Current Owner of BeOS Code Claims Zeta is Illegal 140
Hank Powers writes "The legal status of the Zeta operating system that was derived from the source code Be Inc. left shortly before going bankrupt has been unclear for several years. Now, the current owner of the source code, ACCESS, claims "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". The sales of Zeta have been suspended and so has the development been halted as well. OSNews has an article about the recent developments."
Nothing to see here, yadda yadda... (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps some insider can make this issue more clear (yes, I R'd TFA), but this seems like a non-issue. As I understand it...
This company ACCESS legitimately owns the rights to BeOS. Korz/YellowTAB never had any right to continue work on it as Zeta, and may even have started the project based on leaked source code. But PalmSource never cared, and YellowTAB never bothered doing more than sending nastygrams every few months, probably because they saw no possible financial incentive to do so.
So overall, this sounds an awfully lot like ACCESS has zero interest in BeOS/Zeta(/Haiku?), but their lawyers have advised them to send a periodic reminder of "oh, BTW, we own this", just so they can eat the whole thing on the off chance it ever becomes commercially viable.
So... Why does this count as news? It seems like just the status quo for the past six years, nothing new here.
Re:Nothing to see here, yadda yadda... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is definitely bad news for fans of BeOS. If there's a silver lining, hopefully it will spur more support for Haiku, which as an open-source project is immune from a company deciding to sit on a useful OS instead of letting others maintain and improve on it.
open-source project is immune (Score:2)
Re:open-source project is immune (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
I do hope your pet project goes down in flames due to something like this.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
2. If you're talking about copyrights then Open Source or Free Software is inherently better protected against copyright violations than closed source - after all if the source is available it's pretty easy to see if there is a copyright violation. Who knows what the hell goes on in closed source projects?
Re: (Score:2)
2 - Can offending code/trademarks/etc be removed since its 'seen'? Sure, I never said it could not, but it might be so tightly bound into the project that it can kill the project totally and still cause people involved to be held legally liable.
Re: (Score:2)
2. Yes, a project could be destroyed if it were (necessarily) based on patented algorithms (although not all jurisdictions allow patenting of algorithms (yet). If it were based on copyright code the copier could be in for a world of hurt (and quite right too). Trademarks? I'm writing this using Debian IceWeasel.
SCO UnixWare includes stolen copyright code, but who other than the people who've gone to all
Re:open-source project is immune (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Nothing to see here, yadda yadda... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The sooner non-OSS BeOS dies the better.
We should not want it, should not support it, and should support Haiku out of good old-fashioned self-interest if nothing else.
Instead of hoping commercial entities do the right thing, how about supporting people who do the right thing because they value doing it??
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Nothing to see here, yadda yadda... (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, but that represents a real threat, since we have more people in Guantanimo than BeOS/Zeta has users.
/ joking, for the humor impaired.
Access Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
Funny how they keep spending money on OS'es that they never profit from. Their mission seems to be to kill OS'es that have a chance to innovate around Microsoft's monopoly. I wonder whether their license to deploy Windows phones in Japan was contingent on doing that kind of Microsoft dirty work, perhaps even secretly funded (or subsidized) by Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
Access, the company now stifling innovation with the dormant BeOS code, is also the Japanese mobile phone corporate giant that bought out PalmOS, lying about offering a smartphone running Linux with a PalmOS GUI/compatibility layer.
Well, they at least appear to have released an SDK for one (http://www.access-company.com/news/press/ACCESS/2 007/20070212d_alp_pdk.html), which AFAICS is as close as they were ever going to get because they don't seem to be in the hardware business.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's your problem, Anonymous slave Coward?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Moderation 0
50% Flamebait
30% Underrated
20% Insightful
Anonymous scaredy TrollMods must kill responsible free speech, while they whine about libel. They misspelled "I don't like it" as "Flamebait".
Re: (Score:2)
It should have happened before.
Cheers
Re:Access Microsoft (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Won't happen. Unlike Mr. Nixon, Bush will have "properly disposed"(deliberately ditched?) all evidence of any wrongdoing, as that is the only lesson learned from the Watergate incident.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Access Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a good example of why we need a way to pry IP out of the hands of organizations that buy it just to stifle it. One could argue that Intellectual Property is just like any property and an owner can make use of it or not to its own pleasure. However, IP is different. IP not really something you own: it is a license (or privilege) to exclusive production. The term "Intellectual Property" itself is misleading, and cooked up to create the illusion that it is something to be owned like a tool, or a piece of land.
In fact, the U.S. Constitution (e.g.) clearly states the purpose for granting such privileges:
This clearly illustrates the purpose of patents, trademarks and copyrights, which is to encourage publication or production of works and products for the benefit of all by giving the creator the ability to exclusively profit from their publication or production. It's a mutually beneficial deal, an agreement between the general public and creators of useful works. If the creator decides not to produce the protected work, then the public gains nothing. One doesn't get exclusive license just to sit on their discoveries. At some point of non-production, the protection should expire early.
Re:Access Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Further, patents should register their costs in development of the patent, not just the product after the patent, and expire the patent once either the time or a multiple ROI is reached. The ROI should be a maximum of 10x (probably even just 2x, but actual research and ongoing parameters should establish the precise ROI that promotes). And the time should be per-industry, with software/IT times governed more by Moore's Law and software obsolescence studies. Software itself is obviously (to anyone but greedheads) copyright, not patent, material.
The whole system is rotten. But if it were tweaked a little, pared back to its justifiable framework, it could form the basis for a system that actually promotes the progress that justifies the monopoly in conflict with expression freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
Please open your mind a little bit. Software *is* copyrighted, but there is also an argument that the mechanism encoded into the software is itself a virtual device that is patentable. I happen to agree with that decision, and think the biggest problem with software patents is that the bar for "obviousness" is set far too low. But in the end, patents should be enough to allow companies to feel comfortable in investing
Re: (Score:2)
Copyrights create the protection for R&D investment while competitors must wait to compete without that expense. Patents offer unnecessary extra protections, and unnecessary registration and examination cycles that copyrigh
Re: (Score:2)
Mean
Re: (Score:1)
No more so than mathematical equations "encode" a virtual device. Software is mathematics, and allowing mathematical formulas to be patented violates centuries of prcedent [ieee.org] as well as good sense.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Software can be described using mathematics, just like radio, an internal combustion engine, and a host of other inventions can. But software is a set of instructions that form a virtual mechanism, not a set of equations. Abstract mathematical equations are not patentable because they are not a device with a purpose, while software is.
Re: (Score:2)
Expiring these after some time without exploitation doesnt' complicate the patent process. It makes it a lot easier for courts to recognize a challenge, when the patentholder fails to p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I have these discussions and arguments online to sharpen them. The dirty fighting I do for fun, but I prefer the clean debate, if it's available. Just not enough to enforce cleanliness when it goes dirty.
I'm glad we had the chance to compare notes.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Obviously you are very mistaken [linuxdevices.com].
Re:Access Microsoft (Score:4, Informative)
Obviously you didn't read the article to which you linked:
In other words, no PalmOS on their Linux phone. They've been "planning" it for years. They announced they'd be releasing it in 2006. 2007 will be at least half over, and they'll still be "planning" it. Liars.
Wishing doesn't make it so, for you either.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, lying is the only possible explanation why it isn't out yet. Because, as we all know, major rewrites of operating systems are always delivered on time. :-)
My personal guess is that they fully intend to release a Linux-based operating system with a Palm OS compatibility layer, but this simply
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It all seems like they've got the marketing buzzword compatibility locked down, so they're not serious about the product. Though the intervening 2 years has seen PalmOS nearly die
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong again... [palminfocenter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
First, that announcement didn't even exist when I posted. Will you be replying to this message in a few years when maybe someone does actually do what Access said it would have done already, last year.
Second, I said Access lied abo
Mod Parent UP (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And when PalmSource did release their new Palm OS (Cobalt), despite a subsequent revision, supposedly at the request of Palm OS licensees, it died because PalmOne (current day "Palm Inc.") weren't interested in the OS they paid for in the first place. No one else wanted to launch an OS clearly superior to PalmOS 5, WinCE and probably the Linux
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your MS conspiracy hinges on one thing... (Score:1)
The OS has been out for 10 years without any ownership debate and what kind of market penetration does it have? 0.000005% maybe? There could be a thousand people worldwide who actually run it 50% of the time?
Microsoft broke the law to get Windows where it is against OS/2, DOS clones and Mac, let's stop claiming that Linux and BeOS are losing on the desktop because of a massive MS conspiracy. They're losing because few desktop apps would run o
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, today Microsoft no longer need
Re: (Score:1)
Oh please. You're claiming that Microsoft pulled anticompetitive pricing tactics against Be trying to dump their OS on consumers? Provide some record of this. Because if it's true, I've lost respect for Microsoft as a monopolist.
What would have been the benefit for the OEM when it would have created a support issue? No OEM wants to deal with support calls related to an OS that
Re: (Score:2)
Re:He Who Controls the Bootloader (Score:4, Insightful)
Most people are application oriented not OS oriented. If their apps don't run on a given OS they don't want it. Period.
I saw this happen once in my neighborhood (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
I own the patent on sealing wax for evelopes (Score:1)
Don't bother reading the article ... (Score:2)
From TFA:
Object not found!
The requested URL was not found on this server. The link on the referring page seems to be wrong or outdated. Please inform the author of that page about the error.
If you think this is a server error, please contact the webmaster.
Error 404
www.osnews.com
Sat Apr 7 10:14:11 2007
Apache/2.0.54 (Linux/SUSE)
read this one instead ... (Score:2)
was Don't bother reading the article
Doh! Someone feed the bloody cat! (Score:1, Funny)
it out in a dirty mudwrestling contest on retro cable.
Nostalgia (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
The legal problems don't come up until you try to "extend" someone else's work or accept contributions back into your own. Seems relatively easy to dodge these bullets.
Then again, an intentionally ambiguous license controlled by a mad-man with an agenda isn't really helping anyone out h
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need a law degree. Just ask a five year old.
Re: (Score:2)
For a technology site there are an awful lot of neo-luddites around here.
Re: (Score:2)
> You don't need a law degree. Just ask a five year old.
Yeah, but most five year olds have also learned that you should share your toys with the other kids. If you have a fun toy, you don't hoard it and keep it somewhere that nobody else can have any fun with it.
The folks who "own" BeOS don't seem to have picked up on that kindergarten lesson, though.
Re: (Score:3)
"Bobby, can I use a linked list for a one-click web site?"
"No Daddy, they're patented. And don't try a triple linked list. They're patented too"
"But Bobby, a patent must be novel, obvious and useful!"
"Don't get my started Daddy. I still have to read my RIAA Preschooler Education Kit. Say that CD has a Sharpie Label. Bad Daddy, Bad!"
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Article sucks, but interesting topic (Score:1)
Owner of the code - but they're not using it! (Score:3, Insightful)
Patent != Copyright (Score:2)
Copyright does need reforming, but not for the case of technology. Copyright's should probably last only 14 years as opposed to a 70, but thats pretty damn irrelevant for software. And source code is usually under "trade secret" anyways.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I was a big fan of BeOS. I went to their first demo-tour in Ann Arbor, way back when. I never bought a dual processor PowerPC BeBox, but I did install and use it once it became available for intel. So, I think their letting BeOS whither and die is a HUGE waste of all that good code, with incredible multimedia capabilities and many other advances that are still not met in Mac OS or Linux (and certainly not Windows).
When they were negotiati
Re:Owner of the code - but they're not using it! (Score:4, Interesting)
With the current free software that rivals proprietary software in both quality and features in many fields and that seems to be made for porting fringe operating systems seem to stand a much better chance. Just look at Ubuntu. Personally I am running Debian as my desktop OS.
Parent may not be right about Access being responsible for the downfall of BeOS, but now, that BeOS actually may have a chance (I heard that Firefox was ported for example) they may be responsible for it never coming back.
Re: (Score:1)
That was part of it. More importantly, though, was Microsoft's hand in things. Be's demise was mostly due to Microsoft's predatory practices (surprise, surprise). Be filed suit against MS for the destruction of Be's business through anticompetitive acts. In particular, Be claimed MS did shady things to prevent PC makers from including BeOS on dual-boot PCs.
MS and Be settled by MS agreeing to pay Be something like $25 million (and admitting no wrongdoing)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that's a fair characterization. The current shipping version of Palm OS is Palm OS 5.x. Several years ago, after Palm had bought Be (in which I believe they got both source code and talent), Palm created Palm OS 6. This had lots
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Funny how I submitted this on Wednesday evening... (Score:5, Informative)
Gotta love slashdot. I also seem to have recalled explaining a few more things in my summary that would have prevented the fringe element from heading off into conspiracy land as well....
First off, the reason why ACCESS is only *now* responding on this issue is because Korz was making overtures towards open sourcing the code--something that ACCESS could not keep silent about. As Lefty says in his comments both at bitsofnews and OSNews.com, they'd been sending cease and desist letters for some time already and Korz was ignoring them. To try and take legal action would be only to invite lawsuits over code that ACCESS saw no income from; so why should they stick out their necks for a libel suit with the possibility of generating only negative income? It is only because ACCESS wanted to prevent any possibility of Korz giving away their property they chose to risk the possible libel suit now.
Secondly, 'Zeta' was a dead parrot. It was NOT truly being developed, because obviously Korz did NOT have access (pun unintended) to the source code or he would have done more with it. The only true successor to BeOS is Haiku, which as I stated in my summary is nearing its 1.0 release with all originally developed closed-room re-engineered code that is BeOS R5 compatible.
Third, BeOS Max PE which is developed by a Greek coder to be the best and most updated (using bits of third party hacks and including newer drivers for more hardware as well as bits of Haiku that work better than the old BeOS parts) may be forced to discontinue development. This is something that would be a tragedy, since it is thanks to Vaspar's work on this (free) project many of us are able to run BeOS on new hardware. And I say that as someone who bought BeOS in the store almost a month or two before the announcement they were going bankrupt.
--bornagainpenguin
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, your submission was too soon :)
Sorry to state to obvious... (Score:1)
Time to join Haiku, I think...
--
Arkan
You never heard of SCO? (Score:1, Funny)
That sucks (Score:1)
Maybe Haiku will turn into something equally as cool.
BeOS has been gone too long (Score:1)
Multi-threaded wonderland (Score:2)
Windows never claims to be "real time", soft, hard or otherwise. The problem is that Windows can "go away" for tens of milliseconds (perhaps less with modern, faster hardware) to do things like disk accesses and what not without being responsive to interrupts or time slice preemption. The expl
I'm surprised people consider BeOS to have value (Score:3, Interesting)
There were some nice features in the shell (Tracker), but they could have been implemented on a conventional OS.
Performance was poor. The only OS it outperformed on the same hardware was the classic Mac OS... Windows, Windows NT, OpenStep, and open source UNIX were all faster. Of course the contemporary Mac OS was near its nadir of performance.
When the rumors of Apple picking it up, I was somewhat hopeful... it was definitely better than what they had.
When Palm picked it up I was horrified. Palm's existing OS was far better suited for the PDA, and it was looking like Palm was going to end up with some really nice and cheap handhelds... if yo could get a Palm to retail for under $50 (a target they could have easily met and suprassed by now) everyone would be using them in high school instead of calculators, and they'd have no competition. But instead of doing what they did best, they decided to go after Microsoft on Microsoft's turf... and went from an easily-maintained 80% of the handheld market to "who's going to buy them"?
BeOS? It's a poison pill. The Amiga of the '90s, without the virtue of EVER having had a hope in hell.
Re:I'm surprised people consider BeOS to have valu (Score:2)
You had me until you said C++ was an oddball language that was hard to work with.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because something is popular doesn't mean that it's well designed, or even mediocre, or even following the usual design principles of things in the same class.
Consider the current US system of measurement, Microsoft Windows, or classic Mac OS. These are all oddball designs in a world of better systems, and cause (or caused) all kinds of problems for people who had to use them.
C++ is partly a throwback to the very earliest
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that C doesn't have automated garbage collection is not that big of a deal to any competent programmer. Now to a slacker, second-rate programmer, then yes, it certainly is an issue. And the irony is a crappy programmer will still write a crappy app in higher-level languages... the bugs may not be related to variable overloading, but they'll likely be just as obnoxious.
C/C++ is designed for performan