Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 4th Apr 2007 21:29 UTC
Zeta A lot of things have happened in the past few days concerning Zeta, BeOS, and Haiku. In order to create some order in the chaos, Eugenia and I have created a rough timeline of what happened the past 6-7 years. Read on for the timeline and some more thoughts on the matter. Update: Magnusoft ceases distribution of Zeta. Update II: Access answered the questions posed in the article.
Thread beginning with comment 227631
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by ormandj
by Eugenia on Wed 4th Apr 2007 23:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ormandj"
Eugenia
Member since:
2005-06-28

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.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by ormandj
by looncraz on Sat 7th Apr 2007 18:47 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by ormandj"
looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

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. )

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by ormandj
by Vibe on Sat 7th Apr 2007 19:09 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by ormandj"
Vibe Member since:
2007-03-12

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.

Reply Parent Score: 1