Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 4th Apr 2007 09:14 UTC, submitted by jeanmarc
Zeta For the first time in its 7 years of existence, some decent statement has been released concering the legality of Zeta. Access, the current owner of Be, Inc.'s IP, states: "We have sent 'cease and desist' letters to YellowTab on a number of occasions, which have been uniformly ignored. If Herr Korz feels that he holds a legitimate license to the BeOS code he's been using, we're completely unaware of it, and I'd be fascinated to see him produce any substantiation for that claim." Update: Bernd Korz has replied on his blog.
Thread beginning with comment 227449
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
After... 7 years ?!?!
by csynt on Wed 4th Apr 2007 18:45 UTC
csynt
Member since:
2006-03-19

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

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

Reply Score: 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited 2007-04-04 19:32

Reply Parent Score: 2

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

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

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

Reply Parent Score: 1

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

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


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

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

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

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

Reply Parent Score: 3