Home | Forums | Submit   Haiku Generator | Quotable JLG | The Icon Tarot 


Announcing Zeta Neo

Filed under the:  department.
Posted by:Yez on Monday, 18 Oct, 2004 @ 1:52 PM
 
yellowTab

YellowTab has announced Zeta Neo over at their website. It appears that Neo is supposed to be a temporary release to hold off users until Zeta 1.0 is out. Makes me wonder what the RCs were for but, oh well. Head on over and check it out, maybe it is just what you are looking for in a Zeta. If we get a hold of a copy, we will review it for you so you know what to expect from Neo.



10 Responses to “Announcing Zeta Neo”

  1. Chinasaur Says:

    “Makes me wonder what the RCs were for..”

    Revenue generation.

  2. MYOB Says:

    You’re unlikely to get a test copy freebie unless you start really sucking up to YT - BG is seen as one of the “BeOS” sites still (its all still BeOS, dammit…), like HNN was/would be is if it was back up.

  3. tb100 Says:

    Hmmn, seen the comments in the previous news item? Verd odd spamming :S

    On topic, I wonder how many more times yT are going to offer these still-pre-R1 versions to customers for 10 to upgrade from the previous one?

  4. wakeupandsmell_Z_coffee Says:

    Where is the source that YT is LEGALLY OBLIGATED to make FREELY AVAILABLE to anyone and their mother?!?

    In searching YellowTab’s website, no source code and no links to code can be found. Not in the Forum, not in the FAQ, nowhere.

    Perhaps someone should contact the appropriate persons at YT to remind them of their LEGAL OBLIGATIONS. Germany complies with USA and International Copyright Law the last time I checked.

    YellowTab and their various incarnations of ‘Zeta’ are violating International Copyright law.

    According to their website and I quote:
    “YellowTAB does not use illegal or leaked software.”
    and
    “…so developers get the oppertunity developing software for a legal Operating System…”

    lol?

    YellowTab’s operating system, which they distribute, sell, and otherwise publicly make available, includes software licensed under both the GPL and the LGPL.

    According to these licenses and the Free Software Foundation [FSF], any software licensed under the GPL that is publicly distributed MUST EITHER INCLUDE THE SOURCE OR PERSON[S] DISTRIBUTING MODIFIED GPL CODE MUST MAKE SAID CODE AVAILABLE AS A FREE DOWNLOAD OR FREE BY OTHER MEANS.

    This is NOT negotiable!!!

    The same goes for any LGPL software, with the small exclusion of any software linked directly to it (just the LGPL components’ source code need be made available in the case of LGPL licensed software).

    Furthermore it does NOT matter if you simply use another person’s binaries, if you distribute software under these licenses the source code MUST be made FREELY available!

    Why is noone saying anything about this?

    Obvious examples of YellowTab VIOLATIONS include, but are not limited to, Glibc, GCC, BASH, CUPS, many others and god knows what else I don’t care to think about.

    Nevermind the fact they can’t spell. Nevermind the fact they break their own (and other persons) software. THEY ARE BREAKING INTERNATIONAL LAW. They are knowingly doing this while claiming to be legit.

    In ‘Zeta NEO’ Bash 3.0 is included. Where is the source? Is this not GNU BASH? What version of BASH is it?

    The most glaringly obvious example is GLIBC, which is distributed under it’s own license. The big deal about this… the really really BIG thing about this one is -> they CAN NOT RELEASE THE SOURCE PARTS THEY ARE LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO! Why you ask? Simple - THEY DON’T HAVE IT!!! This is illegal, the basis for their entire operations is ILLEGAL!

    Get on this &*#& people!!

  5. tb100 Says:

    We’ve all heard the arguments before.

    I’m intrigued as to why they wouldn’t be able to release the source of the GPL apps. They haven’t so far, but that doesn’t mean they haven’t got it.

    Maybe they haven’t got the source to the base OS itself (I think it’s very likely they haven’t), but I see no reason they wouldn’t have the source of ported GPL apps with some small patches.

    The problem open source (specifically GPL stuff) may face if it becomes more mainstream is that most people just don’t care enough. The GPL is a restrictive licence, but a lot of it’s restrictions don’t really matter to “normal” users. The base software is free, the source is somewhere, yT have made a few changes and now I have a binary that runs. That’s all I would care about as a user.

    Yes, it’s illegal. IMHO, it’s substantially less immoral than file sharing, which happens to be practiced very heavily by a lot of computer-science-GPL-jealot-students. Start seriously threatening court action and it might spur yT to release some source, before then I doubt enough of yT’s target audience know or care enough about the issue to be put off and make a big difference to profit. I agree it’s sad, but that’s the way yT chooses to do business.

    Simon

  6. think Says:

    Think before posting such fiery posts. The fact that they have bash, glibc… on BeOS is irrelevant, how do you know that the source was in anyway changed in order to port it. And if it was, how do you know the changes to the source were not made to the current tree - these tools are designed to compile on more or less every os/arch available, so would it not make more sense to submit source changes to the bash team, than to fork it and create a BeOS compatible tool.

    And in respect to the system base, there are plenty of things that are from OpenBeOS/haiku and any changes to the source are put back in there. In either case the source although not made available from the yellowtab website is still just as freely downloadable.

  7. 2heads Says:

    “In either case the source although not made available from the yellowtab website is still just as freely downloadable.”

    Nope

    Asking people to think - thusly thwarting public perception towards another, is not only to presume the other is invalid - rather the intent of such is to warp public perception against said individual. I’m not amused.

    In regards to openbeos source changes, that is what is irrelevant as it is BSD/MIT in the first place. The only reason any code is donated back to it, is because that is YT’s only migration future and thus makes it easier for themselves.

    Firstly, sending patches to a mailing list is not complying with the aforementioned licenses [GPL/LGPL].

    Second, %99 of code submitted to the FSF is never approved (hence never committed).

    Third, it should be obvious that while a majority of code compiles on BeOS, the resulting product does not always function properly (if at all).

    Also, when source code patches never get distributed from the main vendor (due to whatever reason - submissal, denial, etc), the responsibility for providing source code lies with the binary provider. This becomes even more serious when the binary vendor is actually !selling! the software.

    Lastly in regards to:
    “how do you know the changes to the source were not made to the current tree”

    This excuse has been used a dozen times over the past several years, often times by the same individuals. In this time, with repeated failure to comply with licenses said persons obviously accepted through use of such software, these ‘repeat offenders’ have not gone unnoticed…

  8. yonemoto Says:

    BeOS doesn’t have a glibc.

  9. yonemoto Says:

    b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange.

    So you don’t have to include the source code (it would be rediculous to force distributors to always include source code). Has anybody *asked* YT for the source code to Bash, and have they been denied?

  10. MYOB Says:

    Where did my post saying BeOS DOES have glibc go? Must have been wiped with the spammers

    Well, yes, BeOS has got glibc. libroot.so is glibc, and if you bought R5 Pro, you got the source for libroot.so. Its on the Windows/Mac hybrid session, in the GNU Tools folder.

[powered by WordPress.]

Random Haiku:

multi-threaded Be
spindly bytes and bits a flood
life in the fast lane

Since 1998 - Until the Last User Leaves...
BeGroovy, established 1998

search BeGroovy:

BeGroovy Archives:

December 2017
S M T W T F S
« Jan    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

other:

23 queries. 0.070 seconds

[powered by WordPress.]