OSNews

True, but let's be thankful and not asking (begging) fore even more after this generous gift. I mean, they don't have to give it away, even if it does not cost them anything.

> they don't have to give it away,
> even if it does not cost them anything.

In fact it does cost them something. Haiku and Access had exchanged several emails and Access's legal (IP checking) and PR (the news press content) departments were involved in the process. Not an huge cost but not totally free (as in bear) either, as I'm sure one hour of these guys is not cheap.

They deserve our thank you, indeed. They bet on it, having a positive image will pay back this small cost, no doubt.

yep, 'nice' kind of sums it up. although most this information is likely already available scattered across the web, it will be great to have all this information under one 'roof' (haiku-os.org). making it as easy as possible for budding developers to find information is important since developers is something Haiku/Beos desperately needs.

I think the most exiting thing about this news is that there is a constructive dialogue between Access and the Haiku developers. That can only be a good thing.

The code trees are likely to be completely incompatible with one another. The difference is probably that between night and day. The end result might look similar, but I would be surprised to see even one chunk of code that is the same in both.

Sure, the Haiku devs could learn majorly from the code, but a merger? Don't think so.

Edited 2007-04-03 23:44 UTC

WOW... that's a pretty plain statement. But I already knew Bernd wasn't allowed to open-source BeOS code - that is obvious as he never owned it in the first place.

Anyone asking about open-sourced BeOS/Zeta code and how it could help Haiku can read some of the commentary here:

http://osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=17608

and specifically note:

http://www.freelists.org/archives/openbeos/04-2007/msg00020.html

Seriously, opening up the BeOS source would probably hurt Haiku more than help it at this point.

Edit: removed my own flaw here...

Edited 2007-04-04 00:10

Don't forget the even more damning commentary here:

http://osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=17569

I hate to say it so soon - but it seems an "I told you so" (not to the OP, but to many other people who have said otherwise - hi Thom!) might be in order, along with a dozen apologies - again - assuming this is legit. I did look up the name, and it's correct - but I'm really surprised there was no formal statement made, nor legal proceedings concerning the infraction.

Keep us updated if you receive any word back concerning the legitimacy of these statements. I'd love to be able to laugh at a few dozen folks.

---

Back on topic concerning the release of the BeBook - I still have a copy sitting on my shelves, totally worn down from use. Awesome book, and awesome it's available under creative commons. With some updating, it might provide a nice framework for a Haiku revision!

Thanks, ACCESS!

This is vindication for all those times myself and others were slapped down in the comments for having the audacity to question whether Zeta was legal or whether Bernd had any legal access tot he source code of BeOS.

It will reflect very poorly if the administrators do not respond and investigate the veracity of the statements left by David "Lefty" Schlesinger and (assuming those comments were not a hoax) apologize for the constant haranguing they allowed to go on and participated in when questions were asked on this subject.

--bornagainpenguin

"We have attempted to contact Access and Mr Schlesinger to confirm, and elaborate on, these statements."

Oh come on, of course he would say that. Don't you know that they have this license agreement with YT that says that the licensee aren't allowed to prove that they are a licensee? So he *can't* admit it

Seriously though, its a post on forum board. It's not like it's impossible to fake it.

Ok, here we go again :-)

1) Who has Bernd been paying royalties to this whole time?
Answer: To the Bernd Trust Fund - Well, Palm & Access certainly didn't get any money off of Zeta.

2) If any changes to the kernel are present in Zeta (the RAM increase for example), then it becomes more likely that Zeta used the illegal leaked code.

Answer: Bernd made some type of arrangement with Be Inc CEO before it was sold to Palm. Details are only known to Bernd & CEO of Be Inc. No idea what the terms were, only that Bernd obtained the source code to BeOS 5.1 Dano directly from Be Inc. Whether he was entitled to use BeOS source & make Zeta is an entirely different question. ( & appears that Access is saying "NO", that it was illegally done ).

3) And why did Palm/Access not take legal action? Perhaps they were waiting for Zeta to become profitable?
Answer: Well, I can list a few, but who can say for sure. All we can do is guess.

PS: I'm assuming David "Lefty" Schlesinger post is the real deal for now, until it gets proven otherwise.

Edited 2007-04-04 04:43

"Bernd made some type of arrangement with Be Inc CEO before it was sold to Palm. "

Generally CEO's aren't allowed to make these kind of deals on their own without consulting the board and such.

The agreement could just have been to gain access to BeOS 5.1 Dano code (& maybe that was all), because it seems apparent that Bernd has BeOS source.

Maybe it is more than just getting access to the source, but no way to tell. Only Bernd & Be Inc CEO know the exact details and I don't believe either one will tell us.

Also, who is to say that this was done legitamitely? Maybe the CEO did not inform the Board and acted alone? Maybe the Board approved the arrangement? Maybe this was done *unofficially*?

All we have is questions & no answers. The rest is just speculation and guessing on our parts. Unfortunately, without proof or hard facts, it is difficult to prove what happened or the terms of any agreement, etc.

Edited 2007-04-04 04:58

Well I'm definitely glad I never gave Bernd a cent of my money, but I wish ACCESS would have said something sooner . In my opinion anyone who did buy Zeta has been cheated out of their hard-earned money. I'm glad this sad chapter in BeOS's history is finally coming to a close, but I'd say Bernd owes a few people their money back.

He outlined why they said nothing until this point, they would have had legal expenses to litigate which would have not been recouped.

It's not ACCESS's job to protect people from their own ignorance. Anybody who gave it a good long look should have been able to see the shadiness of Zeta/Bernd.

In all fairness, even giving Bernd the benefit of "ignorance", let's say he thought he had a legal right to use the code in his project. People should have still been wary about shelling out money on an OS that wouldn't say they had legal rights publicly, and no, a VAGUE FAQ entry does not count.

I agree with everything you're saying, but I still "wish" they would have said something. I admittedly know nothing of German law, but you're saying they couldn't have even issued a press release denying Bernd had any right to do what he was doing? I don't see windows bootleggers in China suing Microsoft for accusing them of piracy.

Nevertheless, ACCESS is in no way to blame for this or the purchasing actions of people and kudos to them for speaking up in the end. But it won't stop me from wishing we had all gotten to the bottom of this a LONG time ago.

Edited 2007-04-04 06:11

Fair enough. They might have something like libel law there, it would not surprise me. In this case, ACCESS could make a claim (even factual) that Bernd/yT/whomever didn't have legal rights, but if Bernd/yT/whomever claimed it was libel (BS) then they would have to go to court over it. ACCESS would end up eating legal fees for no gain.

It's unfortunate, and I also completely agree with what you've said, but as a business - ACCESS probably made the right decision. Unfortunately, it allowed some people to get "suckered". As you say, though, in no way is that ACCESS's fault, they have to do what is right for them/their stakeholders.

Ormandj, I'd be very much obliged if you could take a moment to send me an email at the following address: alexander.rubio@gmail.com

Hey Thom, where's the apology? Same for the rest of the people bashing/down modding people for pointing out the obvious concerning Bernd / his shadiness. There's more than a few people who've gotten the end of the beating stick for simply voicing valid and (now proven) opinions. All the hostile defense was very much not appreciated, and very much proven asinine now.

-----

I'm starting to like ACCESS more and more. After reading his follow-up response, I'm quite impressed. He seems to be open to collaborating with OSS projects (speaking about Haiku in this instance) assuming they do things correctly, and ask permission to use works first. If there is every a time when my needs and ACCESS's services/products meet, you can be sure I will seriously give them a hard look!

I don't think that "I told you so" really applies when you continually asserted speculation-as-fact and your speculation happens to have turned out correct. Especially when the majority of the opposition you encountered was from people suggesting that it was irresponsible to speculate when you didn't have any proof.

While it's a cliche, absence of proof is not proof of absence - and until today, you had no proof of the claims you were making.

You might want to tone done the self-congratulatory / "I have overcome persecution" bit. Call me crazy, but I don't think that someone who has posted comparisons between ZETA developers and nazis has any grounds to demand an apology for hostile comments.

Edited 2007-04-04 09:01

Call me crazy, but I don't think that someone who has posted comparisons between ZETA developers and nazis has any grounds to demand an apology for hostile comments.

That may be true, but considering how it was the administrators of this site who made some of the most rabid and passionate defense of Bernd and his shady business dealings I can kind of see where a comparison to a fascist dictatorship would come in. Especially when there were allegations of moderation tampering, which more or less effectively denies people the right to voice their thoughts because their comments disappear--and who goes out seeking what they don't already know is missing?

--bornagainpenguin

Yes, moderators should not be able to moderate their site. Quite right. Don't act amazed that people that run a site delete posts they don't find constructive, it's not like they're censoring anyone, these comments can be made elsewhere. But hey, it's cool to hate Thom, right?

I may have missed some of the posts, but the most hostile opposition I've seen were somewhat-exasperated "stop beating a dead horse, already" posts.

I don't think that "I told you so" really applies when you continually asserted speculation-as-fact and your speculation happens to have turned out correct. Especially when the majority of the opposition you encountered was from people suggesting that it was irresponsible to speculate when you didn't have any proof.

There was more than enough "evidence" in the sense of Bernd never stepping forward and stating his product was legally developed, even though he was attempting to sell it and that was the main reason most of the community would never buy into it. You don't always have to have word from a god to know something is true.

While it's a cliche, absence of proof is not proof of absence - and until today, you had no proof of the claims you were making.

Once again, in the business world, not supporting your product against the claim that it is illegal when you are in the business of making money and the main detractor of your product is its' questionable legality is proof enough for me (and for many, many people - who also did not buy Zeta for the same reason - and who also now have the kind of "proof" some people require - absolute.)

You might want to tone done the self-congratulatory / "I have overcome persecution" bit. Call me crazy, but I don't think that someone who has posted comparisons between ZETA developers and nazis has any grounds to demand an apology for hostile comments.

I'm sorry for making an exaggerated analogy to prove a point. Wait, actually - I'm not. We all make analogies to historical moments - it's how we describe things to people who lack understanding. I purposefully picked one that people would be clear about, and it worked quite well. If you're not mature enough to separate an analogy from an attack, I can't help it. I even stated prior to the comments that it was a highly exaggerated move in order to make things crystal clear to people (such as yourself) who require absolute proof even when there is an overwhelming amount of logical proof.

Personal conviction - regardless of whether or not it is eventually vindicated - is personal conviction, not proof. As someone who personally holds shares in a small company, I wouldn't feel a great deal of urgency to respond to unsubstantiated claims made primarily on pseudonymous message boards.

There's also quite a difference between the positions of "The uncertainty regarding ZETA's legality makes me very hesitant to purchase it" and specifically claiming that they did not have legal access as if it were a proven fact - when you had no concrete substantiation one way or the other. As far as I can see, the criticism you drew was primarily for taking the latter position.



Unless you have any evidence that ZETA developers committed acts of military aggression or systematically murdered millions of people, it was a incredibly-poor analogy. Off the top of my head, I can think of more than a dozen comparisons that would have been more appropriate - and less crass/offensive. If you think that the actions of yellowTAB and the actions of the Nazis are in any way comparable, that indicates a stunning lack of intellectual context on your part.

It's also pretty laughable that you would attempt to paint objection to a a Nazi comparison as the result of a lack of maturity. Most of the Internet lost patience for that kind of nonsense long ago - and with good reason, because 95% of those comparisons are just lazy attempts to vilify an opponent by implied association.

Go make a similar comparison on usenet or the ArsTechnica message boards and see what sort of reaction you get - for good measure, make sure to accuse anyone who objects of being immature. I'll start giving odds on how long it will take before you get a response mentioning Godwin's Law or "reductio ad Hitlerum." Of course, you might want to stay away from any forums containing people with education in psychology - or at least shelve the martyr complex first.

Now THIS would make for a worthy news item. It's news, it's important, it's about an actual operating system.
It would probably also cause a flamewar of biblical proportions.

ACCESS owns the rights to BeOS. This is non-debatable. What other "side" of the coin do you need? The side of somebody who never made a written statement through any of his companies that he had rights to the source? Wow, some people never give up in their blind defense.

I'm just curious how you think anything Bernd could have to say would make this situation any different. Unless you think ACCESS is wrong in their interpretation of their own license?

> I'm just curious how you think anything Bernd
> could have to say...

It's just the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

Yes all we have is ACCESS's side of the story, but we've been playing this game for ages. Bernd has never given us anything remotely appearing to resemble a full explanation of the legal state of Zeta and his only saving grace is the supposed belief that he was possibly under an NDA. Why wait till Zeta's dead to give us what we've wanted for ages, a straight answer. It's been nothing but vague assertions that they supposedly had the rights to the code with nothing to back it up. For the longest time the state of progress didn't even indicate he had access to the source code at all, let alone illegally.

If Bernd wants to give his side then I am willing to listen, (it would likely be the most information we'd ever gotten out of him) but I certainly am not going to get my hopes up. At this point I'd say Zeta's customers have been wrongfully duped and the blame for this lies solely at Bernd's feet.

Edited 2007-04-04 06:40

Look at this comment: http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=4734&limit=no#150413

yellowTab did not have the BeOS source code, but later they did. How did they do it? Palm bough Be in 2001, but that was 2003.
The only explanation is that Bernd somehow got his hands on the leaked BeOS souce code.

Bernd could have got his hands on the source code in many different ways. We just don't know, and your speculation proves nothing.

No, there are only two ways Bernd could have gotten hold of this code, legally or illegally. The legitimate holder of the source code seems to dispute he got it legally, which really seems to make everything point in one direction. Bernd has rarely given us anything but silence, occasionally appearing now and again to drum up hope. Which has served nothing but continually dividing the community. All the while earning a living because of the Be community's undying loyalty to their platform.

The only other place Bernd could have pulled this off would be the Amiga community. He has continually preyed on the hopes of others for a buck. If this had occurred in the Linux or Mac community people would be screaming "Bloody Murder". But for the longest time Yellowtab and Zeta seemed to be one of the last glimmers of hope, so people allowed themselves to put aside their misgivings and placed their trust in Bernd and this is how they've been repaid. A community divided over the innocence of a man who has done almost nothing to abate continual speculation of his guilt.

Edited 2007-04-04 07:40

If he hasn't had anything to say about the legality of his product after all this time, somehow I doubt he will regale us with a song and dance routine now at this late date..

Seriously, even if he did trot out an excuse after all the requests and flamewars his silence wrought, up to and including the destruction of his "legitimate business enterprise", would you believe anything he said?

--bornagainpenguin (fool me once...)

Yes, they care and they're coming to get you REAL soon...

They may care, but I think the "coming to get you REAL soon" is a bit much.

BeOS MAX is a both a not-for-profit project and it also doesn't use any illegally-obtained source code from BeOS - so it does fall into a slightly different category.

Now, even if it's illegal, that doesn't mean Access is going to do anything about it. I mean look - they may send cease-and-desist letters, and complain, but ultimately it's clear from David's comments that they not going to spend a ton of money on litigation to clobber something that is "small beans". BeOS MAX is even smaller than Zeta - with essentially $0 in profit - so why do you think they're "coming to get you"?

Now, BeOS Max creator(s) and users will have to choose whether they are allowed to morally use BeOS Max or not.

Being a BeOS Max user myself, I recently purchased a BeOS Pro 5.0.3 CD from purplus.com in order to gain some personal legitimacy in my use of BeOS Max. With the information out there, I could put together my own "BeOS Max" distro from a BeOS R5 PE or Pro image, etc... but having it already done for me is a lot easier

> BeOS MAX is a both a not-for-profit project and it also
> doesn't use any illegally-obtained source code from
> BeOS - so it does fall into a slightly different
> category.

No, it doesn't. That is the problem. Read the article. David said, "their IP". Their "IP" includes compiled code. The EULA is explicit. MAX breaks the EULA. MAX by all rights should get a cease and decist. Let's be honest here. What we can hope for is that ACCESS release the PE base as "free" (not the source, just the binaries and support files.) Then Haiku would benefit (because it would be legitimate to create a distro that used parts of PE to plug in gaps - netserver even till the netstack is up to scratch.) MAX users would benefit - because MAX would be legal (finally.) And BeOS would be obtainable still, legally, as a hard disk installable OS.

"I'd think we have a bigger worry: BeOS MAX."

Why worry? Who cares about beos max? Why would it be a big loss of it went away? It's mot like there's a huge number of people (re)discovering BEos because of it.
Last time I checked max was nothing but a glorified PE and there will always be R5 PE copies floating around on the various p2p networks for those who really want to get that retro feeling.
It's like saying we should worry about Phos now.
(Ok, maybe not. Max's actually useful, something that cant be said about Phos)