Beos 5 Pe Max Edition V45
John BLink: Not trying to Be smart but how do you tweak something that is not source code but in binary format.Why should it be much different?People can edit C code They can edit Assembly code with variables and functions They can edit Assembly code that refers to memory addresses rather than function names or variables (You’re almost there already) They can also edit raw “binary code” too.Essentially “Binary code” isn’t much different than source code. It just takes a little more work to play with.Also, you can convert “binary code” into source code as well with special tools. This source code typically lacks things people are used to such as variable names and function names.
Max Edition Skirts
But it’s possible. If my memory serves me well These tools are typically called disassemblers and decompilers(?). And it’s not illegal – it’s based on discontinued project – BeOS PE without any copy protection cracks.No, it is illegal. The installation of PE on it’s own partition, rather than a virtual one, is not allowed by the licensing agreement iirc. Also redistributing the executables (and that is, the base exe, with no alterations), is not permitted. The fact that Palm and what is left of Be isn’t filing a law suit against the guy making the distro is the only reason it’s still in existence.BeOS is still owned by a company. Just because that company chooses to abandon it, doesn’t mean it is right to redistribute it.
I remember something about BeOS PE that limited the size of the installed partition to like 500MB and that was basically the only limitation of PE that made any difference but that didnt stop anyone from using a partitioning tool to resize the partition.after. installing and, to my knowledge, nothing in the PE license specifically bars you from doing something like that. Other than that, the other patches are mostly functionality patches to add support to newer hardwareso yeah it’s hardly considered.warez. Unless you would like to wait for WalterOS (the OpenBeOS continuation of Max).You’ve got to be kidding!
That’s the name they ended up choosing for OpenBeOS?I sure hope note To paraphrase the Simpsons Comic Book Guy; “Worst name ever!”What will their followup release be called? “HubertOS, Son of WalterOS”?Either way, I’ll have to check out this new release once my new system’s back up & running (getting some issues from the manufacturer fixed). None of the current BeOS releases would run on my new PC (3GhzP4/800 chip w/a gig of Ram), so hopefully this will correct that.WalterOS I hope that’s a working name or a mistake.
BeOSMax -is- illegal software, illegally distributed in breach of the BeOSPE license of use. However since Vasper is not making any money out of it, that short of IP fraud is of economically-unfeasible prosecution. Nothing to fear as long as Palm turns a blind eye.Apple Computer Inc.
Is a bit more bugsy with its IP, they are the kings of Cease&Desists letters. This may be regarded as an illustrative parallel case with BeOSPersonal edition (it is different, except for a non-authorized modification and distribution beyond the scope of fair personal use):-Instructions for converting Mac OS X 10.1 update Software to a full install version of Mac OS X-Even amateur theming is prosecuted by Apple, people who are writing themes and theme editing tools for Mac OSX are getting cease and desist letters from Apple’s lawyers. That’s what happened to the Aqua themes at Themes.org, no money made, no need to.Don’t get me wrong, I like and appreciate the effort put into making the BeOSMax (and for the same matter the BeOSDeveloper edition), and I hope you keep on “updating” that way the BeOS (till we have an OpenBeOS or Zeta replacement). But legal is not, so far it is a consented de facto situation.
He’s not breaking the liscense, well for one the licence is rather void at this point. But still you can without any magic make PE on a partion of over 500 meg, he’s simple patching it and continuing something that would be dead otherwise.
Palm would be dumb to sue him, since his actions are actully making the IP worth something by keaping a userbase.PE was ment to be distrubuted. When PE was released Be’s web site told users to download it and give it to their freinds. He’s basicly doing that, putting the patches in it though, and getting cost back for mailing and buring it to disk. —– quote —–No, it is illegal. The installation of PE on it’s own partition, rather than a virtual one, is not allowed by the licensing agreement iirc. Also redistributing the executables (and that is, the base exe, with no alterations), is not permitted.—– end quote —–Copyright protects a person or company’s work from being copied without their explicit consent (excepting fair-use).End User License Agreements (a.CIVIL. contract) that you (implicitly) agree to when using the software, in this case is supposed to prevent a user from doing the things you mention (i.e.: installing on a non-virtual partition).But violating a contract doesn’t mean you broke the law, it means you are open to a lawsuit.
It doesn’t mean that someone will come and arrest you, but it does mean you can be sued. Yes, it is illegal.QuoteBut violating a contract doesn’t mean you broke the law, it means you are open to a lawsuit. It doesn’t mean that someone will come and arrest you, but it does mean you can be sued.End QuotePartially incorrect. There is Private Law and Public Law, violating a contract -IS- breaking the law, the difference being that the offended private party will choose in due time to proceed or not against the offender, it is dispositive. Breaking the law does not equal to being legally prosecuted, being prosecuted is a consecuence that might follow.In Public Law (with few explicit exceptions) once its breach is verified the prosecution must officially take place -ipso facto- (automatically). I guess you are confounding Public and Private Law, and thus erroneously identifying breach and prosecution.Anyway, I wouldn’t call Vasper “a robber”, that’s a grave accusation, he is not making any profit out of BeOSMax.
Vasper does not need to distribute a hacked BeOSPE, the guy is just trying to share it not losing money!Vasper, keep on hacking, illegal good stuff. Hey, illegal is not always evil, look at how well Bill Gates is doing.I guess I am biased here, against Palm, ‘hate their guts;. Anyone know if this new version will run on VMWare? I’ve been dying to try it out for quite a while, but I’ve no spare HD on which to run it. And I sure as hell can’t do a backup-reparition job on my work PC, the only PC to which I have access.If anyone knows of any tricks, let me know. The last version would not run on VMware, which was a big bummer.That partially answers acobar’s question: no, they do not debug using VMware, becuasei t doesn’t run on vmware. I imagine they use gdb, and do a remote connect sort of thing via telnet, another machine running gdb, or perhaps something like ddd.
Why don’t you just install it on a virtual partition, and patch it yourself if your hardware is too new? It should work with ext2, possibly also resierfs partitions.By virtual partition, I’m guessing you mean in a folder called BEOS, like the Personal Edition usually does (rather than referring to a virtual disk/virtual partition in VMWare).I’m not running Linux, but Win2k.
I do think R5 PE support installing onto a NTFS partition, though. It’s something I could try, but not for enough time to really play with it- this computer needs to remain on and in Windows for various reasons. Hence my wanting to use VMWare.Patch it myself? By installing a driver, or writing something new? I’ve done a lot of coding in my life, but a) not much in C or asm; b) absolutely no driver development or c) no BeOS development. I’m asking about VMware because I’d love it if it just worked in VMware- the simulated hardware is pretty simple and standard.
My understanding from reading the liscense agreement (not recently though) is that PE can be distributed by anyone, as long as the original files are unaltered and it’s given away freely. By selling copies without a distribution agreement, Max is certainly open to damage recovery.There would be nothing wrong with adding patches, Freeware, or OpenSource apps, and having a free download.If they can show that the original BeOS files are unaltered and the fee they charge only covers the cost of production and distribution, I doubt there would be any liability at all.By the way, the term Abandonware doesn’t apply here by the definition I’ve read.
Max Edition Clothing Line
Obviously there’s no legal or ‘official’ definition of Abandonware, but here’s the common usage:. The true owners of the software cannot be located, or ownership can’t be determined. There’s generally a time qualification – the product has not been marketed for X years.
The product is not being marketed commercially, and the product cannot be found for sale anywhereThe first two do not apply to BeOS, and I’m not sure about the third.Damn, the Max website is the nastiest thing I’ve even seen Even if it can’t be fixed right away, I would pull the server plug from the wall! First, Anonymous (IP: —.soton.ac.uk) said:BeOS Max Edition is illegal (the BeOS PE license is very explicit). Is it usual for OSNews to link pirate sites? Can we also advertise cracks for WinXP to work around the copy protection?From what I’ve read, BeOS Max Edition- and the other PE derivatives- are not illegal. All of the work done to turn PE into Max edition (or Developer’s, etc) is legal, and within the EULA of BeOS R5 PE. If I am wrong about this, I’d be interested in seeing the details. It also likely depends on how PE is being modified.It isn’t pirate software.
OSNews links to it because it’s really the only accessible front of BeOS development that is usable today. It is nothing like linking to WinXP cracks, even remotely.If OSNews was linking to a warez site where you could download the BeOS R5 Pro edition, that would be illegal, and there’s no way in hell Eugenia or the other OSNewsers would do such a thing.and then xeros said:And it’s not illegal – it’s based on discontinued project – BeOS PE without any copy protection cracks.Being based on a discontinued product has nothing to do with legality.
Beos Ppc
MS no longer supports Win98- and NeXT/Apple no longer sells or supports NeXTSTEP 3.3- but it’s still illegal to sell or give away pirated copies of either. QuoteFrom what I’ve read, BeOS Max Edition- and the other PE derivatives- are not illegal. All of the work done to turn PE into Max edition (or Developer’s, etc) is legal, and within the EULA of BeOS R5 PE.
If I am wrong about this, I’d be interested in seeing the details. It also likely depends on how PE is being modified.End Quote.ANY. non-authorized modification of BeOS 5 Personal Edition is in breach of the BeOS 5 Personal Edition – LICENSE AGREEMENT. BeOSMax edition and BeOSDeveloper edition, are both non-authorized modifications, furthermore bundled with other software, furthermore distributed in CD-ROM copies, thus they are at least in triple breach of the license agreement, thus they are illegal.The most obvious modification is that BeOS 5 Personal Edition was not designed to be installed in its own BFS partition, it is restricted to a 512 MB file on either your Microsoft Windows or your Linux partition. It was not created and distributed by Be, Inc. As a free ride, but as a trial version before switching to BeOS Pro.
Therefore Be provided two limited BeOS 5 Personal Editions, one to be installed within Microsoft Windows and another one to be installed within Linux.The latter is not clear to you after reading the license agreement? Well don’t worry, there is also a step-by-step introduction. Since Be was silly enough to include the wonderfull reinstaller somewhere else tool, the cats out of the bag isn’t it.
Even if they were still around they could hardly stop PE users from making the partition native, so stop whining about it.As for patches those are fine, but the repackaging of the whole as a friendly modified package maybe iffy. Anyway the whole thing is moot when Zeta comes out, Max will goaway! That gives the lawyers a few months to chase after nothing ($ wise) and lawyers only chase after $. Hello, my “friendship” with BeOS begun in 1999. There was 4.0/4.5/4.52/5.0.x/Dano versions.Yesterday I tried install on 3 computers:1) Compaq EVO 310v (MS-6541,i845GL,P4-2.4GHz,intel100pro/intgrated): all works fine instead network. I tried use patches for eepro100 drivers- unsuccefuly First time start was with Deskbar error.2) Home PC (DFI AD-77,KT400,Athlon 2200+,GF4Ti4200,AC97,Lucent/Winmodem,rtl8139c):- I can’t install at all ( I get kernel panic and Please insert BeOS CD msg Early there was Athlon 1800+ – Dveloper Edition 1.1 installation was succeful.3) Home PC (Intel 845WN,i845,Celeron 1.8GHz,Radeon 7200,rtl8139c)- installation- succeful. When change screen resolution with Radeon Screen to 800x600x16@85Hz- screen shutdowns after 10-15 sec.
WorkingWhy I can’t install this version on my Athlon XP 2200+???.ANY. non-authorized modification of BeOS 5 Personal Edition is in breach of the BeOS 5 Personal Edition – LICENSE AGREEMENTAuthorized being the operative work. Be has closed and sold all IP to Palm.
BeOS Personal Edition is Freeware so cannot be included in the IP.Therefore there is NOONE that can give authorization.Therefore it is Abandonware,Therefore LEGAL. PERIOD.shisshhh.and if you don’t believe me don’t download it.NOTE: I don’t sell CDs with BeOS Max. There is ISO4LINUX that charges for burning the CD and mailing it to you if you are far away. I don’t get a penny and never will.
Let’s hear from Be Inc.:Limitations of BeOS 5 Personal Edition– Disk Space (Part 1)inflates to 512 megabytes, no more, no less– Restarting Windows after Running BeOSAs mentioned above, the BeOS 5 Personal Edition that youdownloaded turns itself into a Windows applicationTo install BeOS 5 Personal Edition you need:– A Pentium-based computer with at least 32 megabytes of RAM (P90or higher is recommended).– At least 512 megabytes of free disk space on a non-compressedFAT, FAT32, or NTFS drive.– Windows 95/98, 2000, or NT4.– A blank floppy.End QuoteYou are interpreting this incorrectly. These are technical limitations of BeOS PE, not legal ones.
There are tips on the BeTips server on how to install PE on virtual partitions larger than 512MB, or how to install on a true BFS partition.I even have a copy of an old Be Newsletter email in which a BeOS engineer explained how to do these things.Or what about those people that wanted to upgrade to v5.0 from BeOS v4.5? They were allowed to upgrade to PE if they wanted to.It is perfectly legal to instal BeOS PE on its own partition or a virtual partition larger than 512MB. I even had BeOS 5 Pro on a 800MB virtual partition at on time. QuoteIt is perfectly legal to instal BeOS PE on its own partition or a virtual partition larger than 512MB. I even had BeOS 5 Pro on a 800MB virtual partition at on time.End QuoteIt is perfectly ILLEGAL to install BeOS PE on its own BFS partition circumventing the resctrictions applied by Be Inc. If not, prove it, show me a written Agreement that contradicts the original License Agreement, not hearsay. Lest we forget the other illegalities; that modification is not the only one.QuoteYou are interpreting this incorrectly.
These are technical limitations of BeOS PE, not legal ones. There are tips on the BeTips server on how to install PE on virtual partitions larger than 512MB, or how to install on a true BFS partition.End QuoteIf you had any legal experience you would know that one of the first places to look for an authentic interpretation of a lincese agreement on software, is the technical limitations and/or specifications of the product. They are more legally binding than you seem to fathom. For some odd reason, I suspect you know this well, however you stubbornly insist on things you know are not binding, like Betips.net and some floating email.Vasper is obviously a full dedicated coder, his definitions of “Freeware” and “Abandonware” are hilarious. No harm intended, Vasper, I sincerely appreciate the effort you have put into bundling an updated BeOS for the sole advantage of BeOS users. I am not acussing you of “robbing” as other person in this thread did.
Kudos to you for gratuitously helping other BeOS users, with zero profit, just for the sake of it. I have already encouraged you to keep on doing it.Truth of the matter remains that these BeOS 5 Personal Edition non-authorized modification (BeOSMAX and BeOS Developer Ed), CD-ROM copies and bundled-software distribution, are illegal. No big deal, so far, but illegal they are. It’s important to adknowledge it and move on, otherwise people may start calling “Abandonware” and “Freeware” what it is obviously not, as Vasper just did.
I’m sure we don’t want that warez-talk on the BeOS replicas to come.I keep an eye on BeOSMax, I actually use (illegally) among other installed OSes, the BeOSDeveloper Edition from Beosonline.de, just spotted the Athlon XP Patch.