OSNews

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

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).

> 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.