Because I haven’t got much time, here’s a roughly cleaned up translation of Google’s translation engine:
Quote:
Developer of BeOS successor Zeta in distress
YellowTAB , manufacturer of the multimedia operating system and BeOS successor Zeta , is possibly insolvent. The district court Mannheim received a request for insolvency procedures. The court therefore denied [YellowTAB] access to their bank accounts and ordered a provisional insolvency manager. According to information from its lawyers an insolvency opening procedure is currently under way, which is to uncover within three months whether the enterprise is actually insolvent and whether an insolvency is present.
YellowTAB employees explained to heise online, that the request definitely didn’t originate from within the company itself, but from an external applicant [possibly with malicious intent]. Managing director Bernd Thorsten Korz was not available for a statement ( hps /c’t)
Well, I must say, I never understood, how a company like YellowTAB could sustain itself. Certainly not by selling beta versions of its OS to unsuspecting computer illiterates through a TV shopping channel.
But, of course, we’re going to have to see, what’ll come of this.
That’s very interesting … whilst I know nothing about business laws … how does an outside party put in a request to have a company made insolvent ? I would have thought the request wouldn’t have been handled unless there was evidence or the people making the request had a vested interest.
From what I gathered from looking around on the web for info on German laws in this case:
Conditions for such a request (for insolvency proceedings) are:
*) The debt must not be marginal
*) No intentions that are not in the spirit of the insolvency proceedings (like, e.g., eliminating a competitor) must be the cause for the request
*) The request must not be unfairly used as a means to exercise pressure
If the insolvency proceeding has been filed by an outsider, that outsider has to be a creditor.
That creditor has to prove the plausibility of yT being insolvent. He further has to prove (with according documents) that he (or she/it) is, in fact, a creditor and that the debtor is unable to (and that is my attempt at translating lawyer speak) substantially repay the debt.
Sufficient proof for this is a certificate of a bailiff for an unsuccessful enforcement attempt or the assurance in lieu of an oath over the cessation of payment.
The (German language) source for this translation attempt (and an attempt it is, since English isn’t my native language and the vocabulary is alien to me) can be read here (section 3.1 Gläubigerantrag)
Well, from what I understand, even given that it was filed by a third party, this insolvency request cannot just be a prank or something. Whether YellowTAB will be with us for long anymore remains to be seen.
Couldn't OSDL buy this company then release everything under the GPL?
The problem is that YellowTab is NOT the original copyright holders of the code. They have been (allegedly) granted a license to use/modify the code and distribute binaries built from the code, but they are still not the copyright holders of the original code.
Only the original copyright holders can change the license or "sell" the code - unless yT bought it in the first place.
A license to use/modify/distribute is not necessarily the same as "ownership".
Personally, I dont want Zeta to die. They’re cooperating with Haiku and all… i dont really care if an OS is open source or not, as long as it doesnt use restrictive methods… all i have to open source purists - die… Sometimes making things open source also reduces the quality of engineering. example? The code to render a webpage in KHTML is waaaay cleaner than the one for Gecko, as gecko has many more contributors…
I still dont see how many feel opensource aint communism but enjoy flaming em (not maoist or stallin… i mean marxist maybe, non socialist).
Sometimes making things open source also reduces the quality of engineering. example? The code to render a webpage in KHTML is waaaay cleaner than the one for Gecko, as gecko has many more contributors...
I’m not an open-source zealot, but I think you’re missing a couple points there.
KHTML is open-source (as noted by togs_01)
With open source, anyone can take the code and re-engineer it for quality if you want.
Anyone has the right to start over, use the open-source code as a reference!
Most software deserves to be re-written a few times - it helps remove the cruft and improve the underlying design.
Gecko is based of code coming from Netscape’s closed source, and that code was nasty. In fact the code has improved a lot since it became open. KHTML has a more ‘modern’ approach, which is good. The comparison is a bit like comparing a 1960’s car to one from last year.
I was aware you people are gonna say that, but im afraid you have overlooked that in that part of the post, im talking bout "community involvement". Im clearly aware that KHTML is open source, but relies on Qt Toolkit thus less people use it than Gecko, which is completely cross platform
Too much community involvement will weaken the quality of engineering, no doubt. Sure it can be better IF, but its always stuck at the if part - it doesnt happen all the time… i mean, linux got more community involvement than BSD. But many prefer BSD cuz they find it less chaotic. Waz this "chaos" they speak of? Too much contribution causing the code to lose its quality… this chaos is evident for any code though
And i already said it - i support open source yes, but im not one of the freak zealots who wish that every company in this world dies for the code to be open sourced and bull like that
@tqh: so can i say, Zeta goin open source wont be too great just like gecko? @_@
The only way I can see this being good news for the BeOS community is if YT had bought the IP (not simply licensed it) from Palm… and only then if they decide to open source what can be open sourced. I don’t see this happening. I figure YT licensed the code. I’m now sad.
BTW, chaotic code doesn’t result from too many contributors. It results from lack of organization, which includes planning and setting goals for the project. You’ve confused the two (# of contributors & lack of organization) because it’s easier to organize a handfull of contributors rather than an army of them.
You've confused the two (# of contributors & lack of organization) because it's easier to organize a handfull of contributors rather than an army of them.
Ya i know but more people almost always results in weaker co ordination doesnt it?
Whatever it is… i dont want yT to die no matter what. They’re doing some good for the Haiku community too, so be it…
Couldn't OSDL buy this company then release everything under the GPL?
I hope people are not coming to use the term GPL as a synonym for open source. I don’t see myself ever realeasing code under the GPL. I prefer the MIT(X11)(MIT is Haiku’s licence of choice) and BSD licences.
If opensource is communism like Leaflord implied, I think I like my communism with the anarchic freedom that the other licences give me. Not the one party rule, totoliterian communism that I would get with the GPL (all figuratively speaking of course).
Ever read that anything dynamically liked to something GPL may have to be GPL too? It depends on how courts rule on derivitive works (This is an undetermined legal mess that I wouldn’t want to touch with a 10 meter pole.) (There is LGPL though which is slightly better)
I don’t want to see any GPL code integrated into the core of Haiku, I like the current licence much better.
Ever read that anything dynamically liked to something GPL may have to be GPL too? It depends on how courts rule on derivitive works (This is an undetermined legal mess that I wouldn't want to touch with a 10 meter pole.) (There is LGPL though which is slightly better)
I’ve always suspected it would be exceptionally easy to circumvent that detail…
Can’t you simply create a binary-compatible stub of the library you intend to link against, compile with the stub, and simply swap the library afterward? That wouldn’t be much different than compiling windows apps and running them on Wine, or vice versa right? I guess maybe there could be some controversy over the intent…
