeta to still be sold so those who want to upgrade still can (does not matter who the owner is, Bernd or Access) and/or
#2 Open Source missing drivers to assist Haiku. (this probably won't happen now).Edited 2007-04-06 04:04 Fri, 06 Apr 2007 04:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tonestone57) Comments RE[6]: I am a bl**dy ignoramus but... http://osnews.com/thread?228030 http://osnews.com/thread?228030 Actually, we'd been working on Linux-related stuff for a good year before ACCESS acquired PalmSource, since shortly before PalmSource's acquisition of China Mobilesoft... Fri, 06 Apr 2007 05:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Lefty) Comments RE[7]: I am a bl**dy ignoramus but... http://osnews.com/thread?228038 http://osnews.com/thread?228038 Yes. That was the Linux-related stuff meant by PalmSources PalmOS on top of Linux program in

but rather after Access' acquisition of PalmSource led to a redirection of PalmSource's development effort away from PalmSources PalmOS on top of Linux program toward Access' ALP, which de-emphasized PalmOS, Cobalt, and BeOS like features.


The exodus of Be people to Google happened just after the transition from "PalmOS on Linux" to ALP. Fri, 06 Apr 2007 06:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Cloudy) Comments Amiga takes two. http://osnews.com/thread?228059 http://osnews.com/thread?228059 From the outside, not very interested in details, point of view the Zeta mess looks a lot what happened to Amiga.

The only difference is that Haiku seems to have a chance to do something useful eventually (probably for a very limited hardware configuration though). Fri, 06 Apr 2007 08:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (renox) Comments RE: irrelevant eh? http://osnews.com/thread?228081 http://osnews.com/thread?228081
By the way, the moment Haiku starts to show any ambition for winning the world in mobile computing, cellphones and PDAs, I think I will lose interest right away (I don't own any of these toys).

The "focus" shift as Be did long ago wouldn't happen to Haiku.
Because a) The team doesn't want to get out of desktop, and b) mobile devices are so close to desktop (at least in term of power) now that it makes much more sense now than before to do both IMO. It's just "mobile" desktops, but still desktops. (I don't count T9 phones in). So appart some GUI optimizations for screen space (= font sensitivity, ... which is also good for desktop) and speed (which is also good for desktop) there is not much to change. The rest (drivers, handwriting stuff) can be written as addons and so wouldn't impair the main focus. Notwithstanding the l33t factor of having Haiku run on a Zaurus, a QTek or an n800 ;) ))) Fri, 06 Apr 2007 10:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mmu_man) Comments RE[4]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?228082 http://osnews.com/thread?228082
@mmu_man
I can't comment if Magnussoft paid the Zeta developers what they were owed.

I won't either, just said I heard it might not be.


I do know that Bernd parts ways with Magnussoft and then posts that he wants to open source Zeta (give to Haiku) some days later after the split. Seemed like he was upset with Magnussoft & wanted to get back at them (that is the vibe I was getting).


That has nothing to do with MS, Bernd (as he claims) has the IP attached to the changes in ZETA, not MS.

Well, legal or illegal, that has to be worked out with Bernd & Access. So, let them figure this out because none of us have written proof of any of the agreements reached and only can guess.


If everyone would let them figure out indeed before speaking in here without anything the number of comments wouldn't be so huge. Fri, 06 Apr 2007 11:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mmu_man) Comments RE[4]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?228088 http://osnews.com/thread?228088 Well, if Access & Magnussoft worked out a licensing agreement then Zeta would no longer be illegal *and* both these companies could benefit financially (earn profit).

You're wrongly equating sales with profit. While the former is required for the latter, the latter is only derived when the former exceeds the costs of doing business.

Apparently, both Magnussoft and Access don't share your delusions that the world is just dying for Zeta. Magnussoft's decision, remember, was based on very poor sales. Why would you expect that to change because Bernd is out of the picture? Neither Palm nor Access saw any promise in BeOS' future on the desktop. What evidence do you have to show them that they've made a terrible miscalculation?

Everything that's happened has proven them right.

And, it is doubtful that Magnussoft could make updates to Zeta. Why?

Because it costs time and money they can't recover from the sale of Zeta. Geeeeeeeeeeeeeez. Fri, 06 Apr 2007 12:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucky13) Comments RE[5]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?228145 http://osnews.com/thread?228145 @ lucky13
I'm fine with you expressing your opinion *and* not agreeing with my posts.

But, modding my posts down because you don't *agree* with my statements seems rather childish of you.

Still, I'll respond to you.
Magnussoft's decision, remember, was based on very poor sales.

Magnussoft stopped funding development costs on March 16, but said their distribution of Zeta would continue till end of 2007.

Profit is not possible by paying for development, but only by selling Zeta 1.21 & 1.5. I did *not* tell Access to continue development of Zeta. I merely stated that Zeta 1.21 & 1.5 are finished already (development costs have been paid by Magnussoft for these) and 1.21 & 1.5 should continue to be sold.

If Zeta is found illegal, then Access takes ownership of Zeta 1.21 & 1.5 (finished products) and by allowing Magnussoft to continue selling these, they will make sales / revenue and realize profits from these sales.

I *never* stated continuing *development* (or paying for development) of Zeta, but only to continue selling the current finished versions.

If you take into consideration development costs, then yes Zeta is unprofitable. But, Zeta has *other* distributors too, (who only sell Zeta), don't you think they make money? If Magnussoft had been only a distributor, then they would have made profits instead of incurring losses. Anyone paying for the development of Zeta bear the bulk of the costs.

Magnussoft *paid* development costs already, so they took the loss themselves. The only profit to be realized is with the sale of the OS. It allows Magnussoft to make back *some* of the money they've lost (maybe even come out of it with a small profit in the end).

Access would not pay for *any* development costs *and* an agreement would be only to get a percentage of the profits obtained from the sale of Zeta OSes (ie: 1.5, 1.21, 1.2, 1.1, 1.0) from the time Access becomes the new owner of Zeta (or maybe from when David made the allegation that Zeta was illegal & this was proven).

Seriously, do you even read or understand my posts? Or do you jump to conclusions right away?

>>And, it is doubtful that Magnussoft could make updates to Zeta. Why?

Because it costs time and money they can't recover from the sale of Zeta

Yes, that is another good reason why not to develop Zeta any further. Fri, 06 Apr 2007 15:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tonestone57) Comments RE[6]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?228162 http://osnews.com/thread?228162 Mistakes happen. Zeta was a mistake. Wrapping it in pink ribbons won't change that. Really, it's better just to draw a line in the sand and go forward. Trying to salvage a road crash isn't worth the time, effort, or energy. It's gone, dead, kaputt. Invest in the living: Haiku. Fri, 06 Apr 2007 15:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments Looncraz and PhOs http://osnews.com/thread?228165 http://osnews.com/thread?228165 Some time ago, looncraz (PhOs devoloper) said that zeta is distributed illegaly. Only few of us believed him... Looks like he was right..Edited 2007-04-06 15:52 Fri, 06 Apr 2007 15:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (hexplor) Comments RE[6]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?228179 http://osnews.com/thread?228179 First, I haven't modded anyone's posts up or down.

they will make sales / revenue and realize profits from these sales.

No, again you don't comprehend the software business (or any business). Revenue doesn't equal profit. Revenue in excess of operating expenses does. It's not just a matter of burning CDs. There's a lot more to the business than that, even if they were to take Bernd's code from him and include it without compensating him.

There's not enough demand for Zeta to make it worth the effort of selling. It's not worth the hassle for them or anyone else.

Just look at the fact that Magnussoft was ready to ditch Zeta for poor sales before this bleep hit the fan. It has nothing to do with requiring further development, there's not enough of a market to support selling it.

Be understood that. They tried giving it away to create more demand. Didn't bleeping work!

Palm understood that. They took what they wanted from the code and other IP then apparently shelved the rest.

yellowTab understood that. Maybe a bit too late to save their bleeps, but they know it now.

Magnussoft understood it. That's why they were initially going to stop selling it (poor sales). The licensing issue only sped up the time frame for cessation of sales to "immediately."

Access understands it. They appear to have no interest in selling BeOS or Zeta. I'm sure they'd listen to any offer you might have if you were interested in acquiring Be IP from them. I doubt you'd be able to afford it on your own. I don't think you'd be able to profit from it any more than they already have or will in the future.

Read this again:
"The archived sales figures of Zeta were far below Magnussoft's expectations. Continuation of financing the project is economically no longer viable. For the time being, Magnussoft discontinued funding of the Zeta development team on March, 16th 2007. The exclusive distribution agreement will remain unaffected. The existing contract is valid until the end of 2007."
http://www.osnews.com/story.php/17569/Magnussoft-Zeta-Sale-Figures-...

There's no profit in it. It's over, dude. Fri, 06 Apr 2007 16:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucky13) Comments RE[5]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?228198 http://osnews.com/thread?228198 @mmu_man
That has nothing to do with MS, Bernd (as he claims) has the IP attached to the changes in ZETA, not MS.

I *never* stated Magnussoft has the IP, only that it *appeared* Bernd wanted to get back at Magnussoft because he *seemed* upset at them (the feeling I got). The reason is not known, but my guesses would be probably for stopping payment of the development, or maybe for not paying the developers, or ?.

I realize that Bernd acts like (though never said in writing) that he has a licensing agreement to develop & sell Zeta.

If everyone would let them figure out indeed before speaking in here without anything the number of comments wouldn't be so huge.

You are right, and I've done quite a few posts in here, so I'm pretty responsible too, but I found it to be interesting and wanted to respond, comment and speculate, maybe a little too much, but I thought I had a right to do so.

It was my understanding that we were supposed / allowed to post *any* comments and thoughts on the posted articles, news stories and other board posts.Edited 2007-04-06 17:31 Fri, 06 Apr 2007 17:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tonestone57) Comments RE[7]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?228213 http://osnews.com/thread?228213 Maybe you should read it again, because I did & came to same conclusion:
"The archived sales figures of Zeta were far below Magnussoft's expectations. Continuation of financing the project is economically no longer viable. For the time being, Magnussoft discontinued funding of the Zeta development team on March, 16th 2007. The exclusive distribution agreement will remain unaffected. The existing contract is valid until the end of 2007."

I'll do my best to respond & keep it short.
#1 *development* of Zeta is *NOT* profitable!
#2 *distribution* (sale) of Zeta *IS* profitable! (my other posts refer to this for Access / Magnussoft)
#3 Magnussoft paid *development costs* for 1.21 & 1.5, and are also a Zeta distributor / seller.
#4 March 16, 2007, Magnussoft *NO* longer involved in Zeta development. (Cut their losses) (this & yT going bankrupt proves #1 above).
#5 March 16, Magnussoft *retains* distribution rights (main distributor of Zeta) till end of 2007. (to benefit from profits made off the Zeta sales, otherwise if losses come from selling Zeta, then they would have stopped selling Zeta altogether, proves #2 above).
#6 There are 5 other distributors / sellers
http://www.zeta-os.com/cms/custom/reseller/list.php
Do, you think they are not making profits???? Or maybe they just like making losses? (This proves #2 above).

It is impossible to know the exact profit margins, because I'm not a licensed reseller myself, but I seriously doubt resellers are selling Zeta for a loss!

Magnussoft was involved in *developer / distributor* relationship *and* on March 16 they switched solely to a *distributor* role (I think you are not understanding this or #2 above). Continuing to fund development would have meant further losses to Magnussoft.

Bernd/yT & Be Inc both failed with Zeta/BeOS, because they could not get a strong enough userbase & make the profits required to survive (to offset the development costs - where *most* of the expense comes from).Edited 2007-04-06 18:20 Fri, 06 Apr 2007 18:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tonestone57) Comments RE[8]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?228219 http://osnews.com/thread?228219 http://www.zeta-os.com/cms/custom/reseller/list.php

It looks like they're still selling Zeta, and one of them is selling BeOS 4.5. Since when was that still up for grabs? Also, there's some trademark issues with one site claiming Zeta is BeOS R6. Fri, 06 Apr 2007 18:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE[8]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?228228 http://osnews.com/thread?228228 #1 *development* of Zeta is *NOT* profitable!

No bleep, Sherlock.

#2 *distribution* (sale) of Zeta *IS* profitable!

No, it isn't:
sales figures of Zeta were far below Magnussoft's expectations. Continuation of financing the project is economically no longer viable.

If it were profitable at all, they wouldn't have cut off Bernd in the first place and they would've also wanted an extension of distribution rights beyond this year. They cut Bernd off because they weren't going to make money. They didn't care to extend their contractual rights to distribute Zeta because it's not going to make any money. Ever.

#3-4

Wholly irrelevant and wholly unsupported by the facts.

...Magnussoft *retains* distribution rights (main distributor of Zeta) till end of 2007. (to benefit from profits made off the Zeta sales, otherwise if losses come from selling Zeta, then they would have stopped selling Zeta altogether...

Retaining those rights doesn't mean it was or is "profitable," nor does it prove it. Quite the contrary.

Note that they didn't bother negotiating for rights beyond that time, which, if it were indeed profitable, would be in their interests. All they did by retaining their contractual rights is guarantee that Bernd wouldn't immediately take Zeta to a THIRD distributor within the course of one year and who would then receive income contractually due Magnussoft. That's not a matter of "profit," it's a matter of containing their losses.

You haven't held a job in the real world yet, have you.

#6 There are 5 other distributors / sellers

Not for much longer, if they haven't ceased yet.

Do, you think they are not making profits???? Or maybe they just like making losses?

Again, you seem to have very little understanding of how businesses operate.

Magnussoft hasn't profited from Zeta, and any income they've received from the anemic sales of Zeta probably don't even offset their "investments" in Bernd's development much less the costs of distribution.

The fact that they'd retain their rights for the remainder of the contract doesn't tell you anything about profitability -- it only tells you that they didn't want someone else receiving revenue off their expenses. The other fact -- THAT THEY CUT BERND OFF ALTOGETHER -- tells you what future they saw in Zeta.

None.

Now explain that, Einstein.

Finally...
http://lucky13.blogsavy.com/2007/04/06/beating-a-dead-os-again/ Fri, 06 Apr 2007 19:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucky13) Comments RE[2]: I am a bl**dy ignoramus but... http://osnews.com/thread?228231 http://osnews.com/thread?228231 Thanks for the enlightenment! Fri, 06 Apr 2007 19:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (orfanum) Comments RE[3]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?228232 http://osnews.com/thread?228232 Isn't it Bernd stating that this is what happened? If JLG denies any such meeting, then that doesn't exactly provide any evidence.

This should all turn out to be rather interesting to see where the cow chips land once this is all over. Fri, 06 Apr 2007 19:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (JonathanBThompson) Comments RE[9]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?228250 http://osnews.com/thread?228250 Well, if Zeta is illegal, then Access would hold Bernd responsible for it, and doubtful that Resellers could be held accountable for selling it. (maybe they'll stop selling Zeta, or maybe not).

Magnussoft *probably* stopped, because they were also involved in the development side. That shows a closer relationship to Bernd & they paid to make Zeta 1.21 & 1.5. This makes them look more guilty, plus they are the *main* distributor / reseller for Zeta.

Going into Terminal in Zeta 1.2 & typing in "uname -a" gives:
BeOS ZETA 6.2 ..., etc.

I believe Zeta 1.0 gave output of: BeOS ZETA 6.0

Bernd/yT used BeOS term to let users know it was based off BeOS & 6.x to let them know it was newer/better than BeOS R5 (5.0) and Dano (5.1)Edited 2007-04-06 20:43 Fri, 06 Apr 2007 20:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tonestone57) Comments RE[9]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?228251 http://osnews.com/thread?228251 I would really challenge what MS is writing...Edited 2007-04-06 20:33 Fri, 06 Apr 2007 20:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Rafael) Comments RE[10]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?228262 http://osnews.com/thread?228262 Going into Terminal in Zeta 1.2 & typing in "uname -a" gives: BeOS ZETA 6.2 ..., etc.

I believe Zeta 1.0 gave output of: BeOS ZETA 6.0

Bernd/yT used BeOS term to let users know it was based off BeOS & 6.x to let them know it was newer/better than BeOS R5 (5.0) and Dano (5.1)

Doesn't matter what "rights" Bernd Korz claimed to have over BeOS distribution or the source, use of the BeOS trademark in another product or its advertising is a no-no. If you pulled the same stunt with OpenGL you'd be flayed alive. If you want to call your product "OpenGL" you have to acquire a license and pass the conformancy tests.

I'd like to see Bernd Korz show some proof he has the right to use the BeOS trademark. Maybe he's hidden it in the same place he keeps his proof for distribution and source code. You know, that place next to his magic wand and flying carpet. Fri, 06 Apr 2007 21:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE[9]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?228265 http://osnews.com/thread?228265 I'm glad someone else agreed with me ( modded down your posts ) though I would have preferred if that person would have posted a reply to you, because you certainly do not understand what I'm saying. (or even if he/she would have modded me up instead).

"Sales figures of Zeta were far below Magnussoft's expectations. Continuation of financing the project is economically no longer viable."

This relates to #1 & #2; Magnussoft gets out of #1.

Profitability
A) Reseller (distribution only)
B) Overall (development + distribution)

I'm saying that "A" is profitable (and I realize that "B" is not profitable; ie: take losses). "A" makes profits (is what I've been saying), but Magnussoft took a loss because involved in "B" till March 16 and then switched over to "A" (which makes profits) to *reduce* the loss they took on "B" (mainly from development costs)

Some of your responses confuse "A", what I'm talking about, with "B", what you want to talk about. My posts have dealt with "A" mostly.

Retaining those rights doesn't mean it was or is "profitable," nor does it prove it.

Ok, so then according to you, my #6 means nothing & those other 5 vendors are taking losses too - maybe they are just idiots then? Um, I don't think so.

Magnussoft is *only* a Reseller of Zeta now.
For existing Zeta customers with 1.0 to 1.2, to get 1.5 you need to spend $10Eur for 1.21 + $29Eur for 1.5 = $39 Euro. (+ shipping). And you think *Resellers* are taking a loss on selling Zeta? What it costs more than this? ( Fri, 06 Apr 2007 21:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tonestone57) Comments Magnussoft Still Distributing Zeta http://osnews.com/thread?228275 http://osnews.com/thread?228275 http://www.zeta-os.com/cms/custom/lcd/indexe.php

Magnussoft are still distributing the Live CD version of Zeta 1.21. This may be an oversight on their part but it doesn't look very good. Fri, 06 Apr 2007 21:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE[4]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?228279 http://osnews.com/thread?228279 i saw pictures of the meeting published on the internet.
so there is proof for it.
But was not able to fnde them anymore.
on the picture you could see that Bernd was showing JLG Zeta R1 and as far i can remenber there were taken at Palmsource. Fri, 06 Apr 2007 21:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (doppeljot) Comments RE: Magnussoft Still Distributing Zeta http://osnews.com/thread?228284 http://osnews.com/thread?228284 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeOS

It looks like TuneTracker runs on and bundles a copy of Zeta, and Roland Edirol DV-7 video editors run on a version of BeOS. Fri, 06 Apr 2007 22:15:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE[10]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?228299 http://osnews.com/thread?228299 you certainly do not understand what I'm saying

No, YOU don't understand what you're saying. :-)

distribution side makes money, & resellers only focused on reselling Zeta make profits

Again (sigh), that depends if they actually sell it for more than it costs them. I'm not convinced they do (certainly that's not true with respect to Magnussoft). Purplus has sold Zeta for less than its MSRP as long as I can remember. Zeta 1.5Pro is $6 off, Zeta 1.21 is $40 off now. I don't know how many units they ever sold at MSRP so I don't know if they've broken even yet. Neither do you. It's not break even if you can't sell it, it's not profit if it sits on a shelf or in a box in the back.

Magnussoft will make profits, **on the distribution side**, selling Zeta, to be used against the loss incurred from the development side.

Again, that presumes they can sell it in enough quantity that they can make money off of it. They can't. It doesn't @&#^#*# sell, man.

I'm sorry, I can't make my point any clearer than that.

It doesn't matter how many time you repeat it, it doesn't change the fact that there isn't enough demand to continue selling it. At this point, any retailer with copies is just glad to get what they have invested in them off their shelves so they can make room for things that will sell.

Those retailers aren't under any delusion that there will be sufficient demand for it that they can continue stocking it. Note AGAIN that Magnussoft based their initial decisions to stop development on POOR SALES. They saw nothing that would change that. They moved to cut their losses, not to make "profit." There's a huge difference. I understand it. You don't.

And for the second time, I haven't modded anyone. You and your sycophants can keep modding me down for all I care. Like I give a... Fri, 06 Apr 2007 22:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucky13) Comments RE[9]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?228310 http://osnews.com/thread?228310 "No, it isn't:
sales figures of Zeta were far below Magnussoft's expectations. Continuation of financing the project is economically no longer viable. "

Do you, or did you work for Magnussoft? Do you know _for sure_ the above statement to be fact, or are you just quoting their public statement on this issue?

What authority do you have to repeat their statements in _bold_ letters? ;o)

Ever cross your mind that this could be the most _convenient_ statement Magnussoft could make without having to admit in a public way that they(MS) had been taken for a ride over the code legality issue by Korz?

If I were releasing statement on behalf of Magnussoft, I know what I would rather have the general public believe...the last thing I would want is to admit that my company had been stupid enough to be duped.

And no, I'm not trying to defend weak sales of Zeta they are IMO, dismal. Consider though, that this weakness might just be a way for them to drop the whole damned mess that is Zeta. Fri, 06 Apr 2007 23:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (El-Al) Comments RE: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?228312 http://osnews.com/thread?228312 Lefty,there are some indications out on the net that there were talks between Yt and Be AND some agreements made in 2001

http://www.osnews.com/story.php/511/YellowTAB-to-Release-Updated-Be... Fri, 06 Apr 2007 23:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (doppeljot) Comments RE[11]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?228314 http://osnews.com/thread?228314 Guys, give it a rest. You're not discussing, you're squabbling. I know enough about business and selling to fart gold bricks and this is getting boring. Zeta went down the hole for a lot of reasons, and Haiku could succeed for a lot of reasons. Take a break. You'll sleep easier. Fri, 06 Apr 2007 23:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE[12]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?228317 http://osnews.com/thread?228317 Vibe, couldn't agree more! But then, Iv'e got this earache you see..

Everytime I think it's gone away, up it pops again :o) Fri, 06 Apr 2007 23:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (El-Al) Comments RE[12]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?228325 http://osnews.com/thread?228325 @Vibe
Guys, give it a rest. You're not discussing, you're squabbling.

You are correct Vibe, I did my best but I and lucky13 just will not agree on this, so time to move on & off that particular discussion topic.

# end

@doppeljot

Lefty,there are some indications out on the net that there were talks between Yt and Be AND some agreements made in 2001

Yes, and Lefty wants to "see / read" the agreements to figure out what Bernd/yT was entitled to do. If Bernd's agreement says he can develop and sell a BeOS derivative (namely Zeta), then Access will have to abide by the terms of the agreement. (otherwise, Bernd has to stop his Zeta development & distribution, provide Access with Zeta code & may have other consequences).

And I already know the two "most" likely outcomes :-), and it doesn't look good:

Very Likely: Bernd gets away with it, Access does not get Zeta source code, Zeta stops being sold by Magnussoft (because question of legality still exists / is undetermined).

Somewhat Likely (but doubtful): Bernd proves license agreement, Magnussoft continues selling Zeta till end of 2007. Access gives statement saying that Zeta is in fact legal.Edited 2007-04-07 00:01 Fri, 06 Apr 2007 23:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tonestone57) Comments Lefty Explains Why It Isn't That Simple... http://osnews.com/thread?228331 http://osnews.com/thread?228331 I've answered this question at least a couple of times, most recently in email. As a time saver (for me) I'll reproduce that response and give it a catchy title in the hopes that more folks will read it:

Releasing anything to open source requires a considerable amount of due diligence to ensure that the code being released is not encumbered in any way.

The BeOS sources amount to roughly 3/4 of a gigabyte of code. Having anyone "just come in" and do whatever to it would take a considerable amount of time and effort, and I'd still have to be involved myself and involve my engineering staff, who'd have to take the time to familiarize themselves with that 3/4 of a gig of stuff which we're don't, and don't stand to, derive any income from.

Preparing code for open source release takes considerable work, and it's not simply engineering work, either. There's no quick 'n' dirty way to make it happen--not without my company taking on what I'd consider to be significant and unacceptable risk. Since I am the open source compliance officer for the corporation, I'm required to go through the due diligence necessary to ensure that I'm not placing my employer in a problematical position. That's not a task I can take on lightly, particularly when my time is quite well-filled with activities which are directly relevant to our actual business activities, something that, as I've indicated, BeOS is not. Sorry: them's the facts.

So, I won't make any statement one way or the other as to whether we'll release the BeOS sources. And--in all sincerity, not to aggravate you further--if we decide to, you'll know about it when we do it, and not before: I don't want to create expectations in the community which I can't, ultimately, fulfill. For similar reasons (and issues of security, exposure to NDA'd third-party intellectual property, and the like aside), I'm hesitant to involve a raft of engineers, unknown to me, of uncertain quality, whose work I'd have to oversee anyway.

Operating systems are complex, as I'm sure I don't have to inform people here. You can't "just" do anything. Sorry, again, but that's a fact, too. You don't have to like it, but I can't change it.

I hope this clarifies my position and situation and provides some context. Sat, 07 Apr 2007 00:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Lefty) Comments Something Worth Mentioning... http://osnews.com/thread?228338 http://osnews.com/thread?228338 People may be forgetting that, in February of last year, we made a significant release of code derived from work on BeOS/BeIA under open source license in the form of "OpenBinder", released under the MPL v1.1 (for user space portions) and GPL v2 (for the "Binder Driver"). This is, of course, Linux stuff, but the if Haiku folks (or, really, anybody)would find it useful, have at it.

(This does not apply to the specific exception of Mr. Korz, who falls under various "penalty" clauses in the licenses we utilize, and is thus barred from use of any ACCESS-copyrighted code pending resolution of this situation. And, just for the sake of complete and crystalline clarity, let me point out that code which contains a Be, Inc. copyright statement is ACCESS-copyrighted code. There's no loophole there.)

See http://www4.osnews.com/story/13674/Introduction_to_OpenBinder_and_I...

OpenBinder.org has been taken down--temporarily--while I get it better integrated into the "Hiker Project" site ( http://www.hikerproject.org ). Hiker represents our second major open source release, it was put online in Feburary of this year, and constitutes an "application framework", a set of service components which fill some gaps in Linux-based OS's enabling easier development of seamless applications suited for mobile devices... Sat, 07 Apr 2007 00:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Lefty) Comments RE: Lefty Explains Why It Isn't That Simple... http://osnews.com/thread?228339 http://osnews.com/thread?228339 Lefty, all that being true, I wonder if some of the ex-Be engineers might not undertake the work as a labour of love? Surely they have the experience with the code to be able to open up small chunks at a time. Really, releasing chunks at a time could be more useful to Haiku, because it's possible to focus on the chunks that Haiku is missing or is currently "poorer" at. I heard mention of the VM subsystem, for example. Maybe by limiting the scope and by focusing on things Haiku would benefit from, your opensourcing of sections of the BeOS source could speed Haiku development up. The way I see it is that when Haiku is ready to call itself "R1", a lot more heat goes off of the owner of the BeOS sourcecode IP to do something with it publicly.

Another thought. Given the magnitude of the task you'd undertake to actually *do* anything with the BeOS sourcecode, would ACCESS ever consider licensing the code to a third party to develop? I did get the feeling that there are people out there that would love to *do* something with the code. For example, create an updated version of the PowerPC build with BONE and using GNU tools rather than Metrowerks. Though the PowerPC market is miniscule, currently probably in the region of "hundreds" of users, there are plenty of old Mac's out there that would run BeOS though, and a PowerPC version might be made to support newer hardware too. The problem at the moment is a lack of "free" PowerPC distribution.

One final plea: Is there any chance that ACCESS could release a free version of R5.03 (last release of BeOS)? Say, ISO for PowerPC and Intel? That would actually solve an awful lot of issues that have been raised. If the binaries were released under some kind of licenset that allowed "controlled" modification and re-distribution, BeOS MAX could then become legal.Edited 2007-04-07 00:32 Sat, 07 Apr 2007 00:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (memson) Comments RE[2]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?228341 http://osnews.com/thread?228341 This wouldn't be necessarily relevant, even if it were accurate. If someone, say Mr. Gassee, had some back-channel agreement of some sort (and I can't see how that's possible, frankly: corporations and corporate officers have fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders, and even CEOs can't simply give corporate assets of significant value away on a whim) and it wasn't disclosed to Palm at the time of the purchase of Be's intellectual property, Palm can't be held to that agreement.

As I've written elsewhere, if you sell someone a car but fail to disclose that the bank holds a loan on it, you can't expect the buyer to pay you and the bank as well. And the buyer's gripe is with the seller, not with the bank. Sat, 07 Apr 2007 00:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Lefty) Comments RE[2]: Magnussoft Still Distributing Zeta http://osnews.com/thread?228345 http://osnews.com/thread?228345 It looks like TuneTracker runs on and bundles a copy of Zeta

Yep, and it has been announced that they're ceasing that until further notice:

http://www.tunetrackersystems.com/news.html Sat, 07 Apr 2007 01:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (umccullough) Comments RE[2]: Lefty Explains Why It Isn't That Simple... http://osnews.com/thread?228348 http://osnews.com/thread?228348 Lefty, all that being true, I wonder if some of the ex-Be engineers might not undertake the work as a labour of love? Surely they have the experience with the code to be able to open up small chunks at a time. Really, releasing chunks at a time could be more useful to Haiku, because it's possible to focus on the chunks that Haiku is missing or is currently "poorer" at.

This sounds reasonable.

Though the PowerPC market is miniscule, currently probably in the region of "hundreds" of users, there are plenty of old Mac's out there that would run BeOS though, and a PowerPC version might be made to support newer hardware too. The problem at the moment is a lack of "free" PowerPC distribution.

Playstation 3? There's got to be some money in that.

One final plea: Is there any chance that ACCESS could release a free version of R5.03 (last release of BeOS)? Say, ISO for PowerPC and Intel? That would actually solve an awful lot of issues that have been raised. If the binaries were released under some kind of licenset that allowed "controlled" modification and re-distribution, BeOS MAX could then become legal.

Let it die with Zeta, so Haiku can be a real beginning. Sat, 07 Apr 2007 01:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE: Lefty Explains Why It Isn't That Simple... http://osnews.com/thread?228354 http://osnews.com/thread?228354 Welcome to OSNEWS Lefty,

Where you'll get some posters asking you the same questions over and over again *and* those who are not satisfied with your answers. :-)

You provide a good justification for not open sourcing BeOS & I agree with you. I don't think Haiku needs BeOS code (getting close to done on their own), though open sourcing *missing* drivers would have helped a bit out, but that is Ok. You've already assisted Haiku out, where you could, your efforts are appreciated.

Though I've given my personal insights and opinion; The legal issue needs to be worked out between Bernd & Access. Many will be interested in the outcome once resolved, though I have a pretty good idea how things are going to turn out & I'll comment on it next week with Bernd's statement. And I gave a little hint with one of my previous posts.

One of Lefty's comments that is relevant to the legal issue:
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=17623&comment_id=22... Edited 2007-04-07 02:31 Sat, 07 Apr 2007 02:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tonestone57) Comments RE[2]: Lefty Explains Why It Isn't That Simple... http://osnews.com/thread?228358 http://osnews.com/thread?228358 If you warez BeOS you'll get burned 'cause it's illegal.

*Badoom* Sat, 07 Apr 2007 02:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE[2]: Lefty Explains Why It Isn't That Simple... http://osnews.com/thread?228386 http://osnews.com/thread?228386 Sigh.

I really hate to have to rain on anyone's parade...

The ex-Be engineers (ex-PalmSource engineers) made their choices. If they'd been interested in continuing to work on the ex-BeOS sources, now the property of their ex-employer, I'd have been more inclined to consider it if they hadn't up and taken off en masse. As it is, I'm frankly not.

Let me explain: we had some plans to use, for example, OpenBinder more broadly as a component in the ACCESS Linux Platform. The departure of the main engineer on that project, whom--since he reported to me at the time--I can only describe as "precipitous", left us in the position of having to yank all that stuff out again since we no longer had anyone to support it. This cost some time. Moreover, we couldn't spare the even larger amount of time it would have taken to bring someone up to a level even approaching his familiarity with the code.

(Moreover, the ex-Be engineers, the main one of whom I had directed to have no other responsibilities other than supporting OpenBinder, immediately stopped doing anything on Binder once he'd left. I was doubly displeased.)

So we're not using Binder at the moment, we're using D-Bus.

So, not likely.

As I've said several times elsewhere, the legal time involved in writing a license, negotiating terms (since even in a money-free transaction, there are always terms: we have interests to protect) and then administering that license (since a license, like any relationship, requires ongoing attention) would take a significant amount of legal time, which, likewise, we can neither really justify nor spare in the immediately foreseeable future.

So, not likely.

And releasing a "free" (i.e., all we get to do is spend money and time on it) version, one that we'd have to a) compile, b) build, c) test to see if it did, in fact run on PowerPC and Intel, d) fix whatever egregious bugs we turned up in steps a, b and c, lather, rinse, repeat.

Since we wouldn't, in this scenario, be releasing sources, I'd assumed you were, in fact, referring to a "free version of R5.03" which actually worked on something like even remotely current machines, as opposed to the machines of five of six years ago.

Moreover, I'd have to evaluate the status of any third-party software inveigled in all of this, determine whether we could use any of it or not, then have engineering shore up whatever holes got left because we couldn't use this or that...

So, not likely.

I'm going to just start using the permalinks. I don't really have the time to be saying essentially the same things over and over... Sat, 07 Apr 2007 06:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Lefty) Comments RE: I am a bl**dy ignoramus but... http://osnews.com/thread?228387 http://osnews.com/thread?228387 Sort of answered part of my own question:

http://www.oshistory.net/metadot/index.pl?id=2433;isa=Category;op=s...

by no means complete, from what I can tell, but some more timeline information. Sat, 07 Apr 2007 06:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (orfanum) Comments RE: Lefty Explains Why It Isn't That Simple... http://osnews.com/thread?228414 http://osnews.com/thread?228414 Tough. From this Lefty's posting i got impression, that even GPL-ed code, if used in Zeta, cannot to be published now, which creates very bad contradiction, as it should be published by license (as GPL-licensed derived work was distributed in public).

Not to say about BSD/MIT licensed pieces which are known to be created by third parties from BeOS community and then improved by YT, like some drivers.

Corporate (ACCESS) virus which polluted all what YT/Bernd touched? Sat, 07 Apr 2007 11:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (fyysik) Comments RE[10]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?228419 http://osnews.com/thread?228419 Ever cross your mind that this could be the most _convenient_ statement Magnussoft could make without having to admit in a public way that they(MS) had been taken for a ride over the code legality issue by Korz?

1. Re "convenient statements" and "admitting in a public way": The problem is they've subsequently made one in relation to withdrawing Zeta completely.

2. Re "taken for a ride over code legality": The problem with your arguments is they would've withdrawn it even sooner.

Consider though, that this weakness might just be a way for them to drop the whole damned mess that is Zeta.

I give them a little more credit for being ethical than you do. First, they didn't impugn Bernd even after he wrote some unflattering things on his blog and even hinted that he might consider opening the very code for which Magnussoft had contractual commercial distribution rights for the rest of this year. Second, they sought legal counsel as soon they learned there was a licensing issue. Third, they've sought Bernd's cooperation. Fourth, they immediately moved to cease distribution once they determined Access owned the IP and said there was no licensing agreement.

While I believe they should've had a copy of any license agreement with Palm, Access, etc., in hand before even ever agreeing in principle to pick up any of the broken pieces of yellowTab, I think they've done the right thing under the circumstances. They didn't whitewash anything, they've been forthright.

So no, I won't don a tinfoil beanie and cast unfounded aspersions like you have. Sat, 07 Apr 2007 11:59:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucky13) Comments RE[13]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?228425 http://osnews.com/thread?228425 If Bernd's agreement says he can develop and sell a BeOS derivative (namely Zeta), then Access will have to abide by the terms of the agreement.

No, they won't, unless it can be established that any such agreement was disclosed to them when they acquired the Be IP assets. Lefty's analogy about buying a car with a lien is apropos. Unless someone at Access has a different recollection of the facts, the whole issue of licensing is moot: Access owns it, it's theirs, and it's over when they say it's over.

Very Likely: Bernd gets away with it,

That's very unlikely. Whether Access takes any legal action against him (I suspect they won't since he doesn't have deep pockets and because Zeta isn't a profitable venture for anyone) or not, his personal and professional reputation is sunk.

Access does not get Zeta source code,

If they own the underlying work, any derivatives would legally accrue to them. Any derivatives of their IP cannot be used to benefit parties infringing upon their IP. It would belong to Access, and Access could then do whatever they want with it.

Zeta stops being sold by Magnussoft

This has already happened, and rightly so.

Somewhat Likely (but doubtful): Bernd proves license agreement, Magnussoft continues selling Zeta till end of 2007. Access gives statement saying that Zeta is in fact legal.

Wrong, totally unlikely. Even if Bernd does have an agreement, Access are claiming they had and still have no knowledge of it. They're not bound by any agreement of which they have no knowledge. Magnussoft cannot continue selling something which isn't legal. And unless someone at Access comes along and refutes everything that's transpired this week and says the company did actually know of an agreement with Bernd, the last sentence is laughable.

The whole issue right now is, Why hasn't Bernd shown a contract to anyone? He refused to discuss the matter with Magnussoft's lawyer, he hasn't shown a license agreement to Magnussoft, he hasn't faxed one to Access before or since Access addressed the situation, he hasn't offered to show one to the editors here at OSNews, he hasn't put anything up on his blog proving he had any such agreements.

Then it still comes down to whether Palm/Access ever knew about any agreement with Bernd or anyone else. No agreement, no knowledge of one, nobody can deprive them of the value of their asset. Case law is very well established in this area.

Zeta isn't Bernd's property to develop and it isn't Magnussoft's to distribute. It's based on the Be IP, and all derivatives of the Be IP belong to the rightful owner of the Be IP. Sat, 07 Apr 2007 12:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucky13) Comments RE[2]: Lefty Explains Why It Isn't That Simple... http://osnews.com/thread?228426 http://osnews.com/thread?228426 Corporate (ACCESS) virus which polluted all what YT/Bernd touched?

Access is a very open source-friendly company. I really don't think you should blame them for Bernd's mistakes. Sat, 07 Apr 2007 12:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucky13) Comments RE[2]: Lefty Explains Why It Isn't That Simple... http://osnews.com/thread?228430 http://osnews.com/thread?228430 the PowerPC market is miniscule, currently probably in the region of "hundreds" of users

This is why nobody in his right mind is going to pay (1) for a license to develop BeOS, (2) pay to actually develop BeOS, or (3) ever find anyone to distribute a re-developed BeOS. There's not enough demand to justify any step in the process.

there are plenty of old Mac's out there that would run BeOS though

Wow! That must be a lucrative market to which to cater an old OS that was designed for "modern" hardware! By golly, sell a $100 OS for a $10 computer -- wonder why nobody ever tried that before.

Development and distribution license: thousands and thousands of dollars.
Costs of updating and re-developing an OS: thousands and thousands more dollars.
Getting "hundreds" of owners of older $5-10 PPCs to fork over $100: priceless!

There are some things money can't buy. Good business sense is apparently one of them...

and a PowerPC version might be made to support newer hardware too

At what price? Where's the market demand outside of the "probably in the region of 'hundreds'"?

Read what Lefty wrote again -- the part that says: "stuff which we're don't, and don't stand to, derive any income from [sic]" and "my time is quite well-filled with activities which are directly relevant to our actual business activities, something that, as I've indicated, BeOS is not. Sorry: them's the facts."

IOW, it's too much work for them that can't ever pay them enough because there's not enough interest. Sat, 07 Apr 2007 12:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucky13) Comments RE[3]: Lefty Explains Why It Isn't That Simple... http://osnews.com/thread?228433 http://osnews.com/thread?228433 Well, but who will be guilty for possible GPL violation?
Person who don't publish changes, or company which prevents to do it by FD (U is from Bernd's side though), or person talking in the name of company (as till now no really official statement issued)?

Also, thing with "hidden" agreements don't look so simple, as you interpret it. If companies will refuse contracts which coudn't be found due internal disorder, e.g. happened in chain of bayouts, but existing in hands of other sides, it will be total crash of corporate world. Though, in our case it is speculation, as it seems Bernd still didn't show any evidence of contract, at least he didn't claim that he did.

But if he has it, things may be go much funnier - he can sue David Schlesinger personally for reputation and bussiness damage for sum, which overcomes those theoretical fines, which are, according word of mouth, included in NDA-part of his/YT contract with Palm as penalty for contract disclosure.

And don't forget, that YT is under permanent official, including tax-department-and-police, observation for couple of last months. As it is in insolvency/bankruptcy process. So, if any additional law violation, besides those "debts" will be discovered, like that bussiness was totally illegal (and, if Lefty is right - it was), we will know it officially as result of that process.Edited 2007-04-07 13:02 Sat, 07 Apr 2007 13:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (fyysik) Comments RE[4]: Lefty Explains Why It Isn't That Simple... http://osnews.com/thread?228444 http://osnews.com/thread?228444 If companies will refuse contracts which coudn't be found due internal disorder, e.g. happened in chain of bayouts, but existing in hands of other sides, it will be total crash of corporate world.

1. It's not a matter of "internal disorder," it's a matter of due diligence. Companies go through extensive vetting processes when acquiring new assets. Everything is to be discovered and/or disclosed during due diligence. That's when any and all licensing agreements are to be disclosed.

2. It doesn't matter if one asset (Be IP in this case) has had one owner or a million owners. The only chain that matters is what's determined during due diligence. Non-disclosure of previous agreements or liabilities doesn't bind the new owner to them, as Lefty has already analogized in his car lien example.

3. At this point, it doesn't even matter if Bernd has a license agreement. Access, the owner of the IP, claims to not know of one. They're bound only to what they know from due diligence.

4. This will not lead to a collapse of anything, probably not even the delusion many BeOS fans have that it will be resurrected and take over the whole world (insert evil laughter sound effect). The only cure for that is a really strong b*tch-slap from reality, seriously long couch time with a good therapist, or certain medications best administered by a psychiatrist or other mental health professional. I think the latter two would be more effective than the first, because the first just hasn't worked over the course of six or seven years.

But if he has it, things may be go much funnier

I disagree. Bernd hasn't been libeled or slandered by anyone at Access, and he would have to demonstrate that Access knew about a license all along and that they knowingly engaged in a campaign designed to harm him and his reputation. I don't think Bernd would be able to prove defamation in court. I also think he'd be unable to find a lawyer because Schlesinger hasn't said anything actionable or otherwise detrimental to Bernd or his reputation (as far as I'm aware). Sat, 07 Apr 2007 13:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucky13) Comments RE[5]: Lefty Explains Why It Isn't That Simple... http://osnews.com/thread?228450 http://osnews.com/thread?228450
3. At this point, it doesn't even matter if Bernd has a license agreement. Access, the owner of the IP, claims to not know of one. They're bound only to what they know from due diligence.


I freely can imagine situation when/if that infortunate hypotetical contract is somewhere in deep bottom of Palm - NOT PALM SOURCE - legal department archives.

In such situation, Lefty wouldn't be guilty, but IMHO Bernd wouldn't be too.


But I think that ACCESS legal department is bit aware of such possibility, that's why going in court in Germany and even issuing official statement may be risky for them. In this or that meaning.

As national laws are over (as last word) of any corporate and personal agreements, that very hypotetical contract may be disclosed in court by requirement, so Bernd will be free of NDA-obligation, and ACCESS will loose money and part of reputation.

That was meaning, among another, of Lefty's word about "it may turn to be too expensive" or such - don't remember exact wording. Sat, 07 Apr 2007 13:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (fyysik) Comments RE[6]: Lefty Explains Why It Isn't That Simple... http://osnews.com/thread?228455 http://osnews.com/thread?228455 I think that ACCESS legal department is bit aware of such possibility, that's why going in court in Germany and even issuing official statement may be risky for them.

Risky? No, it's not risky at all. The only issue that matters about that is whether it's worth fighting. Lefty has made it very clear that they have much bigger fish to fry at Access.

That was meaning, among another, of Lefty's word about "it may turn to be too expensive" or such - don't remember exact wording.

No! Go read it again. His points didn't address any liabilities for Access at all -- their position, clearly, is they have no liabilities or outstanding licenses with Bernd. He alluded to some possible "exposure to NDA'd third-party intellectual property" if they went through the code to open source it:

For similar reasons (and issues of security, exposure to NDA'd third-party intellectual property, and the like aside), I'm hesitant to involve a raft of engineers, unknown to me, of uncertain quality, whose work I'd have to oversee anyway.

All his points about expenses related to what it would directly cost Access in terms of their own resources -- time and money for engineers -- to go through and release the code. And what's in it for them? BeOS isn't part of their existing or future business. It's something that matters to very few people, no strongly how much those few people believe in it. Sat, 07 Apr 2007 13:59:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucky13) Comments RE[7]: Lefty Explains Why It Isn't That Simple... http://osnews.com/thread?228459 http://osnews.com/thread?228459
No! Go read it again. His points didn't address any liabilities for Access at all -- their position, clearly, is they have no liabilities or outstanding licenses with Bernd. He alluded to some possible "exposure to NDA'd third-party intellectual property" if they went through the code to open source it:


IIRC Lefty said about possible expences in previous thread (and newsitem) here at OsNews, when he appeared here first time Sat, 07 Apr 2007 14:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (fyysik) Comments RE[8]: Lefty Explains Why It Isn't That Simple... http://osnews.com/thread?228463 http://osnews.com/thread?228463 I rest my case:

http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=17628&comment_id=22... Sat, 07 Apr 2007 14:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucky13) Comments RE[11]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?228468 http://osnews.com/thread?228468 LOL, I don't often get dragged into mud-slinging on public forums...

"So no, I won't don a tinfoil beanie and cast unfounded aspersions like you have."

WTF! I have no need nor intention whatsoever to "don a tinfoil beanie" as you put it.

I am simply reluctant to accept that the public has, as yet, all the 'facts' (for want of a better word) at their disposal to make informed judgements of this situation.

I am also acutely aware that 'fact' does not always equal 'truth' in situations like these.

The situation does not look good for Bernd Korz admittedly but lets hear what he has to say.

As for casting aspersions, I don't believe I have. On the other hand, reading your posts I notice that you make several spiteful, somewhat damaging remarks about personal preferences not to mention sacastic remarks about the intelligence of others.

Fanboy
Sherlock
Einstein

Hmmm....are these not unfounded aspersions? Sat, 07 Apr 2007 14:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (El-Al) Comments RE[12]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?228470 http://osnews.com/thread?228470 You guys are arguing again. Simply, Access don't have a business vision to make anything of BeOS, and letting it go would cost them a huge amount of money for no return. It may be true, it may not be true, but beating them around the head won't change anything apart from giving you a cheap thrill.

http://developers.slashdot.org/developers/07/04/07/1240206.shtml

Someone finally got around to lifting this story and slapping it on Slashdot. I've taken a look at the comments that have rolled in and it's just full of more of the same speculative and lazy huffing and puffing from people who aren't really interested and don't know anything. Quite sad, really.

All Haiku has to do is deliver. The rest, as they say, will be history.

Note: Some people are bad mouthing Access, but their attempt to quietly resolve the issue, existing open sourcing, and freeing of BeOS related documentation should be enough to fireproof them from any spiteful Slashdot agenda.Edited 2007-04-07 15:04 Sat, 07 Apr 2007 15:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE[5]: Lefty Explains Why It Isn't That Simple... http://osnews.com/thread?228479 http://osnews.com/thread?228479 > But if he has it, things may be go much funnier
> - he can sue David Schlesinger personally...

I doubt it. Bernd waved his opportunity to prove he had an agreement when he chose not to respond to the cease and desist letters from ACCESS. Sat, 07 Apr 2007 15:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (sogabe) Comments RE[2]: Lefty Explains Why It Isn't That Simple... http://osnews.com/thread?228481 http://osnews.com/thread?228481 Hm, well.

(I'm not sure I've got you correctly, but let's run with it...)

If Mr. Korz were to have used code which is covered by the GPL as part of Zeta, as it's been sold, I'd imagine he'd have had to have adapted it for that environment in some way. If so, since the modified versions seem not to have been republished or offered for reproduction (to legitimate purchasers of binary versions of Zeta), then that would presumably put him already in violation of the licenses on, and in infringement of the copyrights of, any of the code he used in such a fashion.

Is that what you meant...? Sat, 07 Apr 2007 16:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Lefty) Comments RE[3]: Lefty Explains Why It Isn't That Simple... http://osnews.com/thread?228482 http://osnews.com/thread?228482 Doesn't Zeta come with music playback software? That might put them in violation of Fraunhofer IIS and Thomson's patents on MPEG Layer 3. Also, if they've included an implementation of OpenGL without proper licensing, I'd think that SGI would want to have a talk with Bernd Korz as well.

What puzzles me is how Bernd Korz hid behind a limited liability company, yet, as the "owner" of Zeta has managed to slide off the hook for his personal liability. As the original supplier of fake goods wouldn't this make him personally liable for damages? This smoke and mirrors makes my head hurt. Sat, 07 Apr 2007 16:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE[3]: Lefty Explains Why It Isn't That Simple... http://osnews.com/thread?228485 http://osnews.com/thread?228485 If so, since the modified versions seem not to have been republished or offered for reproduction (to legitimate purchasers of binary versions of Zeta), then that would presumably put him already in violation of the licenses on, and in infringement of the copyrights of, any of the code he used in such a fashion.

That's the way I see it also... and from what I've heard, this has already been an issue with Zeta in the past where FSF has contacted yT/Bernd asking for them to release the modifications to GPL'd code.

I think this is where the community is torn here: Many believe that the Zeta OS code is more-or-less illegally being used now - yet there are many applications that have been added to Zeta (many pre-existing independent BeOS apps) and improved as such. These are the applications and source that many in the community were hoping Bernd Korz would subsequently provide to the community as open-source.

Likewise, Bernd and co. have written several drivers for Zeta which are otherwise unavailable for BeOS/Haiku. It would be excellent for the community as a whole if these (hopefully) non-infringing bits of code were possibly made available.

I realize that with Bernd's tarnished reputation now, it's likely that any code he attempts to provide as open-source will likely be considered "tainted" - but is there a possibility that some of it might see the light of day again?

I suppose this rests entirely on whatever the outcome of future discussions, actions, and agreements are made between Bernd and ACCESS... I'm actually hoping that something positive may still come out of this. Sat, 07 Apr 2007 17:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (umccullough) Comments RE[4]: Lefty Explains Why It Isn't That Simple... http://osnews.com/thread?228489 http://osnews.com/thread?228489 I suppose this rests entirely on whatever the outcome of future discussions, actions, and agreements are made between Bernd and ACCESS... I'm actually hoping that something positive may still come out of this.

I'll be happy when Zeta and Bernd are taken out of circulation. There may be some difficulty in bringing applications and drivers up to speed but they will have no issues attached to them. This may seem costly and ruthless in the short-term but a totally clean Haiku would be free and forward looking on its own terms. Prune the branch, save the tree.Edited 2007-04-07 17:20 Sat, 07 Apr 2007 17:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE[4]: Lefty Explains Why It Isn't That Simple... http://osnews.com/thread?228491 http://osnews.com/thread?228491
...from what I've heard, this has already been an issue with Zeta in the past where FSF has contacted yT/Bernd asking for them to release the modifications to GPL'd code...


ORLY...?

Got any further details, than "from what you've heard"...?

Inquring minds are dying to know. Sat, 07 Apr 2007 17:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Lefty) Comments RE[14]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?228493 http://osnews.com/thread?228493 AS TO ZETA'S LEGAL STATUS

The court system ultimately determines who was right or wrong. And so, court can only determine if Zeta is legal or illegal. Unless Bernd admits wrong doing (which is not likely), then Access has to prove it and the only place this can happen is in the court system (legal action). Even if Access is very certain Bernd is producing Zeta illegally, they can only accuse him of it and he can deny it, choose not to respond or admit to it. Lefty, from Access, has said they were not interested in pursuing legal action, lawyers & court case, against Bernd to settle this. So, at best, Access makes Zeta's legal status questionable (is it legal? is it illegal? courts can only really decide this, even if Access knows / believes they are right).

Magnussoft is not risking their reputable business without proof. They have stopped selling Zeta until it can be proven to be legal (and if illegal, then would require some type of arrangement with Access to continue selling Zeta; but if legal status remains questionable, then who has the rights to Zeta, Bernd or Access?). If it is legal, then Magnussoft will start selling it again, but if the status is illegal or even questionable, then that is the end of Zeta (Zeta stops selling for good; Goodbye Zeta).

Access accusing is not enough to get them the source code to Zeta. They have to prove it (or Bernd admits to it). Saying it is illegal does not entitle Access to the Zeta code. So, without the court, they can only claim Zeta belongs to them, because it is BeOS derivative. Bernd does not have to release Zeta code to Access unless the court tells him to. Court decides / determines if Access is entitled to Zeta, Access saying they are is just not enough.

Hypothetical Situation: Lets say Bernd gives Lefty the license agreement he has and it is read over. Lefty says, I looked over the agreement and still confirm Zeta is illegal, Bernd says, no, you misinterpreted it and that agreement is binding and allows me to make & sell Zeta legally. Then who is right? Well, the court has to decide this. This is why we have courts and lawyers - to settle disputes. If both parties can agree that it is either legal or illegal, then no problem, otherwise these type of disagreements have to be taken up in court.

Also, does anyone know if Bernd has an agreement (may not exist), or if he has an agreement, who it was negotiated with, what were the terms and allows him to do, why Palm does not know about it or acknowledge it, if the agreement is even binding, etc. And we will probably never know, because Bernd only has to prove this in the court system.

CONCLUSION
So, unless Bernd willingly admits wrong doing or that Zeta is illegal - which he likely will not to avoid any legal action against him. And without legal action by Access, lawyer & court, then there may be no final resolution to the legal / illegal question, other than just an *accusation* by Access, which may be true and valid, is nothing more than just that. In which case, the legal status only becomes questionable (so the rightful owner to Zeta is not really determined, Bernd or Access?), and Zeta is done once and for all. This seems to be the most likely outcome.

PS I'm not taking sides here, just stating what I see to be the fact of the matter and most likely outcome from all this.

@lucky13
tonestone57 wrote: >Very Likely: Bernd gets away with it,

I was referring to Access not receiving any money from Bernd. No financial consequences for Bernd - to me this is getting away with it. (I believe Bernd to be guilty, though Bernd should be considered innocent until *proven* guilty in court).

As to Bernd's professional & personal reputation being ruined. Can you say for sure it is? How do you know? This is your prediction, and might be right or could be wrong. It may not effect Bernd or have little effect or maybe lots. I can not say for sure, can you? Do you think every German will know the Zeta story of Bernd Korz?Edited 2007-04-07 17:40 Sat, 07 Apr 2007 17:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tonestone57) Comments RE[3]: Lefty Explains Why It Isn't That Simple... http://osnews.com/thread?228496 http://osnews.com/thread?228496 Mr. Schlesinger

the BeOS 5 PE was free, so why should be there so much more third-party software in a "new" BeOS 5.03 Version?

If think ACCESS could distinguish if they would release a 5.03 or also the Dano Version (although it's buggy), but maybe the BeOS/ZETA/Haiku Community is too small...


so if ZETA is dead or will be dead because we do not get a solution I will not need a replacement for it, and many of the ZETA customers think so but some and I also would still like to use a real alternative to WIN/LINUX, but HAIKU is not ready yet! Sat, 07 Apr 2007 17:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Rafael) Comments RE[4]: Comment by ormandj http://osnews.com/thread?228500 http://osnews.com/thread?228500 My understanding of permissive behavior here is that the contract from Koche was for the "Next Public BeOS Release." That is, post-R5.0.3 by one release. Either that could be 5.0.4 ( never released ) or Dano ( leaked, allegedly by Be, INC ( marginally constituting a release )).

Following this path, legality is sketchy, and could warrant a dispute between Access and yellowTAB as to whether or not Dano was leaked by Be, INC as an unofficial release, but a release nonetheless.

This was apparently the result of failure on part of the contract to specify what warranted a 'release' or to specify an exact revision designation.

However, one could argue, that because Be, INC supplied 5.0.4 to yellowTAB ( or Koche? ) that Dano was obviously not the intent of the contract, but the cross-argument is that 5.0.4 was never released, whereas Dano was ( even if not officially ).

Access would then have to argue that the contract 'implied' official releases only, but then Bernd could just fall back on the wonder of contracts... basically if it ain't written, it ain't there. Meaning that the contract COULD then become illegitimated by the court due to improper vagueness ( only preventing further usage, but no punitive damage rewards ), but that would be a stretch.

Access, would have no burden, of course, to prove it even intends to use the IP, it owns it... that is all that they need.

Now, if we consider that yellowTAB used Dano as the 'next-release' base, with a contract that permitted binary substitution ( with some source access ) of the 'next-release', then Zeta is 100% legit until proven otherwise, but is also perfectly safe for anyone to use as the legal issues can't even really hurt yellowTAB unless they get screwed over on legal defense.

--The loon

( Around for all these things, now nearly silently. ) Sat, 07 Apr 2007 18:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (looncraz) Comments RE[15]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?228502 http://osnews.com/thread?228502 So, unless Bernd willingly admits wrong doing or that Zeta is illegal - which he likely will not to avoid any legal action against him. And without legal action by Access, lawyer & court, then there may be no final resolution to the legal / illegal question, other than just an *accusation* by Access, which may be true and valid, is nothing more than just that. In which case, the legal status only becomes questionable (so the rightful owner to Zeta is not really determined, Bernd or Access?), and Zeta is done once and for all. This seems to be the most likely outcome.

A formal complaint to the police is only a web click away. I'm still weighing up in my mind whether to make a formal complaint or not. There's more than enough cause to be suspicious and, the last time I checked, mass copyright infringment and seeking money under false pretences was a criminal offence. For example: Under United Kingdom law Bernd Korz would be facing an unlimited fine and up to ten years in prison. German law is more lenient, as a quick look suggests a fine or five years in prison is the going rate. In both cases, prosecuting authorities can act independently, regardless of whether a complaint was made by the copyright holder themselves. Sat, 07 Apr 2007 18:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE[5]: Comment by ormandj http://osnews.com/thread?228505 http://osnews.com/thread?228505 My understanding of permissive behavior here is that the contract from Koche was for the "Next Public BeOS Release." That is, post-R5.0.3 by one release. Either that could be 5.0.4 ( never released ) or Dano ( leaked, allegedly by Be, INC ( marginally constituting a release )).

It looks like the Koch contract was tighter than I thought. This totally removes any claim Bernd Korz has in my mind. It just puts him on the same level as a warez kiddie that made it big. Just because a preview copy is floating around and some employee with an agenda leaks the source, it doesn't constitute an authorised release of a product. That's like saying someone could charge for the leaked Doom III aplha or Half-Life 2 source and trouser the money. Sat, 07 Apr 2007 19:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments some infos http://osnews.com/thread?228508 http://osnews.com/thread?228508 there were some infos on the old yt site.
here some of the things:

The lack of sales forced Be, Inc. to the well-publicised focus shift, which led us to Be Inc.'s biggest and final mistake: the concentration on developing BeIA (Be [for] Internet Appliance[s]). This announcement was extremely counterproductive as virtually all development of commercial software ceased at once. Furthermore, it made it impossible for Be, Inc. to pick up the BeOS pieces again, when the prophesied market for embedded systems turned out to be yet another analyst red herring!

The focus shift was the beginning of yellowTAB. Since Be, Inc. wouldn't be able to refocus on BeOS, the idea of sourcing code was born. The yellowTAB concept was started by 10 people in Stuttgart, Germany, who were not willing to give up BeOS and still saw a market for it.

Before Be, Inc. sold its assets to Palm, Inc., we managed to close a deal allowing us to distribute the PE version and had started negotiations over the future of the Pro version. Koch Media was ready to reissue the copies of the Pro Version that they hadn't managed to resell, to make it a part of a new distribution first called BeOS NG (New Generation), now renamed to "ZETA".

In June 2001 while we went into the final negotiations with Be, Inc. over financing the development of a release of BeOS R6, we got the message from Be, Inc. that they were no longer able to negotiate with us. The reason was that they had a potential investor. We decided to wait till we got the name of the new investor or buyer of BeOS/IA. Once the shareholders of Be, Inc. had voted to approve the sale to Palm we established the needed contact with Palm, Inc. in November. We are most grateful for the help we have received from Be Inc., in providing us with contact information for Palm, Inc. Sat, 07 Apr 2007 19:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Rafael) Comments RE[6]: Comment by ormandj http://osnews.com/thread?228510 http://osnews.com/thread?228510 Well, if I had a contract that said 'next-release' which gave me permission to use said product in the manner in which I am using it... I certainly would do it!

The contract ( permission ) is there, the question goes only to if Be had intended to have Dano or 5.0.4 as the basis ( 5.0.4 seems obvious, but the contract terms are what matters ).

I have not seen the contract, and some of this is conjecture from Bernd's behavior while I was working at yT. I must also take credit for the entire idea of using Dano as a base, though the legal issues were suppose to have been sorted out through Bernd and a lawyer and some quiet nods of approval from PalmSource.

Problem now is that those quiet nods were not on paper, and PalmSource now belongs to Access. This means, that because there *IS* a contract, which is likely to be slightly vague in terms of what constitutes the next revision of BeOS releases, post-5.0.3, Be, INC's failure to officially release anything represents a breach of contract on Be's part.

Meaning yellowTab COULD now have a bullet ( though likely addressed via the original contract in some manner ) by which they can assert that they have EVERY right to consider Dano the first release after 5.0.3.

Now, the matter is to determine if executives or lawyers at Be, INC intended to leak Dano. The leak actually put-off legal problems of this regard, and could have been to help show what they had accomplished and to try and attract investment.

Or, it could be a 'disgruntled' employee, in which case Dano would be off-limits, and Bernd would have had to get permission from Be, INC to utilize even 5.0.4 ( which was never released or leaked as a full distro ), but failing to provide that permission would have been breach of contract in failing to produce the next release.

Dano solved those problems for Be, INC. And stood to solve them for yellowTab. I recognized this dynamic situation when I suggested to base the OS from yellowTAB on the Dano base ( and I was openly conducting R&D and testing via the SuperDANO project ).

The SuperDANO project was a limited experiment on various volunteer machines. No mirrors were created because that would violate laws in the U.S. and Texas ( where I am from ) and California ( where the intellectual property rights were governed ).

Prior to joining yT I had started PhOS, again with limited, but wider, testing. Bernd at that time was working on BeOS NG ( 5.0.4 distro ). He had spent much time on it, as I had with my own personal twist on Dano . We got together to write a program to keep several applications up to date in binary form based from stable CVS repositories.

After hashing out the shell in half an hour ( or so ), Bernd wanted me to help him out with BeOS NG, at yellowTAB. I agreed, and took my work from the public eye to hope to have it properly and legally releasable ( what I was hoping to do by purchasing a contract from Be, INC as they were losing value ).

The resulting product is Zeta, though after I left ( primarily because Bernd failed to provide the contract to me so I could verify the true legality of what was my project ) my source code came with me, but the binary manipulation techniques I used still seemed to be present until post-R1, as well as some of the test decors I had made while reversing the decors ( with partially workable code that Bernd claimed to have licensed ( and when I asked for the contract proof ).

--The loon

Just in case anyone wants the entire truth about why I was popular, more than just guesses, it is because I engineered a community environment by osmosis and attrition. My name got out, so I got popular. No other reason. ( Oh, and I was working very publicly as Linus Torvalds did when he started ).

Now, I am very wrapped up in some rather crazy development. All legal and owned by yours truly.

Gonna be a fun next 18 months or so ( if I don't have to goto war first, or it come to me ( most likely so ) ). Sat, 07 Apr 2007 20:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (looncraz) Comments RE: some infos http://osnews.com/thread?228511 http://osnews.com/thread?228511 What you're saying looks like Koch Media has discontinued stock sitting on the shelf that they wanted to sell. No problem there but it's a bit of a leap to distributing unauthorised works and using, apparently illegal, source code on the back of negotiations that were never completed.

This looks to me that there was nothing here other than a simple warez scheme. Instead of getting zero Bernd Korz played it big and bluffed his way through the whole Zeta affair like a con man. He only got away with it because a company had collapsed and nobody was around to say otherwise, and he milked the enthusiasm of the BeOS fan base for every pfennig he could get. Sat, 07 Apr 2007 20:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments Mr. Schlesinger http://osnews.com/thread?228523 http://osnews.com/thread?228523 I am only really surprised that ACCESS (PalmSource), (so in my opinion the comments from Mr. Schlesinger are formal declarations,) is doing as if they would know of nothing, but sorry if I do not believe that!

sorry Mr. Schlesinger if you are getting tired to answer our questions, but your comments sounds like that there was never any correspondence between PalmSource and Bernd Korz/yellowtab, would you that argue so? Sat, 07 Apr 2007 21:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Rafael) Comments RE: Mr. Schlesinger http://osnews.com/thread?228533 http://osnews.com/thread?228533 I've already stated, several times, that we send cease and desist notices to YellowTab, advising them in clear terms that they were in violation of our copyrights, but to no particular avail.

If you're suggesting that some sort of license existed between Palm (between 2001 and 2003), or PalmSource (between 2003 and 2005) ACCESS (from 2005 to presnet) and YellowTab, that would be completely incorrect. I've asked Mr. Korz, in various places (he seems to do a good job of keeping his email address unavailable) to provide me with some support for his modifying and distributing for commercial sale the intellectual property which clearly belongs to ACCESS. I've yet to see anything in particular. I'm not the only one who's been asking, with similar lack of success.

To what would you attribute that?

Elsewhere, you wrote, or quoted,

In June 2001 while we went into the final negotiations with Be, Inc. over financing the development of a release of BeOS R6, we got the message from Be, Inc. that they were no longer able to negotiate with us. The reason was that they had a potential investor. We decided to wait till we got the name of the new investor or buyer of BeOS/IA. Once the shareholders of Be, Inc. had voted to approve the sale to Palm we established the needed contact with Palm, Inc. in November. We are most grateful for the help we have received from Be Inc., in providing us with contact information for Palm, Inc.


So, where's the documentation for this...? Why would Mr. Korz be so hesitant to provide it? I don't see any ending to this tale, even if I were to suppose that there were anything to it.

If Palm had some sort of licensing agreement with YellowTab, why no press releases? For that matter, why no royalties? Or do you also think that Mr. Korz is actually paying us and I'm not admitting it...? That seems bizarre.

Or is this "deal" of which no one seems to actually be aware, and about which no one seems be in a position to provide any documentation, supposed to have been a complete gift on Palm's part?

Corporations can't give away assets for which they've just paid millions of dollars based on "quiet nods". Corporate executives of publicly traded companies have fiduciary responsibilities not to do things like that. Doing otherwise would be a violation of securities laws. So this scenario you seem to find more believable seems actually less likely to me. Sat, 07 Apr 2007 21:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Lefty) Comments RE[2]: some infos http://osnews.com/thread?228536 http://osnews.com/thread?228536 @Vibes

it doesn't declare the situation now, it only shows how ZETA starts, but the things changed in the course of time!! and that's why I am also doubtfully about some comments...

but you can read here so many untruths and specs... Sat, 07 Apr 2007 21:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Rafael) Comments RE[7]: Comment by ormandj http://osnews.com/thread?228537 http://osnews.com/thread?228537
...though the legal issues were suppose to have been sorted out through Bernd and a lawyer and some quiet nods of approval from PalmSource...


As I've said elsewhere, executives of a publicly traded corporation simply can't give away assets of that corporation based on a nod and a wink. I'd put the odds of this at somewhere between vanishingly unlikely and preposterous. To suggest that someone actually thought they could set up a business on this basis seems tantamount to admitting that pretty much everything I've said is true.

Dano was an unauthorized and infringing leak, there seems to be wide agreement on that. From whence it originated is, as far as this situation is concerned, pretty immaterial. You'd appear to be in complete agreement with the position that Zeta is pirated.

...a breach of contract on Be's part...


I guess if that was your legal theory, your next step would be to file suit against Be, Inc. (I'd note that ACCESS is still the--infringed-upon and uncompensated--owner of the code in question.) Unfortunately for this scenario, there is no such thing as "Be, Inc." at this point. That corporation has been dissolved. Certainly you couldn't expect ACCESS to effectively grant a retroactive, royalty-free license to someone who didn't even bother to ask us about it in the first place, on the basis that he had, or almost had, or thought he had, or claimed he had, a contract with some entirely different corporation, no longer in existence...?

(I don't suppose you'd like to provide better contact information to me? I've got a number of questions I'd be very interested in asking. You can write to lefty@access-company.com...)

But Palm didn't buy Be, Inc.: it bought its intellectual property. There's still no license possible by which Zeta could be legitimate under this scenario. Sat, 07 Apr 2007 21:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Lefty) Comments RE[15]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?228538 http://osnews.com/thread?228538
...They have to prove it (or Bernd admits to it). Saying it is illegal does not entitle Access to the Zeta code....


If it has, or had at any point, a Be copyright on it, it's clearly ours, wouldn't you agree?

Lets say Bernd gives Lefty the license agreement...


Yes, let's. Unfortunately, Mr. Korz doesn't seem willing to cooperate. I'd provided him with my contact info, to no avail. He's refused to provide any such information to magnussoft's lawyer as well, much to their dismay, it would seem.

Why would you think that Mr. Korz would seem so unwilling to clarify this situation? Sat, 07 Apr 2007 22:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Lefty) Comments RE: some infos http://osnews.com/thread?228541 http://osnews.com/thread?228541 I found yours & looncraz's posts interesting and insightful, but in the end it comes down to the following:

Bernd & Access have to resolve this legal issue themselves, because I (and 10 other people may think) Access is right and you (and 10 other people may think) Bernd is right, but the truth is:

#1 Bernd & Access have to agree (either Zeta is legal or illegal); this will resolve it one way or another. Bernd will have to provide his proof to Access for this OR
#2 Access takes Bernd to court, verdict rendered and there is a resolution OR
#3 Access accuses Bernd & Bernd says he is within his rights (this is never resolved & legal status of Zeta remains questionable). This is where we are at now.

I am hoping for #1 above, but I feel very sure that it will be #3.

Us arguing who was in the right does not matter, because either A) Access has to see original documentation proving Zeta was legal or B) Access has to prove, in court, that Zeta was illegal. Else, we are stuck with #3 above.

The details you, Rafael, and Looncraz provide are good, but do you have any *original* documentation (from Be Inc or Palm) to support any of what you wrote? Otherwise it is just hearsay ( and basically an unverified story ).

I have enjoyed Zeta and so have many other users. I am a little upset because Access was left out ( no compensation or deal worked out for them ) since its their product and also that Magnussoft got caught up in this too ( paid development costs & were not able to sell Zeta to make any money off it ). Though it does not matter, but it makes me wonder if Palm ever tried stopping Bernd (that is for Palm to answer).

I hope this can be resolved in 30 days or less, but I truly believe the outcome will be #3 ( somewhat unfortunate ). Sat, 07 Apr 2007 22:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tonestone57) Comments RE[2]: some infos http://osnews.com/thread?228548 http://osnews.com/thread?228548 @tonestone57 and also to Mr. Schlesinger

I do not say that Bernd is right, I only try to challenge it, because i cannot proof it, i don't have any *original* documentation, most of the information i have is hearsay, but on other hand i am also sure that ACCESS, if they have all the things from Palm/PalmSource, that they also will not release any correspondence which they had with Mr. Korz and with Yellowtab (Magnussoft is a seperat topic)

as i can remember also the beunited team tried to get in contact with Palm, and they had some correspondence but where not able to get a license

why i am also so distrustful is if Palm/PlamSource and then also ACCESS known that ZETA was illegal why didn't they inform the community or the customers,
yt sold really a lot, so why should they let people more than seven years in ignorance?Edited 2007-04-07 22:41 Sat, 07 Apr 2007 22:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Rafael) Comments RE[16]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?228550 http://osnews.com/thread?228550 I wish I had enough money to make a serious offer for the BeOS source code. Nope. I only have £2.03 in the pot on my desk, but there's two small screws, two disposable lighters, and some nail clippers in there as well. Ah, well. Never mind. It's a millionty zillion times more than Herr Bernd "Wooden Pfennig" Korz offered. I could buy some biscuits instead. Sat, 07 Apr 2007 22:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE[16]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?228555 http://osnews.com/thread?228555 If it has, or had at any point, a Be copyright on it, it's clearly ours, wouldn't you agree?

If I understand correctly then any Zeta code merged with original BeOS code would probably be the property of Access. Any Zeta code written independently, not combined with original BeOS code, would be the property of Bernd. I think this sounds right. Because the original BeOS code belongs to Access, so any changes & improvements merged with it, then also becomes Access' property also (whether Zeta is legal or illegal does not affect this). But any Zeta code seperate from original BeOS code belongs to Bernd.

Why would you think that Mr. Korz would seem so unwilling to clarify this situation?

Well, the only things that come to mind are:
#1 Does not have any documentation or agreements
#2 Only has a distribution agreement for BeOS 5 PRO Or
#3 Has a 'very limited or weak' development & distribution agreement (maybe for a single release of BeOS NG - BeOS 6?).

I believe #2 seems most likely, then #3, but #1 is also possible. Also, he has not paid Access (& probably Palm) any royalties to even show an agreement existed.

It would seem that Bernd probably fears a lawsuit or other legal actions against him for "wrong doing" - making him liable to legal action (pay Access for damages or lawsuit, and/or fines and/or jail time). But, this is only my guess and the "actual" truth or a better understanding will reveal itself in the coming days & weeks (either by the statements or actions of Bernd himself).Edited 2007-04-07 23:17 Sat, 07 Apr 2007 23:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tonestone57) Comments RE[3]: Lefty Explains Why It Isn't That Simple... http://osnews.com/thread?228560 http://osnews.com/thread?228560 > Since we wouldn't, in this scenario, be releasing
> sources, I'd assumed you were, in fact, referring to
> a "free version of R5.03" which actually worked on
> something like even remotely current machines, as
> opposed to the machines of five of six years ago.

Ah, no. Release of the original R5.03 ISO would suffice. No changes. No alterations. Exactly what was on the original ISO. *Or* the original PE version. I'd prefer the R5 ISO as this would include a PowerPC version, but PE would be fine. The only problem I see with the R5 ISO is the things left out to make the PE version. The list is quite short. If you can find the PE FAQ or PE readme, the differences are listed there.

Use a simple license that retains all rights but allows modification. Let the community worry about making it work on modern hardware. MAX already does a lot of that. It's neither hard to do, nor is it costing ACCESS a dime. Sat, 07 Apr 2007 23:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (memson) Comments RE[3]: Lefty Explains Why It Isn't That Simple... http://osnews.com/thread?228563 http://osnews.com/thread?228563 Dude, I'm a PowerPC user. If I don't fight for my corner in the whole battle, what am I left with if PE becomes legal? Naff all. The business model was not my concern. I would home it would be free. Sat, 07 Apr 2007 23:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (memson) Comments RE[4]: Lefty Explains Why It Isn't That Simple... http://osnews.com/thread?228566 http://osnews.com/thread?228566 Use a simple license that retains all rights but allows modification. Let the community worry about making it work on modern hardware. MAX already does a lot of that. It's neither hard to do, nor is it costing ACCESS a dime.

I still don't like it. There's something massively, uncomfortably bad about this. I know people want stuff that works and fulfils their curiosity but it's opening up a can of worms. Essentially, it legitimises perception that if you test the edge you'll get away with it, and it will be a distraction from Haiku.

I think, you guys are way too locked on Zeta and BeOS MAX. They're illegal pieces of junk. Haiku is a fresh and maintainable binary compatible implementation of the BeOS design. How you can water down that effort escapes me. You're so locked in the past it's harmful. Sat, 07 Apr 2007 23:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE[5]: Lefty Explains Why It Isn't That Simple... http://osnews.com/thread?228573 http://osnews.com/thread?228573 Haiku is great and lots of people will check it out and use it, but Haiku just isn't ready yet.

People want to be able to fully use the OS right now. Zeta and BeOS MAX are useable today.

Could you use Haiku as your main OS today? No. The answer is Yes for BeOS MAX & Zeta.

Zeta is also further ahead than Haiku or BeOS MAX. It won't be till Haiku R2 or R3 before Haiku catches up to Zeta. (I use mostly Zeta & BeOS Dano, but also have used Haiku & BeOS MAX).

Haiku is not even at beta stage yet ( still alpha ), and it could be another 8 months or so before this happens. Some people want to use the OS today for their day to day stuff, so the only choices here are Zeta or BeOS MAX.

PS If Zeta is illegal, then Bernd is accountable & users paid for the Zeta OS, so should be able to use it. Lefty gave the OK to BeOS MAX to go ahead ( ie: unofficial Ok, for BeOS MAX to continue on, so BeOS MAX is not illegal anymore ).Edited 2007-04-08 00:21 Sun, 08 Apr 2007 00:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tonestone57) Comments uh http://osnews.com/thread?228576 http://osnews.com/thread?228576 You should probably stop talking.

Zeta always has been and always will be a joke. BeOS was dead the day they announced BeIA. There really doesn't seem to be any doubt that dude was on the shady side.

However, the more you talk, the more creepy you're appearing. Although I doubt the validity of dude's claim of use, you're making me wonder what your angle is. I know you stated you only spoke up because he said he was going to give away code. You should have kept it at that. Now something seems fishy on your side, even if it's not. Might just be your personality, you seem awfully resentful about a lot of things. Your words and language leave a lot to be desired. Just some food for thought. Sun, 08 Apr 2007 00:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tempy) Comments RE[6]: Lefty Explains Why It Isn't That Simple... http://osnews.com/thread?228578 http://osnews.com/thread?228578 Haiku is great and lots of people will check it out and use it, but Haiku just isn't ready yet.

Then wait. Be happy with what you've got and pick up Haiku when it reaches prime time. It's not as if anyone will die for waiting. Sun, 08 Apr 2007 00:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE[3]: some infos http://osnews.com/thread?228585 http://osnews.com/thread?228585 @Rafael
It is hard to say what happened between Palm & yT. And Lefty is relying on any written documentation obtained from Palm. Verbal agreements hold no weight, everything has to be done through writing to be enforceable. If Bernd has signed letters, faxes or documentation from Executive / Senior Official(s) of Palm then that may help him too.

I believe Access only acquired BeOS around 12 to 18 months ago and were writing "cease & desist" letters to Bernd ( a couple were sent ). If I was the CEO of a company and got one of those letters, I would try to clear it up with the sending company right away ( but if Bernd feared the outcome was that Access would stop him from continuing in business, making & selling Zeta, then he would ignore the letters and continue on as business as usual. If you are making money, do you want someone to stop you? ). If all Access did was send letters, then why should Bernd be afraid? So, he continued on running the business.

Access is focused on Linux ( just like every other company out there; Linux is the new craze ). BeOS is Access' property since they paid for it, but is put in the vault (not used by them and they have little interest in doing anything with BeOS ). Access makes $0 ( nothing ) off of BeOS. Going after yT takes time, money and effort ( and maybe Access knew they would take a loss, because 12 to 18 months ago when Access bought BeOS, yT goes / was bankrupt ). So, hiring lawyer and going to court in Germany is not worthwhile to them, but they still do not want someone else to profit off their IP ( I am surprised they did not make an official post or press release or even contact Magnussoft sooner, but hey, maybe they thought Bernd would do the right thing and talk to them? Maybe they hoped the letters would work? Maybe they wanted to clear it up first with Bernd before taking it any further? ). Access might have even been willing to negotiate a license agreement had Bernd responded to the first letter. Corporations & companies are in business to make money so maybe something could have been worked out. But now it has gone too far and I do not think they would want to do any business with Bernd. Also, Access is mostly interested in keeping BeOS code closed sourced ( main goal ) ( because of 3rd party NDA & software in BeOS & maybe other reasons too ), but they may also ask or go after Bernd for damages.

As for Palm, I do not have a clue why they let Zeta slide. Maybe Bernd had close ties to Palm (with former BE CEO)? Or maybe Palm did not care ( thought BeOS not profitable )? For all I know, Bernd could have been paying off people at Palm? Bernd & whoever he kept in contact with at Palm would know the real reasons and relationship between yT & Palm.

I am surprised that Palm did not go after yT either, because lots of money was made in the first two years of operation. I believe Bernd said over 100,000 users @ $100 Euro each = $10,000,000 Euro (Minimum Sales Revenue). Every about 6 months a new Zeta version was released & assuming that devlopment cost was $500,000 Euro per year (you do the math).

The thing of it is that Access nor Palm have to explain why they did not go after Bernd sooner or try harder to stop him. Or even give any of their reasons or any justification. All that matters today is that Access owns BeOS and wants Bernd to prove his right to produce and distribute Zeta. That is all. And is very doubtful Bernd can prove this right, so Zeta will end up illegal or legal status will be questionable, in either case, Magnussoft is done selling Zeta.Edited 2007-04-08 01:00 Sun, 08 Apr 2007 00:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tonestone57) Comments RE[7]: Lefty Explains Why It Isn't That Simple... http://osnews.com/thread?228594 http://osnews.com/thread?228594
Then wait. Be happy with what you've got and pick up Haiku when it reaches prime time. It's not as if anyone will die for waiting.



Why wait I bought Zeta in good faith that it was a legal OS and it works for me I can use it as a real OS to surf, write letters, keep appointments, play some games. Why go backward? I have the latest Max it does everything but wireless but is still completely usable for me and many others. I like Haiku I have one of the most recent player images on this machine and it's nice I can't wait until I can use it as my main OS but for me and many others that day is far away we have an OS that works now why would we go back?Edited 2007-04-08 01:25 Sun, 08 Apr 2007 01:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (JPisini) Comments General observation http://osnews.com/thread?228598 http://osnews.com/thread?228598 I work in advertising, and one of the most frequent complaints is that we make ads for ourselves; is there any chance that the same takes place here? With Haiku still at alpha stage(?) [when a seemingly much more advanced system can't cut it] then the breast-beating for each others BeOS variant frankly, looks like w*nkery at its finest.

It's a damned shame, because Zeta (1.2.1), of all the BeOS's was terrific. (Sorry Vasper, I haven't tried your Max!) I am just an ordinary user. Not a coder. Presumably the very people you need to attract??Edited 2007-04-08 02:24 Sun, 08 Apr 2007 02:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Captain Halibut) Comments RE: General observation http://osnews.com/thread?228609 http://osnews.com/thread?228609 I work in advertising, and one of the most frequent complaints is that we make ads for ourselves; is there any chance that the same takes place here? With Haiku still at alpha stage(?) [when a seemingly much more advanced system can't cut it] then the breast-beating for each others BeOS variant frankly, looks like w*nkery at its finest.

This is exactly what it's about. It's why people are blubbing for patches and source code releases, and trying to find ways to wangle Bernd Korz off the hook. Personally, I can't give a damn for Zeta or BeOS MAX. In my mind they're crap and illegal. Haiku is a sound replacement and legally clean. If people shut up and waited, a workable, forward moving, and unimpeded solution will unfold soon enough.

As an experience neither Zeta or BeOS MAX cut it. The design vision of Zeta and customer relations is poor, and BeOS MAX is no more than a cranked up dead end piece of bloatware. Zeta exploited peoples dreams and BeOS MAX scratches an itch. It's all well and good but neither are credible or appealing for mainstream development or usage. Haiku could be. End of story. Sun, 08 Apr 2007 03:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE[4]: some infos http://osnews.com/thread?228619 http://osnews.com/thread?228619 although SVPs changed at PalmSource it should not matter Sun, 08 Apr 2007 06:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Rafael) Comments RE: uh http://osnews.com/thread?228624 http://osnews.com/thread?228624 I don't think ZETA is a joke, I like ZETA 1.5 since 1.2 it's really great, it's not comparable with BeOS 5,
they tried to work hard, they did many new things, multiuser (last unofficial SP fixed also many things), cups, sane, ndsiwrapper (ok not perfect but ZETA has wlan support), many many drivers, the improvments in the gui, which i like very much, the burningprograms
the communicator, the installer, LocaleKit, WilmaCon
and so many other things

some people were disappointed at the beginning I think they have expected some miracles...Edited 2007-04-08 06:51 Sun, 08 Apr 2007 06:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Rafael) Comments RE[6]: Lefty Explains Why It Isn't That Simple... http://osnews.com/thread?228629 http://osnews.com/thread?228629 People want to be able to fully use the OS right now. Zeta and BeOS MAX are useable today.

Is either legal?

If Zeta is illegal,

Sure seems like it is. Not sure why you can't just accept that.

then Bernd is accountable

Accountable how? He probably doesn't have any assets that would rectify the matter.

users paid for the Zeta OS, so should be able to use it.

If you buy a stolen car or stolen television and the rightful owner steps forward to claim it back, do you get to keep it and use it just because you paid a thief for it?

Answeer: No. Sun, 08 Apr 2007 08:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucky13) Comments RE[17]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?228630 http://osnews.com/thread?228630 Vibe said:

"I wish I had enough money to make a serious offer for the BeOS source code. Nope. I only have £2.03 in the pot on my desk, but there's two small screws, two disposable lighters, and some nail clippers in there as well. Ah, well. Never mind. It's a millionty zillion times more than Herr Bernd "Wooden Pfennig" Korz offered. I could buy some biscuits instead."

As one who tried in futility to negotiate with Be, Inc. for access rights to the sources, one would hope that the new owner would be more responsive to offers given their rapidly diminishing value.

I therefore up your offer to AUD100.00 for a full and non-exclusive copy of the sources (including BeIA, BeOS Dano and all) with rights to distribute modified binaries ONLY and no rights to distribute any variant of sub-licensed portions of the original code.

In the year 2000 I would have paid a lot more. And as the release of the Haiku OS draws nearer, even this offer seems too generous.

What say you, Lefty? After all, ACCESS has no real interest in spending any time or finances on the code, as you clearly state above. At least I could release properly-integrated kernel patches for modern processors, which would benefit the user community.

I would have also offered a percentage deal on any products released, but I doubt there would be any profit in it.

haiqu
p.s. Oh, and I'd want the agreement in writing, thanks. Sun, 08 Apr 2007 08:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (haiqu) Comments RE[4]: some infos http://osnews.com/thread?228632 http://osnews.com/thread?228632 If you are making money, do you want someone to stop you?

If you're going to continue making money, don't you put the cards (licensing agreements) on the table and make sure everything's legit?

Linux is the new craze

It's neither a craze nor new.

As for Palm, I do not have a clue why they let Zeta slide.

For the same reasons you've finally seem to accept about Access: that they were going to have to spend a lot more than the whole issue was worth since Zeta would die on its own anyway.

lots of money was made in the first two years of operation

Made? Doubtful. And at the level you assume it was generating revenue, yellowTab wouldn't have gone belly up and would've been able to buy the code themselves. I think the production/sales numbers were greatly exaggerated.

Zeta will end up illegal or legal status will be questionable

Not questionable, it's settled. The owners of the IP say they weren't made aware of any deal with Bernd or anyone else when they purchased it. If one really and actually exists, they're not bound to any such agreement unless someone can establish that they knew about it. They own the code and any derivatives of it. Sun, 08 Apr 2007 08:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucky13) Comments RE[5]: Lefty Explains Why It Isn't That Simple... http://osnews.com/thread?228635 http://osnews.com/thread?228635 I think, you guys are way too locked on Zeta and BeOS MAX. They're illegal pieces of junk. Haiku is a fresh and maintainable binary compatible implementation of the BeOS design. How you can water down that effort escapes me. You're so locked in the past it's harmful.

Stop "arguing." ;-) Sun, 08 Apr 2007 08:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucky13) Comments RE[18]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?228637 http://osnews.com/thread?228637 After all, ACCESS has no real interest in spending any time or finances on the code, as you clearly state above.

Their disinterest would extend to the money required for them to review an agreement. Your AU$100 offer would barely pay for their first 30 minutes of legal work -- hardly a dent since their work would require weeks of legal and technical review. There's no money in it for you or them. BeOS fans should stop asking Access for charity. Donate your $100 for Haiku development instead. Sun, 08 Apr 2007 08:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucky13) Comments RE[2]: I am a bl**dy ignoramus but... http://osnews.com/thread?228652 http://osnews.com/thread?228652 I am currently in the middle of a major update of the timeline, with about 50% more info, I hope to have this compoleted in a couple of weeks.

http://www.oshistory.net

UnderMineEdited 2007-04-08 10:19 Sun, 08 Apr 2007 10:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (UnderMine) Comments Berd Korz' blog offline http://osnews.com/thread?228670 http://osnews.com/thread?228670 On a sidenote, Bernd Korz appears to have taken his blog http://www.berndsworld.com offline.

Really looking forward to what he has to say (if ever)...Edited 2007-04-08 12:04 Sun, 08 Apr 2007 12:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (yahya) Comments RE: Berd Korz' blog offline http://osnews.com/thread?228680 http://osnews.com/thread?228680 I talked with Bernd and he has taken the blog offline.
One reason he mentioned was to come to an end with ZETA .

I respect this and can understand this after he had to delete so many comments on his blog that where purely Indignity or defamation against him.

After all I also had a chance to grep something like an statement that indicates that he does not want to comment anything officaly because it might brake some NDAs.

The next week will be very interesting, because the insolvency administrator (or how he is called in english) of Yellowtab will perhaps announce something offically.
As far as I understand Bernd, he has nothing to say or to do in this case. The insolvency administrator will take care of the topic.
I am very interested in this statment and especially the relationship to Magnussoft.
Btw: If Access by accident broke any NDA they might have a problem too.

But nothing more for today.

The last thing I want to say:
I am very sure that I bought an(many) legal ZETA Version(s) from Yellowtab until version 1.2 .Edited 2007-04-08 13:07 Sun, 08 Apr 2007 13:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Leszek Lesner) Comments RE[7]: Lefty Explains Why It Isn't That Simple... http://osnews.com/thread?228705 http://osnews.com/thread?228705 >Zeta and BeOS MAX are useable today.

Is either legal?

Lefty gave BeOS MAX the Ok to go ahead.
http://www.beosmax.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=614&sid=5005d7325...
Vasper has an email, from Lefty, saying exactly that & very doubtful Access will go after BeOS MAX or accuse it of being illegal.

Zeta is only accused of being illegal, but this has to be proven in court to be the case. As of today, Zeta's legal status is only questionable, but has not actually been determined.

>If Zeta is illegal,

Sure seems like it is. Not sure why you can't just accept that.

Court decides guilt or innocence (illegal or legal), not you, me, anyone else, Bernd or Access. Even if we know or believe Bernd to be guilty, the following statement applies; "Presumed Innoncent Until Proven Guilty", in a court of law.

>then Bernd is accountable

Accountable how? He probably doesn't have any assets that would rectify the matter.

Bernd is held accountable for his actions and business activies. If found guilty, then Bernd can either pay Access for damages or go to jail, but only if case goes to court (otherwise he gets off "Scot Free").

Your stolen car anology is dead wrong. My car one below better illustrates the situation (though complex). I think you can figure out who "B", "A", "P" & "Y" refer to.

"B" creates and sells the "Mark 5" (Car = BeOS binary), which incorporates new patented technology (BeOS source) developed by "B". "B" sells the technology to "P". "Y" tries to negotiate license agreement with "P" for the technology (and it is not known if "Y" obtained any license agreement with "B" or "P" or if license agreement exists, then "A" is certainly not aware of it or if valid and what it permits).

"Y" produces the "XT300" (their car model; Zeta binary) using technology obtained or taken from "P". "P" sells off technology to "A". "A" can not find license agreement with "Y" and accuses them of illegally using their technology in the "XT300".

Now, since "Y" produced ( paid for development & production costs ) & sold the "XT300", the buyer of the car (Zeta users), did not steal the "XT300" from "A", but rather "Y" allegedly stole the technology (BeOS source) from "A", and the technology was incorporated into the "XT300". So, if accusation is true, then "Y" is accountable to "A" for any and all damages of using technology (Source) that belongs to "A". And the buyer did nothing wrong, or illegal to "A" in buying the "XT300" so the buyer/user is not responsible - only "Y" is responsible & accountable in this scenario (and this closely resembles what is going on now with Zeta).

And, even if the "XT300" is found to be illegal (uses "A" technology without permission), the buyer still gets to keep and use the "XT300" because they did nothing wrong themselves by buying it from "Y". Sun, 08 Apr 2007 15:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tonestone57) Comments RE[19]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?228706 http://osnews.com/thread?228706 Their disinterest would extend to the money required for them to review an agreement. Your AU$100 offer would barely pay for their first 30 minutes of legal work -- hardly a dent since their work would require weeks of legal and technical review. There's no money in it for you or them. BeOS fans should stop asking Access for charity. Donate your $100 for Haiku development instead.

I'm not budging from £2.03, and that includes an exclusive and permanent transfer of rights to BeOS. Not saying I'm mean or greedy but, hey, business isn't just about the money. Never know, Access could even PAY someone to take it off their hands after this. Sun, 08 Apr 2007 15:15:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE[8]: Lefty Explains Why It Isn't That Simple... http://osnews.com/thread?228711 http://osnews.com/thread?228711 Court decides guilt or innocence (illegal or legal), not you, me, anyone else, Bernd or Access. Even if we know or believe Bernd to be guilty, the following statement applies; "Presumed Innoncent Until Proven Guilty", in a court of law.

So people keep saying but you still can't escape the reality that Zeta was a poor product with awful customer relations, and the business plan and management behind it were not bankable. Bernd Korz blew it in every way, and he's as good as guilty as far as finance and the market are concerned, and that's what matters in the final analysis.

In any case even if Bernd Korz had been running a legal operation, which he's never been able to prove, the "agreement" he had runs out in a few years. He could sell 100 million copies of Zeta and the product would still have a termination date. However you look at it Zeta is a frankenstein monster with no future. These things happen. Get over it. Sun, 08 Apr 2007 15:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE[9]: Lefty Explains Why It Isn't That Simple... http://osnews.com/thread?228726 http://osnews.com/thread?228726 It's your opinion that it is a poor product but you have to acknowledge that many ZETA users think different.

maybe yt did some mistakes at development, because they tried to do too much things at one moment,
and there were many things like the ZINTRO which never were revealed, but they had really great sales figures compared to Be Inc. Sun, 08 Apr 2007 15:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Rafael) Comments RE[2]: Berd Korz' blog offline http://osnews.com/thread?228727 http://osnews.com/thread?228727 After all I also had a chance to grep something like an statement that indicates that he does not want to comment anything officaly because it might brake some NDAs.

So you are seriously suggesting that there is an NDA prohibiting Bernd from reassuring his customers that what he is doing is legal?

C'mon, this is either a lame BHOF excuse or Bernd has acted extremely stupid when signing it. Now, in the unlikely case that this should really exist, why the heck should Access suddenly make false public statements?

For whatever reason should David Schlesingr suddenly start pointing fingers at Korz, if there is no reason and there is zero economic interest by Access towards ZETA? Sun, 08 Apr 2007 15:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (yahya) Comments BerndsWorld is down! http://osnews.com/thread?228735 http://osnews.com/thread?228735 It appears that more and more of Bernd Korz and his legacy of ill-gotten gain is slowly drifting into oblivion! Sun, 08 Apr 2007 16:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Luposian) Comments RE[5]: some infos http://osnews.com/thread?228740 http://osnews.com/thread?228740 If you're going to continue making money, don't you put the cards (licensing agreements) on the table and make sure everything's legit?

Not all businesses are reputable or act in good faith, some only care about making money any way they can and getting away with it.

Linux is the new craze
It's neither a craze nor new.

Maybe not new, but definately a craze. Every company out there seems to have become involved in Linux lately. Many (almost all?) corporations, in technology sector, have embraced and are involved in Linux.

Made? Doubtful. I think the production/sales numbers were greatly exaggerated.

The price is given and the userbase was in an OSNews article ( a Bernd interview ), but could not find it. Some other posts I found, said it was 1 Million CDs Sold (but I believe they may have included free LiveCDs in that number and maybe even update CDs, which go for less, and I can not find the articles / stories to verify any of this). They might have been in the Yellowtab stories which disappeared with yellowtab.com

I'm very confident that I read it was just over 100,000, but if I'm wrong and it was 1 Million (unverified), then I'd really wonder what happened there.

Anyone know where to get the Bernd interview stating userbase or number of Zeta CDs sold for 1.0?

Not questionable, it's settled.
Not settled. If I accuse you of stealing my bike and you deny it, does it mean we settled it. I guess you must have stole my bike, because I said so. (Also for fun, lets assume I'm a reputable person and you're a shady individual. So then, you must have stole my bike because of this). No trial for you (to discover the truth), because everybody knows you stole it.Edited 2007-04-08 16:53 Sun, 08 Apr 2007 16:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tonestone57) Comments Bernd & Magnussoft http://osnews.com/thread?228742 http://osnews.com/thread?228742 Magnussoft paid for devleopment costs for 1.21 & 1.5 and can not sell these products until Zeta's legal status is determined. And even afterwards, may not be allowed to sell it if Bernd loses or status never gets resolved.

Magnussoft got the short end of the stick and I'm sure they are kicking themselves now.

They also have a right to take legal action against Bernd.

If Bernd provided statement to Magnussoft saying he had the right to produce and sell Zeta. And if Magnussoft kept copies or has signed agreements with Bernd to this effect, then Magnussoft can go after Bernd legally ( and will if they can gain from it ).

So, it could get kinda interesting. Lets see what happens.Edited 2007-04-08 17:10 Sun, 08 Apr 2007 17:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tonestone57) Comments RE[6]: some infos http://osnews.com/thread?228744 http://osnews.com/thread?228744 Maybe not new, but definately a craze. Every company out there seems to have become involved in Linux lately. Many (almost all?) corporations, in technology sector, have embraced and are involved in Linux.

This is true. If you look at it on a number of levels, it's just another bunch of people obsessing. I suspect, like its arch-enemy Microsoft, it's just a passing thing. I wouldn't weld my ass to it without making sure I could get out. Nothing lasts forever. Sun, 08 Apr 2007 17:15:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE: Bernd & Magnussoft http://osnews.com/thread?228749 http://osnews.com/thread?228749 If Bernd provided statement to Magnussoft saying he had the right to produce and sell Zeta. And if Magnussoft kept copies or has signed agreements with Bernd to this effect, then Magnussoft can go after Bernd legally ( and will if they can gain from it ).

Bernd Korz has a nice big house and a share in a print business, and that's got to be worth money. He seems to have a lot of fingers in many pies so there might be even more assets worth seizing. Apart from the Barlow Clowes and Robert Maxwell fraud cases, this reminds me of the Polly Peck affair, where Azil Nadir build up a business, ended up fleeing to Northern Cyprus, and the assets were picked clean. In this case Magnussoft seem to have a direct dealing with Bernd Korz, not a shell company like YellowTab, so this might lead somewhere interesting. Sun, 08 Apr 2007 17:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE[2]: Bernd & Magnussoft http://osnews.com/thread?228774 http://osnews.com/thread?228774 Hmm... I am wondering if Magnussoft only had to made an contract with Bernd only.
I think YT was included too in this hole contract thing.
(at least the insolvency administrator).
Think about the first updates sold by Magnussoft. You had to prove (really prove in sending them your copy of zeta) that you are an legitimate user.
This information were send to the insolvency administrator to check if the user is allowed to update.
So there has to be an closer even licensing relationship between Magnussoft and YT(represented by the insolvency administrator).

I think that Bernd has the license for ZETA but he is not allowed sell or to talk about due to NDAs made with the insolvency administrator (yt) and Palm Inc.
But this is only an suggestion.

What I definitely know is that Bernd does not want to talk anymore about this issue and that he won't give a statement on this next week.
The one who will present a statement will be the insolvency administrator of yt.
If this really is going to happen, then I am totally sure Bernd is not responsible for this kind of things.
He may be involved as a former CEO pr CVO or whatever he was at YT but he is not responsible any longer for it.

Btw. I am really interested what licensing problems will occur in the next few days/weeks. GoBE might be knocking on the doors xD.
Which doors you have to decide for yourself ;)

But I don't want to talk too much about Magnussoft because they are very quickly in sueing people. Sun, 08 Apr 2007 18:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Leszek Lesner) Comments RE[2]: Berd Korz' blog offline http://osnews.com/thread?228775 http://osnews.com/thread?228775 > ...grep something like an statement that indicates
> that he does not want to comment anything officaly
> because it might brake some NDAs

If so, why did Bernd write on his (now vanished) blog that he would make a statement?

> As far as I understand Bernd, he has nothing to say
> or to do in this case. The insolvency administrator
> will take care of the topic.

Sounds like Bernd is passing the burning potato to someone else. ;)

PS: www.yellowtab.com is also gone. Sun, 08 Apr 2007 18:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (sogabe) Comments RE[3]: Berd Korz' blog offline http://osnews.com/thread?228781 http://osnews.com/thread?228781 Yellowtab.com
Yellowtab.de
and Berndsworld.com were/are Bernds Websites.

So he has the right to shut them down.

> Sounds like Bernd is passing the burning potato to someone else. ;)

I don't think so ! If he is responsible he will definitely post a statement.
But Bernd seems to have an NDA which prevents him from talking about the license agreement with Palm Inc in public.
If this NDA really exist then Access has broken this NDA and can be sued for it.

So this not so easy as it might be in normal life. It is very business oriented and therefor I really hate any NDAs.

But back to the topic:
I think Bernd had to answer on his blog very fast because everyone even Access thinks that he is the right one to talk to. Bernd seems to see it with another point of view after he checked some documents or licenses after he made his statement on his blog.

BTW: Perhaps Bernd had really the plan to make an statement. But after this very bad and personally agressing comments on his blog he decided to do nothing more to close everything and to come to an end with all this stuff.
(Think about Bernds statement to keep ZETA alive after the quit with Magnussoft that was revoked with the End of ZETA posting appr. 1 week later) Sun, 08 Apr 2007 19:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Leszek Lesner) Comments RE[4]: Berd Korz' blog offline http://osnews.com/thread?228783 http://osnews.com/thread?228783 But Bernd seems to have an NDA which prevents him from talking about the license agreement with Palm Inc in public.
If this NDA really exist then Access has broken this NDA and can be sued for it.

Access did not talk about a license agreement in the sense of publicly discussing its content. They said, that there is no such thing as a license agreement. This is something entirely different.

The explanations given by David Schlesinger sound far more credible than those speculations about meta NDAs which prohibit publicly stating that what you are doing is legal.

No one has asked to post a verbatim copy of a possible license agreement to his web site, but at least he should have had the guts to tell ZETA's buyers and users something like "I can assure you that ZETA is perfectly legal". As long as he does not deliver even this minimal response, there is little reason not to believe the position of Acess. Sun, 08 Apr 2007 19:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (yahya) Comments RE[5]: Berd Korz' blog offline http://osnews.com/thread?228786 http://osnews.com/thread?228786 > No one has asked to post a verbatim copy of a possible license agreement to his web site, but at least he should have had the guts to tell ZETA's buyers and users something like "I can assure you that ZETA is perfectly legal". As long as he does not deliver even this minimal response, there is little reason not to believe the position of Acess.

The question is is Bernd really responsible for any legal things now or relys the responsibility in the hands of yt (insolvency administrator) ? Sun, 08 Apr 2007 19:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Leszek Lesner) Comments RE: RE[6]: Berd Korz' blog offline http://osnews.com/thread?228802 http://osnews.com/thread?228802 The question is is Bernd really responsible for any legal things now or relys the responsibility in the hands of yt (insolvency administrator) ?

Bernd Korz seems to be the one who "owns" the "rights" and "source". YellowTab was just a shell company for getting finance, employees, and customers. In that case, I get the feeling that Bernd Korz does have personal liability. Indeed, I'm wondering if the administrator of YellowTab could seek damages from Bernd Korz for fraud. In the absense of any proof that Bernd Korz has a legitimate agreement and source code from the owners of the BeOS this seems reasonable. Sun, 08 Apr 2007 20:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE[3]: Bernd & Magnussoft http://osnews.com/thread?228803 http://osnews.com/thread?228803 > Yellowtab.com
> Yellowtab.de
> and Berndsworld.com were/are Bernds Websites.

But did you not say that Bernd has nothing to do with yellowTAB anymore?

Or are you telling us that he, as the former CEO of yellowTAB, kept the domains of the company as private property, and he can do what he pleases with them?

> If he is responsible he will definitely post a statement...
> But Bernd seems to have an NDA which prevents him from talking...
> What I definitely know is that Bernd does not want to talk anymore...

So, he will not talk then? Or will he? Oh, wait, maybe not? ;)

> As far as I understand Bernd...
> I am wondering if Magnussoft only had to made an contract with Bernd...
> I think that Bernd has the license for ZETA but he is not allowed

You understand, you wonder, you think. Do you have any hard facts to counter ACCESS claims? Sun, 08 Apr 2007 20:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (sogabe) Comments RE: RE[6]: Berd Korz' blog offline http://osnews.com/thread?228805 http://osnews.com/thread?228805 > The question is is Bernd really responsible for any
> legal things now or relys the responsibility in the
> hands of yt (insolvency administrator) ?

As CEO, he was ultimately responsible for whatever may have happened under his tenure. That an insolvency manager was assigned when the company went into bankruptcy protection does not change that a bit. Sun, 08 Apr 2007 20:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (sogabe) Comments RE[4]: Bernd & Magnussoft http://osnews.com/thread?228808 http://osnews.com/thread?228808 Or are you telling us that he, as the former CEO of yellowTAB, kept the domains of the company as private property, and he can do what he pleases with them?

Hah, that's funny. Bernd Korz is such a criminal he's even violated his own companies trademarks, or he's interfering with the running of the company he bailed out from that's still under the jurisdiction of an administrator. Can this get any worse? Sun, 08 Apr 2007 20:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE: RE[7]: Berd Korz' blog offline http://osnews.com/thread?228811 http://osnews.com/thread?228811 >You understand, you wonder, you think. Do you have any hard facts to counter ACCESS claims?

There are hard facts that I don't want to post here or want to discuss here in this or any other forum in the net.
Try perhaps reading between the lines of my posts and you get some information I wanted to transmit in an indirectly way.

Btw. One is very very clear to me and thats even not denieable by Access. There was a contact between former Palm Inc. and Yellowtab.
There was also an meeting (Bernd and JLG) where Bernd shows JLG ZETA 1.0 and JLG even bought or got an copy of ZETA 1.0 .
I don't think that JLG ever bought or got an product that his company saw as an illegal program.

The next week will hopefully bring clearity to all issues here. Sun, 08 Apr 2007 20:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Leszek Lesner) Comments bernd buying beos stocks http://osnews.com/thread?228812 http://osnews.com/thread?228812 I met bernd at the cebit 2001 (02,03 can't remember...) and he told me that he bought the european distribution rights from Be. At the same time I noticed that someone bought a substantial amount of be stocks. Sun, 08 Apr 2007 20:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (quickie) Comments RE[2]: RE[8]: Berd Korz' blog offline http://osnews.com/thread?228814 http://osnews.com/thread?228814 There are hard facts that I don't want to post here or want to discuss here in this or any other forum in the net. Try perhaps reading between the lines of my posts and you get some information I wanted to transmit in an indirectly way.

Just like Bernd Korz. Lots of claims, no evidence.

Btw. One is very very clear to me and thats even not denieable by Access. There was a contact between former Palm Inc. and Yellowtab. There was also an meeting (Bernd and JLG) where Bernd shows JLG ZETA 1.0 and JLG even bought or got an copy of ZETA 1.0.

A license to mow the grass doesn't give you the right to live in the house.

The next week will hopefully bring clearity to all issues here.

Or more murky if Bernd Korz flees to Northern Cypress like Azil Nadir. Sun, 08 Apr 2007 20:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE[3]: RE[9]: Berd Korz' blog offline http://osnews.com/thread?228819 http://osnews.com/thread?228819 Vibe I'll promise you that if next week (to be exactly it is this week because sunday is the start of the week)
there won't be any offical statment on this issue I will post everything I know and get to know about this issue and even more.
At this time I cannot say more, because I don't want to run in any trouble. I still have to discuss some things and read some laws before I can say anything directly.

I really like to say directly what I get to know but I can only do this if someone garantees me that I won't have any trouble in the future.

So sry but the topic is so highly complicated and legal consequenzes in saying something are so unsure that I can not say any directly.

Wait until next Thursday then everything is getting clearer !
And Bernd is definitely not leaving the country or fleeing ;) Sun, 08 Apr 2007 21:06:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Leszek Lesner) Comments RE[4]: RE[10]: Berd Korz' blog offline http://osnews.com/thread?228821 http://osnews.com/thread?228821 Leszek, you should not say anything - because as I told Rafael, without signed / legal documentation to back stuff up, then you are just passing off hearsay.

You should let Bernd, Access & Magnussoft figure this out. You need paperwork from Be Inc, Palm or Bernd to substantiate ( confirm ) what you tell people. Because Bernd just telling you how things are or what happended is not proof enough.

** Only official sources ( those directly involved in this legal matter ) should comment and give details ( their side of things ). ** Sun, 08 Apr 2007 21:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tonestone57) Comments RE[5]: RE[11]: Berd Korz' blog offline http://osnews.com/thread?228822 http://osnews.com/thread?228822 tonestone57 thanks for your advice.
I won't say or write anything from what I am not 100 percent sure or anything that I know only from hearsay. Sun, 08 Apr 2007 21:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Leszek Lesner) Comments RE[6]: RE[12]: Berd Korz' blog offline http://osnews.com/thread?228826 http://osnews.com/thread?228826 I won't say or write anything from what I am not 100 percent sure or anything that I know only from hearsay.

So that you're aware, unless you have seen the original contracts between Mr Korz & Be / Palm yourself then your comments will be nothing more than a story ( or falsehood ).

I'm making this point again because I don't think you've seen the original license agreements and even if you have, they still are subject to interpretation, so I feel this issue is better resolved in the court system ( or between Access & Bernd ).

But, if you feel the urge to comment on it next week, then by all means do so.

Take care Leszek & read my following post. Sun, 08 Apr 2007 21:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tonestone57) Comments RE[4]: Berd Korz' blog offline http://osnews.com/thread?228836 http://osnews.com/thread?228836 Lefty, from Access, was willing to discuss the matter over email (privately) - even left a post on BerndsWorld. Bernd has never got in touch with Lefty or Access to clarify the situation.

Also, when Access accused Bernd; Bernd never denied wrong doing. He stayed quiet, and issued a statement saying he has to talk it over with the lawyer and then can give an offical statement on Thursday ( next week ).

Bernd Did None Of The Following:
1) Deny any wrong doing or that Access had made a false accusation. This is the first thing any normal person would do. ( Not denying shows guilt )
2) State that everything he did was within the scope of his license agreements. Affirm that he acted rightly. ( Say he was within his rights )
3) State that the matter needs to be handled privately with Access ( & he would be getting in contact with Access after consulting with his lawyer ).
4) That "any" Open Sourcing would not occur until Zeta's legal status was resolved with Access.
*This is why Access made a public statement, to protect BeOS ( Access' IP ) from Open Sourcing.

So you say that Bernd is not responsible in other words, and instead pass the blame to yT liquidator. Hmm, let me think. Bernd started YellowTab & was the CEO & he negotiated the license agreements too. He was also involved with Magnussoft - who do you think managed the development team for Zeta 1.21 & Zeta 1.5? - I'm very sure it was Bernd. And Magnussoft only got involved because Bernd convinced Magnussoft that he had the rights to make & sell Zeta. Bernd can try to pass the blame to someone else, but not likely to work. ( This action only shows guilt and him trying to get out of any legal action against him & place it on yT instead, which he founded & ran until it went bankrupt - Bernd was aware the limits of his license agreement and if not, should have consulted with a lawyer before producing and selling Zeta - but as an end user of Zeta, I'm happy it got made).

***Very Important***
Also, if his agreement is solid, then why doesn't he just show it to Access and be done with it? Because his agreement is limited, probably to distribution only and Bernd knows this and is going to keep coming up with excuses ( ie: Access is rightful BeOS owner & Bernd can not discuss NDA privately ( email ) with them? What does that sound like to you? Access never stated they would not do things privately, & they probably prefer this anyhow ).
******

"Instead statement will be released by yT liquidator" - looks like Bernd just passed the blame to yT ( & I'm sure he'll try to disassociate himself from yT too ). Can you say "yT = SCAPEGOAT".

I don't think he'll be able to say he isn't invovled with Zeta since he has been with Zeta from day 1 till now. ( This was yT's only product that they devloped & sold & Zeta is tied directly to Bernd; otherwise, how did he get the deal with Magnussoft? ).

Even if Bernd says that everything happened in the past and that everyone should move on and forget about it, this is not an excuse ( he still profited off of it back then ) and could be held accountable too for his actions when he was CEO of yT.

Access and Magnussoft are both within their rights to sue or take Bernd to court. Access can bring both a civil & criminal case (copyright infringement) against Bernd. Access may not pursue legal action against Bernd, but I would think Magnussoft would if Zeta stays illegal or remains in questionable legal status for more than the next 60 days ( they've lost big on the development costs ).

Also, when you tell your side of things in the following week, can you quote where your information came from or do we assume you've obtained it directly from Bernd? :-)Edited 2007-04-08 22:38 Sun, 08 Apr 2007 22:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tonestone57) Comments 10 Big Myths About Copyright Law http://osnews.com/thread?228837 http://osnews.com/thread?228837 http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

Interesting article. It's an American perspective but equally useful to the rest of us, and blows holes in some of defences for Bernd Korz's actions.

http://users.goldengate.net/~kbrady/copyright.html

Another article by a lawyer. It covers other things and is a bit harder to absorb. It touches on a slew of issues, like the myth of abandonware and so on.Edited 2007-04-08 22:38 Sun, 08 Apr 2007 22:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE[5]: Berd Korz' blog offline http://osnews.com/thread?228849 http://osnews.com/thread?228849 > Access and Magnussoft are both within their rights to sue or take Bernd to court. Access can bring both a civil & criminal case (copyright infringement) against Bernd. Access may not pursue legal action against Bernd, but I would think Magnussoft would if Zeta stays illegal or remains in questionable legal status for more than the next 60 days ( they've lost big on the development costs ).

If Magnussoft obtains the license from Bernd, so why the difficult procedure for the upgraders ? (sending in copy and activation key)
Why no full version of ZETA 1.5 ?

Hmm... that are all questions that will be answered more or less next thursday (I hope). Mon, 09 Apr 2007 00:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Leszek Lesner) Comments RE[6]: Berd Korz' blog offline http://osnews.com/thread?228864 http://osnews.com/thread?228864 If Magnussoft obtains the license from Bernd, so why the difficult procedure for the upgraders? (sending in copy and activation key) Why no full version of ZETA 1.5?

Maybe Bernd Korz doesn't want "his" software warezed?

Funny, that. Mon, 09 Apr 2007 02:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE[6]: Berd Korz' blog offline http://osnews.com/thread?228865 http://osnews.com/thread?228865 If Magnussoft obtains the license from Bernd, so why the difficult procedure for the upgraders ? (sending in copy and activation key)
Why no full version of ZETA 1.5 ?

Next week they will explain part of #3 below. #1 & #2 will not be answered, but the short of it was $$$ ( money / profit ). Look at my answers below.

#1
yT Zeta 1.2 had no activation key if I can remember correct. So, Magnussoft wanted to make sure you really had the original & not pirated version (from file sharing) before upgrading you.

OR (the other reason)

Sending in cd & activation key was so users do not sell their 1.0, 1.1 or 1.2 cds on the used market.
This forces new users that want Zeta to buy it new from Magnussoft @ full price.

#2
Zeta 1.5 Upgrade Only?
Magnussoft makes higher profit, off new users, doing it this way than producing full 1.5 version.

Purplus:
http://store.purplus.net/beos.html
1.21 Full $89.95
1.5 Upgrade $39.95
Total = ~ $130.00 ( two cds for one price of $130 )

If Zeta 1.5 Full existed, what price could they charge for it? $89.95, $99.95?

For those updating from 1.0, 1.1, 1.2 to 1.21, then to 1.5. You had to buy "direct" from Magnussoft ( 1.21 Update and makes sense to get 1.5 at same time to save on shipping cost ).
1.21 Update $10Eur
1.5 Upgrade $29Eur
Total = $39 Euro paid to Magnussoft

#3
I believe Magnussoft obtained distribution license with Bernd, because Magnussoft does not have the source code, Bernd does. ( ie: Bernd (or yT?) has license agreement with Be / Palm, Magnussoft has distribution license with Bernd (or yT) ).

When the yellowTab site was around, I'm very sure Magnussoft was called a distributor ( and never the owner of Zeta - who still is Bernd ). See here:

http://www.osnews.com/story.php/14685/Magnussoft-Now-Worldwide-Dist...

And, if yT liquidator is making official statement next week ( instead of Bernd ), what does that mean?

Well, Bernd is saying that yT (yellowTab) has the license agreement with Palm / Be and yT is responsible instead ( because yT is bankrupt, no fear of Access lawsuit against yT and Bernd can walk away too ). And who controlled yT & was CEO then? I guess yT just ran itself? :-)

Ok, next week should be more fun!Edited 2007-04-09 02:20 Mon, 09 Apr 2007 02:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tonestone57) Comments RE: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?228870 http://osnews.com/thread?228870

Moreover, we're not in the business of producing, not to mention supporting, desktop operating systems: we make an operating system, and other software, for mobile devices, set-top boxes and other things. Not desktops.


So why all the stop other people from using the code? Obviously, you are not interested in distributing or maintaining or supporting the code yourselves. Why do you not let someone else do it? Just because it does not make any money for you does not mean it cannot benefit someone else.

While I think you should free the software from legal and financial restrictions, you are obviously too money blinded to go down this path. However, there is a money based option you could pursue. You could authorize Magnussoft to distribute the code and take a piece of the pie. As you said, you are not interested in desktop systems at all, but you could let them handle it, and everybody could get richer.

The disgusting part of all this is that a technology as great as BeOS, which for multimedia is still unsurpassed by any current OS even after the massive hardware speed increases of the last decade, is being suppressed and left to rot while a bunch of lawyers defend their territory. BeOS is not competing with what Access sells, so why can it not be distributed? Mon, 09 Apr 2007 04:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (LuYu) Comments RE[2]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?228871 http://osnews.com/thread?228871 LuYu stated:

So why all the stop other people from using the code? Obviously, you are not interested in distributing or maintaining or supporting the code yourselves. Why do you not let someone else do it? Just because it does not make any money for you does not mean it cannot benefit someone else.


I agree, although not necessarily with your total solution. At very least, Access could legitimize the use and distribution of the leaked BeOS 5.1d0 "Dano" edition, the Bone 7a package - available freely to developers prior to Be, Inc. going belly-up - and BeIA 2.5 packages. All were available on the internet for many years.

While I think you should free the software from legal and financial restrictions, you are obviously too money blinded to go down this path. However, there is a money based option you could pursue. You could authorize Magnussoft to distribute the code and take a piece of the pie. As you said, you are not interested in desktop systems at all, but you could let them handle it, and everybody could get richer.


This is no path to riches for anyone. Magnussoft are a mere distributor, not a software house. The function of extending BeOS was performed by Bernd and his team. And this has ethical issues, since it would bypass Bernd's efforts at establishing distribution through them.

The disgusting part of all this is that a technology as great as BeOS, which for multimedia is still unsurpassed by any current OS even after the massive hardware speed increases of the last decade, is being suppressed and left to rot while a bunch of lawyers defend their territory. BeOS is not competing with what Access sells, so why can it not be distributed?


Emotional, yet salient. Lefty has pointed out the problems of separating the licensed (i.e. non-distributable) code from the creations of Be, Inc. and lawyers will be lawyers. Effectively the only person who could be given access (no pun intended here) to the codebase at this point would be an employee of Access, covered by full NDA. Failing that - and as has been pointed out, all qualified employees have moved on - it would be a mighty stretch of trust for the company to deputize an outsider to sift through the detritus and extract gems worthy of distribution.

Bernd couldn't make enough money from it, so it would need to be a labour of love for someone. The bits that still have value are the unreleased portions, which formed part of the latest version. Even Haiku hasn't targeted that for release, instead aiming for BeOS 5.0.3 compatibility for the purpose of maintaining legitimacy. They would not want to be seen as having copies of Dano at this point, after all.

As to Bernd-Thorsen's announcements and the timing of the response from Access, it all looked too well synchronised to me. He did not propose to release any code which did not belong to his team's efforts, after all. To what purpose Access has decided to move within days to block him is anyone's guess. However, since Bernd did have the sources to 5.0.3 (at least) - a unique situation - one presumes that some agreement existed with Be, Inc and the fact that Palm did nothing about it for years indicates continued tacit consent for his operation. Regardless of the existence of documented agreements, Access will have to show that he obtained this code illegaly before much of a case will stick against him.

Very unlikely.

haiqu Mon, 09 Apr 2007 05:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (haiqu) Comments RE[2]: RE[8]: Berd Korz' blog offline http://osnews.com/thread?228873 http://osnews.com/thread?228873 > There are hard facts that I don't want to post here
> or want to discuss here in this or any other forum
> in the net.
> Try perhaps reading between the lines of my posts and
> you get some information I wanted to transmit in an
> indirectly way.

Any assumptions that ayone could make from reading between the lines are useless. You could claim to know stuff that none of us here know, but if you can't provide hard facts, all your are then doing is feeding more speculation. This does not clarify anything, but rather muddles the situation even more.

> Btw. One is very very clear to me and thats even not
> denieable by Access. There was a contact between former
> Palm Inc. and Yellowtab.

Contact does not necessarily constitute that a contract was actually sealed. If there was a legitimate license agreement, yT had the chance to disclose it to ACCESS when the cease and desist letters were sent, or even soon after the recent allegations were made, and then we would not be discussing this here today.

> There was also an meeting (Bernd and JLG) where Bernd shows
> JLG ZETA 1.0 and JLG even bought or got an copy of ZETA 1.0 .
> I don't think that JLG ever bought or got an product
> that his company saw as an illegal program.

That Bernd met JLG does not prove anything. Besides, do you know for a fact that JLG bought ZETA, or is this more hearsay? Mon, 09 Apr 2007 05:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (sogabe) Comments RE[8]: Comment by ormandj http://osnews.com/thread?228875 http://osnews.com/thread?228875 Lefty stated:

As I've said elsewhere, executives of a publicly traded corporation simply can't give away assets of that corporation based on a nod and a wink. I'd put the odds of this at somewhere between vanishingly unlikely and preposterous. To suggest that someone actually thought they could set up a business on this basis seems tantamount to admitting that pretty much everything I've said is true.


It's time you clarified a few things with the legal department. Save for a few exceptions (such as contracts for the sale of land), contracts do not have to be written. It does seem to be true that using written contracts adds some impression of professionalism to business dealings. Many business deals are concluded on the basis that the parties have known each other for many years and trust each other to carry out their responsibilities to each other fairly and honestly.

Bernd-Thorsen has shown to be trustworthy over a protracted period, in that the sources for BeOS have not, to my knowledge, been leaked by him or anyone on his team.

On the other hand, your lawyers seem to have failed at the discovery stage, which is rather remiss of them given that yellowTab was publicly advertising a derivative product for sale at that time.

Your company is in the unique position of holding the rights to a product which is wanted by enthusiasts, but which has little commercial value. This could become a PR debacle for you, or a triumph. Play your cards well.

haiquEdited 2007-04-09 06:07 Mon, 09 Apr 2007 06:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (haiqu) Comments RE[2]: "Just the facts, ma'am..." http://osnews.com/thread?228876 http://osnews.com/thread?228876 While I think you should free the software from legal and financial restrictions, you are obviously too money blinded to go down this path. However, there is a money based option you could pursue. You could authorize Magnussoft to distribute the code and take a piece of the pie. As you said, you are not interested in desktop systems at all, but you could let them handle it, and everybody could get richer.

BeOS belongs to Access and what they do with it is their business. Some people may find this difficult to understand but the world doesn't revolve around "I want." Not only that, what makes you think Magnussoft have a clue how to take things forward? Simply, the world isn't just about "me, me, me", or the last name that popped into your head.

Run along, sonny. Doing a paper round doesn't make you a businessman.Edited 2007-04-09 06:30 Mon, 09 Apr 2007 06:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE[9]: Comment by ormandj http://osnews.com/thread?228880 http://osnews.com/thread?228880 It does seem to be true that using written contracts adds some impression of professionalism to business dealings. Many business deals are concluded on the basis that the parties have known each other for many years and trust each other to carry out their responsibilities to each other fairly and honestly.

According to media reports, Bernd has a bad rep in the construction industry due to his "special" way of doing business, before we even get into the way he's conducted affairs during the YellowTab saga and beyond.

Your company is in the unique position of holding the rights to a product which is wanted by enthusiasts, but which has little commercial value. This could become a PR debacle for you, or a triumph. Play your cards well.

Access have given valuable software to the open source community, and have released valuable documentation for BeOS. And don't forget, it's all a moot point as Haiku is getting closer to release. Access have acted well. Whining just makes YOU look bad.Edited 2007-04-09 06:32 Mon, 09 Apr 2007 06:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE[7]: Berd Korz' blog offline http://osnews.com/thread?228884 http://osnews.com/thread?228884 > #1
>yT Zeta 1.2 had no activation key if I can remember >correct. So, Magnussoft wanted to make sure you >really had the original & not pirated version (from >file sharing) before upgrading you.

>OR (the other reason)

>Sending in cd & activation key was so users do not >sell their 1.0, 1.1 or 1.2 cds on the used market.
>This forces new users that want Zeta to buy it new >from Magnussoft @ full price.

Here another interesting reason:
The insolvency administrator was the one with whom Magnusoft did an contract which allowed them to distribute ZETA. It is more or less a fact if you read the last news posted on YTs website.
As YT has no employees anymore and Bernd isn't CVO anylonger there would be only the insolvency adminsitrator. One fact is clear Magnussoft never had the right to check the YT Database to gain the list of users who have the right to upgrade to ZETA 1.21. (even if Bernd has a copy of this database it has to run through yt [insolvency administrator] because yt holds the rights of ZETA)

Let think about this.
If that isn't true and the contract was only between Magnussoft and Bernd so why this complicated upgrade procedure ? Fear of the illegal copies downloadable via p2p networks or torrent ?
I don't think so. If that should really be true Magnussoft even had the chance to make the ZETA 1.21 activation as annoying as in ZETA 1.0 or 1.1 to prevent illegal usage.
Secondly it was really an annoying procedure for most of the ZETA buyers (former yt buyers) and it is very very unrealistic to say that Magnussoft or Bernd had any interest in making the upgrade procedure so annoying. Btw. this upgrade procedure cost some old ZETA users that did not want to send in there legitamte copies of ZETA 1.0 or there bills of any ZETA copy they bought.

It is in fact a little complicated but it shows me that former yt or the insolvency administrator of yt is in some way connected to all this stuff.Edited 2007-04-09 07:17 Mon, 09 Apr 2007 07:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Leszek Lesner) Comments RE[10]: Comment by ormandj http://osnews.com/thread?228886 http://osnews.com/thread?228886 Vibe stated:

Access have given valuable software to the open source community, and have released valuable documentation for BeOS. And don't forget, it's all a moot point as Haiku is getting closer to release. Access have acted well.


Skipping irrelevant issues such as Linux code, name one BeOS user who didn't have copies of these docs, acquired legitimately with any distribution (paid or PE).

Until Haiku R2 is released we'll still have a sub-standard system compared to Be, Inc's last efforts. But moot it is indeed, I have neither used nor developed for BeOS for years. Interesting to watch the machinations though.

haiqu

p.s. Couldn't find any online reference to Bernd's construction industry background, perhaps you could provide a URL. Not that it matters ... more rumours. Mon, 09 Apr 2007 07:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (haiqu) Comments RE[11]: Comment by ormandj http://osnews.com/thread?228894 http://osnews.com/thread?228894 > p.s. Couldn't find any online reference to Bernd's >construction industry background, perhaps you could >provide a URL. Not that it matters ... more rumours.

No rumours it's true.
I remember the first TV show (NBC Giga) were ZETA was presented. Bernd talked also about his background and education or former job he learned.
The video is avaiable through BeShare. Mon, 09 Apr 2007 09:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Leszek Lesner) Comments RE[11]: Comment by ormandj http://osnews.com/thread?228901 http://osnews.com/thread?228901
Skipping irrelevant issues such as Linux code, name one BeOS user who didn't have copies of these docs, acquired legitimately with any distribution (paid or PE).


True we had copies of them but not the right to modify them and update them. You can now rewrite the documents to be Haiku specific. I don't know the outcome of everything that is happening now but the gift from Access was very generous. Mon, 09 Apr 2007 12:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (JPisini) Comments RE[12]: Comment by ormandj http://osnews.com/thread?228911 http://osnews.com/thread?228911 True we had copies of them but not the right to modify them and update them. You can now rewrite the documents to be Haiku specific. I don't know the outcome of everything that is happening now but the gift from Access was very generous.

Good design and documentation doesn't fall out of the sky and it is very, very valuable. In pure money terms the BeOS design is worth millions (for free) and the documentation is worth, at least, several tens of thousands, if not more. It will certainly have a strong part to play in user uptake. Soft factors like this can help make all the difference, and I'm sure Access are not ignorant of the fact. Mon, 09 Apr 2007 14:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vibe) Comments RE[9]: Comment by ormandj http://osnews.com/thread?229460 http://osnews.com/thread?229460
It's time you clarified a few things with the legal department. Save for a few exceptions (such as contracts for the sale of land), contracts do not have to be written. It does seem to be true that using written contracts adds some impression of professionalism to business dealings. Many business deals are concluded on the basis that the parties have known each other for many years and trust each other to carry out their responsibilities to each other fairly and honestly.


Mmm, in the software business every thing is done by paperwork. I was in BeOS developer program thingy and even that required a signed (on paper) and mailed NDA form.

When Be was sold to Palm ex-Be employes openly had their doubts about yellowtab... Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (gfx1) Comments