Slashdot Mirror
CherryOS Mac Emulator Resurfaces
Clash writes "Following its initial announcement and subsequent controversy last October, Mac emulator CherryOS has finally been released. Its creator, Arben Kryeziu, found himself in hot water last year amid claims the software was simply stolen from the open source PearPC project. With the code now under public scrutiny, it appears that such allegations are true. According to BetaNews, CherryOS boots up in the exact same manner as PearPC, and its error messages and source files are nearly identical. The emulator also includes MacOnLinuxVideo, which is the same driver used by PearPC to speed up graphics. The CherryOS configuration file also closely mirrors that used by PearPC. Trial download without registration found here."
Why would this be released? Isn't that sort of... illegal?
Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?
If CherryOS is sued for this, won't this test the GPL furthermore? It might finally get a court to acknowledge that the GPL is not "unconstitutional" (*cough* SCO *cough)
-b0lt
got sig?
Sounds like some of the people on slashdot are developing respect for intellectual property. Be careful, our willingness to respect property is what makes it real. If too many people start to respect intellectual property, it will become as real as normal property.
Despite what several companies may have told you emulation, by itself, is not illegial.
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
This is kind of off-topic, but...
I was always wondering how developers behind BSD-licensed products felt about this whole thing. Before you pounce on me, I know PearPC is a GPLed product, but the way I see it, the risks are pretty similar.
So, how would BSD developers feel about creating something, having it ripped off, and bandied about by someone else as if it was their own creation, with the original developers getting no credit? Has it happened? Did it cause you to think about switching to GPL, or maybe some other license?
Why is this fraudster getting so much free press? It would be different if the headline read "Stolen code illegally released", but as it is you might think CherryOS is something other than someone elses stolen property.
At least this time the schmuk has taken the "trouble" of removing all references to PearPC in the binary. Sadly he's too stupid to remember to change the configuration file format, or the hard coded MAC address that PearPC uses for the emulated NIC.
...in Russia, a new site called "ALLOFPEARPC" is selling the software for mere pennies. Apparently, there's no law against selling it, you know...
StupidChildren...the reason jesus is crying
It's said that if you change the line containing prom_bootmethod in the CherryOS configuration file from "auto" to "select", you're supposed to clearly see that it's PearPC. I haven't tried this out myself though, as I already believe in that it's the same thing. There's also word in a Neowin thread that CherryOS has simply upped the screen refresh rate to make it look faster.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Pops this guy's cherry
Except that CherryOS hasn't published their source code.
You mean besides lying about it, and not telling people they have a right to the source code?
(He should have supplied the License allong with the binary)
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
Here we have one vendor incorporating GPL'd code into their product without attributation. It's on the record. Now SCO are arguing the same thing happened with IBM / Novell / whoever it is this week. This sets the precedent that it does happen. This can only aid SCO, especially when they take this to a technically illiterate judge. They can bring up CherryOS in court, and in front of the judge, say "CherryOS incorporates code from PearOS. Why are we bringing this up? It does not make sense.
If CherryOS incorporates PearOS code you must acquit."
Meine Schwester ist sehr, sehr reizvoll - Nietzsche
I saw that Miranda had been ripped off for (at least) a second time.
Going to all that trouble just to rip people off and install spyware. It's fucking sad.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
I don't see the source code for CherryOS available anywhere, nor a written offer to supply the source code to anybody who downloads CherryOS. CherryOS is violating the GPL, and not even doing a good job at hiding the fact.
nobody has actually tried this yet. why not download the trial, install it, try it and when/if you discover that it is pearpc in disguise then rip it to shreds.
The open source community still has it. No loss of property, therefore no theft.
For people who believe in sharing, GPL zealots are incredibly possesive about intellectual property.
Sound. There is no sound support on this version. We will be releasing an update that will include sound capabilities as soon as it becomes available.
As soon as it becomes available in PearPC?
--
The distinction that your missing, is that he violated the GPL when he didn't acknowledge the PearPC work that he derivied (if he actually did any deriving (other than just changing every instance of "PearPC" with "CherryOS" (which any of us on slashdot could easy accomplish with 5 lines of perl or shell script)))
He didn't enhance the product in any way, he just renamed it.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
I think that comparing Mac and CherryOS is basically comparing apples and pears.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
grandparent and you deserve -1, Wrong.
If cherryos violates GPL, is someone going to actually try to do something about it? Where's the lawsuit? If not, the GPL might as well not exist.
Found a good link with info from both cherryos developers and pearlpc developers. here
TruePunk | Games
Kryeziu said he's under unfair scrutiny because people refuse to believe the product is real.
"If it isn't, it will ruin my reputation," he said. "I will end up as a bartender. I do not want to be a bartender."
I guess being a theif is better then slinging booze.
TruePunk | Games
Happens all the time. If anyone claims CherryOS is a bit suspect perhaps the same could be said about a number of the *BSDs. Ok , he's been a bit underhand but as far as I can see he's done nothing wrong and hasn't violated the GPL.
That's where you're wrong not only for the OBVIOUS reason "if you fork a GPL software it must remain GPL" (and I just downloaded the installer and afaik the code IS NOT distributed along), but also because he denied having forked PearPC, where the GPL forces to keep the copyleft of the original authors (ok you can still say "it's my software I coded it all alone last saturday" and let the copyleft in the code, but then everybody can read it if it's GPL'd, so I think giving credit to the legitimate authors is something that the GPL implies)
Even if the PearPC licence had been more permissive (MIT or BSD style), he would still be a moron who cannot even admit he just took the code.
In the current case however, he's just a thief and I hope the PearPC developpers will get some support to sue and get the GPL tested in an US court.
No he didn't "just for it", he clearly violated the GPL (section 2b):
"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."
Which means he CANNOT charge for this (among other issues like the source that are dealt with in later sections), which is what he is doing ($50 a pop).
Clones are people two.
Absolutely. And the way to deal with it is to prosecute them for copyright violation. They have used the GPL'd code in a way that neither copyright law nor the GPL permits, and they should be taken to court for it.
I don't know about any of that. I think it's more of "someone's taking from our community" is the feeling. Either this guy is a moron or someone bigger and darker is out there funding this guy's legal defense.
It should be pretty obvious that this guy will have legal action taken against him at any moment. He has no reputation as a business owner that I can tell so he has nothing to lose. But this case would have interesting value to those businesses out there who have and who would use GPL code in their stuff. I don't think I'm being paranoid or dramatic when I suggest the possibility is there. After all, isn't it Microsoft that ultimately funded SCO's legal machine? Or at least partly?
It will be interesting to see how this plays out, and I know that no one could disagree with that.
Note that there is no requirement to credit the original authors, which some people seem to believe.
Although he can't charge for the license, he can charge for distributing the program. Otherwise selling Linux distributions would be illegal.
Where he's going wrong is by not supplying the source code and not licensing the program under GPL.
This is an excerpt i found interesting from the wired article about CherryOS (OCT 2004):
Kryeziu said CherryOS runs to 36,000 lines of code and was inspired by open-source Mac emulator PearPC, but is not in any way based on it.
"There's a big difference," he said. "They are way slow."
Yeah... way slow and identical to CherryOS(?)
sig: Playfully doing something difficult, whether useful or not
This guy is a serial GPL abuser:
VX30 ad stats is a rip of phpadsnew.
VX30 itself is nothing more than a wrapper for mpeg1 and Ogg, ripped from Jorbis
Some people have no shame...
Ok, stolen? We can't have it both ways. If it isn't stealing music, but copyright infringment instead, how is this any different? Just cause it's not the **AA being ripped off it's stealing now? Gimme a break.
Im reading some of the posts on the website and Im amazed how few people have a clue stick what the GPL is.. The GPL is a license and doesnt remove copyright at all in any way or form. Yep the code still belongs to the author and you cant just take it and use it as you wish because of the GPL because the GPL is a license it doesnt define copyright it defines usage. Some people are dumb some are just plain stupid then there's those other people, who have to be reminded to breath or they will die...
So if I have a copy of, say, Photoshop I haven't paid for, it's still not illegal because Adobe still has its source code. And I really wonder what kind of moron modded the parent up as 'Insightful'.
I think even the name was stolen. PearPC (a fruit with the word PC) CherryOS ( a fruit with the word OS) I hope this guy doesn't sleep and gets even his grandchildren asses sue for their entire life spam.
The last two links of the summary are fugged. One should be for the other, and vice versa. Don't editors check links anymore? Oh, I must be new here.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Come on ... where is the cry when Apple lifted BSD and never gave Aqua back to it? This is a joke. You can't have it both way. If this company delivers a Mac-on-PC emulator that is 20% better than PearPC it's worth $50. That 20% could include useful things missing from PearPC like a real installer, documentation and support.
Hi Arben, no it's not ok.
PearPC is GPL, which is a very different licence, and Apple have given code back *even though they have no obligation to do so*.
Stop trolling.
PS, to say this junk is worth 50USD is laughable, I wouldn't trust anyone who rips off software in such a hack-handed way and tries to pass it off as his own. I certainly wouldn't run a binary on my computer from this company - wouldn't be surprised if the installer is a vector for spyware/adware and that's where they make their money.
This looks very like one of the patent threads that run here regularly, but with everyone on the other side of the line.
If copyright is so right and need protection by the law and litigation, why are patents so wrong???
The story did renew my interest in a Mac emulator.
Those in the know - which one would you recommend, PearPC or MOL?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Somebody here has test it ??
If is fast and based on GPL, thats mean were are going to see a fast GPL osX emulator near future.
Suing journalists isn't cool?
"our willingness to respect property is what makes it real."
Let me interpret this, since its mumbo-jumbo.
"If we all agree that a program is property, then its property, regardless of what those dirty hippies say".
No, seriously, if we all have to pretend that something is property, then its not property.
Why wouldn't you just say "Respect copyrights"? Or does that spoil the fiction of "Ideas = Property"?
...a new version of X-Chat for Windows is for sale.
Oh wait, nevermind.
He's pointing out that equating copyrights to property is the equivalent of believing in Santa Claus.
You're welcome to believe that. Understand that people who know better will mock you.
There is nothing to stop anyone from stealing CherryOS and reselling it under another name. They can't prove they own it.
This poses some real questions:
Will the PearPC team sue this guy for violating the GPL, now that the product has come to the market?
Does the GPL have full legal respect in court or will the courts treated it as a "delete your evaluation copy in 24 hours" readme file?
I'm very curious how the PearPC team will respond to this.
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
Doesn't FSF, GNU, EFF or other free sofware advocates give legal help to PearPC developers sueing CherryOS's? The case would also be of great importance to the GPL as it would a precedent of it's applicability. AFAIK the GPL as never been "tested" in court.
+5 Funny
http://www.imblaze.com/index.asp
IM blaze is literally just GAIM, with the source code made unavailable, you pay for it AND it spams your friends with network marketing bullshit.
I've emailed them again and again demanding the source code as I'm legally entitled to, and they ignore me. However, its really up to the Gaim people to sue. Which perhaps they have decided against at this stage. Its a shame, theres probably a fat million each in there for the gaim developers. And possibly potential jailtime.
Someone *NEEDS* to send these people a DMCA notice. If they ignore it... jailtime!
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Hasn't this already happened, with another piece of software? I'm struggling to remember any details, so this post isn't exactly helpful - does anyone else remember recently a court ruling in favour of some GNU/GPL thing? I remember this comment (about the precident it sets) being made :-/
-2A
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
If he took PearPC, and completely rewrote the code, he doesn't have to release it under the GPL does he? Even if they have the same library names he wrote all the code, therefore, he doesn't need to show anyone.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
12345
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
If music were GPLed (as it was for centuries), making personal copies (as was done ever since tape recorders and radios came into existence) would not be copyright infringment.
What CherryOS did was beyond this. They pretended that someone elses "music" was their own and sold it as their own. That's plagiarizing which has been frowned upon since people put pen to paper.
Yes. It's stealing and no there is no conflict.
As long as they follow the GPL rules, they can still 'release and sell' a product based on a GPL application.
Lots of companies are doing that.. Ever hear of Redhat or IBM?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I don't see what cheerios have got to do with anything?
> As such, you can't 'rip off' BSD applications as
> long as you leave the copyright files alone.
Which is a round about way of saying,
Yes, if PearPC were licensed under the BSD license, BSD programmers would complain since the credit was *not left in*.
Merely breaching a licence agreement is not a crime.
There is a breach of the licence though, which would allow the copyright owners to sue. As it is GPL, it might be difficult to establish loss to claim damages, but it should be possible to get an injunction to prevent future breaches (breach of said injunction would be illegal).
Well, I too was excited to try out the new cherryOS :) But alas, it it very unstable, at least on win xp pro sp2. I will keep posting here to let everyone know how it installs on each os. But for now NOT STABLE on xp pro. Too Bad, it seems to have alot of potential. I will test 2000pro next and see what happens, but for now my opinion is.....call it LemonOS
I thought to check this thing out at least, see what the fuss was. So I downloaded and unzipped the CherryOS_Software.zip file, and got just one file, called "setup.exe". Now I'm stuck. Normally, unzipping something that isn't a .deb or .rpm gives me a directory where I have to go in and do the usual make and install. I'm guessing it's another kind of archive, but what do I use to extract this one? I tried apt-get install unexe, but there doesn't seem to be such a package.
I was thinking in terms of emulation in general, not the GPL implications. Hey we all put the foot in the mouth sometimes...
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
It's also hfsutils (also GPLd) Compare CherryOS (grep's output): C:\CherryOS\chktarakh.ctq: error reading MacBinary file header C:\CherryOS\chktarakh.ctq: no error C:\CherryOS\chktarakh.ctq: error writing data to http://web.mit.edu/afs/athena/astaff/project/hfsto ols/src/hfsutils-3.2.6/copyin.c
Apple licensed PARC's GUI and hired the PARC inventors away from Xerox. Apple certainly did not "snag" Xerox's windowing GUI or try to pass it off as their own. It was their own. Where the hell have you been for the last 2 decades, troll?
the bastard.
A 4
Here's a couple of liks for you to play with:
http://www.mxsinc.com/pages.php?cid=MDEwMD
http://www.cherryos.com/index.php
crontab -e
* * * * * wget http://www.mxsinc.com/pages.php?cid=MDEwMDA4
* * * * * wget http://www.cherryos.com/index.php
Yes, I do have a choice of not buying your fucking "product".
Similar to the way Apple and MS snagged Xerox's windowing GUI system and tried to pass it off as their own?
Nope, that was a reimplementation of someones idea. The idea was used, but then work was done to create the GUIs. In this case both the idea and the work was used.
It's odd that they were "hacked" and keep getting "hacked". Who in the freaking world are their administrators first off? They should be fired. Second reading the article that said that both apps had the same vairable name "SPRIO MULTIMAX 3000", and the CherryO'Crap guy saying that they had not used "any" code from PearOS is just an astronomical possibility. That programmer for CherryO'Crap should go buy a lottery ticket. Finally, the reason that it is just now being released is because they got caught first and so they took their "OS" off the market so their lame ass programmers could go back and change the code as much as possible to no resemble Pear. My two pesos on the matter
thief
they get the soul ability to control distribution
Unless you are into some metaphysical shit I'm not aware of, you should write sole.
they breech the distribution rights
Breach! Breeches are for rifles and/or pants!
equivilant
Equivalent. Please!
I don't pretend to advocate piracy.
Or correct usage of the English language...
Do as you will. These are pictures of Arben and his girlfriend:
http://www.crystalkai.com/us/index.html
Personally, I think he's doing this on purpose so someone will sue him and he'll be the martyr that tests the GPL.
Wikileaks, no DNS
Well I have just installed CherryOS and setup a profile, copied my PearPC image file over the one created by CherryOS and it quite happily booted and ran my PearPC image.
So you have a CHERRY, that is really a BANANA because its stolen from a PEAR, to run an APPLE.
Damn now I'm hungry.
Anyways the sad thing is; quite a few people will probably buy CherryOS (especially if it comes in a box) because they don't know any better. I hope CherryOS meets a horrible demise, along with The Video Professor.
Stealing is about wrongful changing of ownership. When one steals a toaster from a department store, that toaster in effect ceases to be the property of the store and wrongfully becomes property of the theif, and there are laws to return ownership back to the rightful party.
This is a contradiction in terms. A stolen toaster does not become the property of the theif. If it did, it wouldn't be stolen, nor would the store have a right to have it returned. It's still the store's property. It's just that the thief has taken unlawful posession of the toaster. If you're going to be commenting on the subtleties and nuances of property law, you should at least use basic terminology correctly.
they get the soul ability
Let's keep religion out of this, ok?
However when they modify it, rebrand it and repackage it they are claiming those rights that are in effect the intelectual property. They are claiming distribution rights and claiming authorship.
Yeah, but they didn't remove anything tangible from the posession of the "rightful owners", which is always the distinction that music piracy apologists use when they cry "copyright infringement is NOT theft!".
What would be equivilant is taking a good, but little known song, then putting it onto a CD and claiming that it is mine
No, that's plagiarism.
The grandparent is correct. What they did is copyright infringement, and is every bit as much a theft, nor more and no less, than music piracy.
Actually, PearPC does not hardcode the MAC address, it's a configurable option in the config file.
I am unamerican, and proud of it!
you might want to try asking the guys behind CherryOS what the deal is yourself. they've been kind enough to provide an email address: info@mxsinc.com
Could Seppel, the guy behind PearPC have moved over to the Maui X-Stream camp? is that why they can distribute it without GPL'ing it now?
Most of the comments here are about how this guy ripped off PearPC. While that may be true ( and I personally believe it), can anyone provide some hard numbers on how it WORKS? Does Panther run smoothly? Is it easy to use? Can I actualy see how OS X is on my PC? Any reviews out there? ( Yes I googled it, and found old references..) Any answers?
It is so obvious. He has had previous GPL violations. There was a page that listed them, but I can't find it anymore. He has made a lot of other software that was based off other software under the GPL. Then there is also the fact that he originally claimed to have written from scratch and then there's the time he claimed that he fired a co-programmer. WTF?! He said he had written it from scratch! Then what about the bogus explanation about variable and function names "sounding the same" because there are only "certain ways to do things". The man is a liar - plain and simple.
Vivin Suresh Paliath
http://vivin.net
I like
crack for it yet?
I don't know if CherryOS qualifies, but a license-compliant, vendor-supported CherryOS is A Good Thing.
If I read my GPL correctly, vendors are free to sell support contracts, write add-on utilities that make installation and maintenance easier, and in some cases replace entire binaries provided it's 100% original code in the replacement binary. This is after all how most Linux vendors stay in business.
Oh, and they are supposed to not claim authorship of what's not theirs.
A few months ago I wrote a letter to this effect to the CherryOS people. When they start doing all of the above, I'll give them serious consideration and possibly even $$$.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
started playing around with it and so far the emulation is extremely good! the installation runs similar to a 500MHz G4 on a 2.4GHz P4. The only problem so far is setting up the partition to be able to start up from.. looks like it is going to need an openfirmware hack or something...
Slashdot needs a new abbreviation:
RTFL!
Apparently the new cool thing is to offer your loud and dogmatic opinion on a licence when you have absolutely no idea what it says, because you were apparently too lazy even to look up a summary written in small words.
Please, type GPL into Google and click the little search button. It's not hard.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
It is plagiarism (assuming CherryOS did copy a large amount of PearPC code). It is more serious than ordinary copyright infringement since it claims other people's work as one's own, and is unethical by most standards. If a substantial amount of code is copied into your program, I think credits should be given whenever possible even if you are not legally required to do so (e.g. the code is in the public domain). Most ordinary people will call this "stealing", but I agree that we had better call it the right name.
So it's OK to use GPLd code, but then again, it's not? Come on guys, you all poot and poo about the GPL, but than you trash someone who takes advantage of it? Can't have it both ways.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Maybe CherryOS is just emulating PearOS.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
Because copyrights are healthy and patents, particularly patents on intangibles like software, are unhealthy. They're both artificial constructions of law, but their effects on people are quite different.
Your question is a bit like asking: This looks very like one of the food threads that run here regularly, but with everyone on the other side of the line. If fresh fruit & veg is so right, why are McDonalds burgers so wrong?
Copyrights promote creativity and competition. Patents punish creativity and competition. (And intangibles patents are worse as they also attack the basic human right of self-expression.)
-- Jamie
IIRC, the programmer who stole PearPC's code was fired, in the author's own words, he "fired his ass off".
Now let's suppose the author didn't want to start everything from scratch. So i think he just kept the configuration stuff, and changed only the internals (after all, Linux is from the outside more or less the same than Unix, isn't it?)
IANAL, but I suppose (someone correct me if I'm wrong) I can look at a GPL code, jot down a list of classes, what they do, and implement my own, without even copying a single byte from it.
So i'm for examining the source code and comparing it.
And downloading copyrighted songs and movies is copyright infringement in the eyes of slashbotters? Please stop the fanboyism, guy isn't stealing code, he's infringing on a copyright by not redistributing code and his changes.
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
actually this wasn't flamebaiting at all. i just wanted to point out that people should be a little more openminded over this before making judgement.
for what it's worth i think this probably is pearpc in disguise but i'll wait until this is confirmed as fact before making judgment.
flamebait my arse!
You probably want the last one.
dam; mother, female
dam: used to block rivers
damn; curse
A boot to the head for you.
A few minutes of hex searching revealed that Arben was not diligent enough in removing the embedded images from PearPC's code. In CherryOS.exe, at address hex 0xF9140, you'll find a PearPC gif (see attached link) that is the ChangeCD image used in PearPC (in the stable build I have, at address 0xA6330) (see second attached link). Any questions?
t all.png/
http://66.42.197.91/FromPearPC.gif/
http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/screenshots/osx_ins
I thought you couldn't "steal" something if you were just making a copy of it?
As usual, in CherryOS articles, copyright infringement of GPL code mysteriously becomes theft. In P2P piracy articles, copyright infringement mysteriously becomes an okay natural culture movement.
Why sue CherryOS? Wouldn't that be the same as suing copyright infringers on P2P, which nobody here likes (even though it's what Slashdot suggested back in 2000)? What's the difference? It's intellectual property in both cases.
I thought we were against intellectual property. I thought we were okay with copying such property.
You can't argue for piracy and copyright infringement against the RIAA and then stomp your feet when someone does it against a GPL project. It's hypocritical and illustrates the weak basis the pro-piracy argument has--it's just a self-serving argument to keep the free ride going.
MacOS X?
NERDS!!!!
That's not a risk, it's the point of BSD licensing.
You most certainly cannot use someone elses code under the BSD license and pretend you wrote it, which is what's happened in this case.
If Pear had been released under the BSD license, the 'developers' of CherryOS would still be in violation of the license by claming they wrote it and that it's an origional work.
If you don't care if someone takes your work and gets full credit for it, then there is no point in licensing it under the BSD license, just release it as Public Domain and be done with it, but it's rather implausible to claim that those who release code under the BSD license don't care about getting credit when that's the one big restriction it has.
Illegal, as in copyright infringement? As in piracy?
/. position on this.
I'm confused about the
Remember, copyright infringement isn't theft. Right, guys?
" Nope, from the moment you modified the original source code to replace it with your own code, yours are still derived work even it does not have any source code in the latest release."
this is sco's ladder theory and it is incorrect. if the final code does not contain any of the original work, it is not "derived." there are standard tests for code comparison [eg the abstraction, filtration comparison test]. it does help your defence in court though to clean room the development in case of any accidental code similarities.
"Although I am not sure if Linux should be known as a derived work of Minix."
it is not. linus built it on a "framework" of minix. in other words, the computer he used for the coding process ran minix. other than that they are not the same os. minix is a microkernel os and linux uses a monolithic kernel. even ast [creator of minix] agrees that linux is not derived from minix. it is a new, posix compliant operating sytem.
sum.zero
According to Slashdot, piracy isn't theft. Copyright infringement isn't theft. He can't be a thief if he's just doing what all other copyright infringers do, and since most people here seem to be okay with P2P piracy, they would also have to be okay with this kind of piracy, or else the position would be hypocritical.
What would be equivilant is taking a good, but little known song, then putting it onto a CD and claiming that it is mine
... the copyright holder remains the copyright holder. Plagerism, which is claiming authoriship of someone elses work, is theft ... you have stolen credit and acclaim for the work (at the very least) and probably usurped the original author's rights to restrict reproduction and distribution (copyright) as well.
... unless one has a specific, political ax to grind in obfuscating the terminology.
... anyone can make a derivative work against the author's will, but the author always gets a good percentage of any and all proceeds of any such derivative work automatically, is given prominent credit for their contribution, and equally prominently disclaimed from any permission or endorsement of the derivative work. But that is a discussion for another day ... for now copyright is what we have, so I work within it and respect it (if not its draconian extentions vis-a-vis the DMCA and similiar laws).
... except theoretical income they might have made had the copyright violator bought a license, something they often never would have. Indeed, sometimes they gain from it, as the violator likes the work so much they go out and buy it (case in point: in my movie-downloading days ... a brief 2-day stint years ago ... I downloaded the Fellowship of the Ring, loved the movie, and broke my DVD-boycott to buy the movie because I felt the creator deserved my money for my having seen it).
No, that's plagiarism.
Yes, it's plagerism.
The grandparent is correct. What they did is copyright infringement, and is every bit as much a theft, nor more and no less, than music piracy.
No, you're missing the point. Perhaps because you philosophically wish to call copyright violation theft because it offends your notion of right or wrong (it does mine as well, in most cases), or perhaps because the people you're responding to haven't clarified the issue enough.
What these people did was both copyright violation and plagerism. Copyright violation is not theft
The one is not theft, the other is. It really is that simple
Plenty of reasonable people believe in the current copyright regime. Plenty of other reasonable people think it should be reformed or revamped, scrapped entirely. No reasonable person suggests that plagerism is okay, that a creator of a work should have their identity and work claimed by another. Most of the ideas for replacing copyright involve codifying current scholarly requirements for citation and bans of plagerism into law. Personally, I favor a weak copyright with manditory licensing
Stealing credit is, well, theft. The original creator loses credit and has their rightful acclaim usurped, along with whatever legal rights to their work they might have had. Replicating something without the creator's permission is not theft or stealing in any non-doublespeak sense of the word. The creator loses nothing
Both plagerism of a copyright worked and unauthorized duplication or distribution of a copyrighted work are illegal, but they are as different from each other as spraypainting graffitti and punching someone in the nose. You may get fined or go to jail for both, but the moral and ethical implications are entirely different, and the law sees them differently with good reason, no matter the rhetoric from the peanut gallery.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Going to all that trouble just to rip people off and install spyware. It's fucking sad.
When I once said this about Kazaa a few years ago, Slashdotters modded me down.
Why is ripping people off on P2P okay, but this is bad? Because it's a GPL project instead of a nameless artist from a record company?
I'm sick of hearing people whine about CherryOS, using the same kinds of arguments that these same people would mod down in piracy articles.
Second, the proper terminology is neither "property" nor "possession" -- it's "to exercise unlawful domain."
I don't have any objection to you discussing law without having attended law school -- but go easy on the catty remarks attempting to ignorantly correct other folks' vocabularies.
It's still hypocritical to complain about this being "unethical" and "unauthorized distribution" when P2P is given something of a pass in Slashdot discussion.
You're arguing that they don't have the right to distribute this. Uh, yeah. Welcome to what it feels like to be someone whose music or software or movies are copied on P2P networks without your permission.
piracy is pretty widely regarded as a combination of infringement, theft and fraud. not all pirates steal non-material goods. in fact, most pirates primarily steal physical goods. hence, theft. the term piracy is, imho, misapplied to p2p filesharing.
copyright infringement isn't theft as it is not defined as theft. there is a legal definition behind those words, as there is behind theft. also, copyright infringement only occurs after a user has exceeded fair use provisions.
i know you're trolling, but i couldn't resist the urge to educate. i'm a teacher at heart.
sum.zero
I thought we were against going after individual copyright infringers on Slashdot? Funny how that position shifts when it's a GPL project instead of a faceless record company.
That's where you're wrong not only for the OBVIOUS reason "if you fork a GPL software it must remain GPL" (and I just downloaded the installer and afaik the code IS NOT distributed along)
That, in and of itself, does not infringe on the GPL. The source code does not have to be distributed with the binary, but it has to be made available upon request. That's my understanding, anyhow.
I'm not defending the "author" of CherryOS - he's clearly in the wrong. I think you should understand the GPL more clearly before you rip on someone about it.
Heck with all that stuff. I'm still laughing my ass off that they're claiming Altivec emulation. HAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAA!! I'd LOVE to see you try to emulate Altivec on an x86 chip! 162 128-bit vector instructions. SSE3 doesn't even come close to that. I'm sure it could be done, but it would be slower than an asthmatic turtle. The guy running this company is a total twatwaffle.
Plagiarism is wrong.
Plagiarism is wrong.
Plagiarism is wrong.
Plagiarism for profit may well be criminal fraud. REGARDLESS of any copyright infringement, IP "theft", or failure to comply with the terms of a software licence, PLAGIARISM IS WRONG.
If you didn't do the work, don't claim you did.
Asshat.
p
In Korea, long hair is for old people!
But in any case there must be a file called "LICENCE" in the program folder (or somewhere revelant according to your OS). And the file is missing.
:)
So basically he's forking a GPL software and switchs to a non-free licence : that's wrong. If he effectively put the program under GPL (which doesn't seem to be the case anyway) I'll be totally OK with the fork and the selling of the software.
I didn't indend to "rip on" you anyhow so I'm sorry if I was a bit rude. And I think I have understood the GPL quite well actually, thank you
They're looking for someone experience in PEARL
cLive ;-)
-- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
I wonder if the company's president is aware of this blatant rip-off. Here is his direct contact info, for anyone interested.
Jim Kartes
jim@mxsinc.com
Whadaya mean, "the /. position"? There is no one /. position.
The sane position, though, is this:
CherryOS isn't stolen code, because copyright infringement and theft are two different things. It does, however, contain code which is illegally distributed without a license (since the auther fails to accept and follow the terms of the GPL), hence its authors are evil bastards.
Like the other guy said, you need a PowerPC machine already in order to use MOL. Basically, you need a Mac, running Linux, in order for you to run MacOS on MacOnLinux.
PearPC runs on x86 hardware, enabling you to run MacOS on an Intel or AMD machine. And it's way slower! Terribly slow. But it's actually usable if you have a very fast machine, networking works, and sound is on the way. It's not production quality but it's real cool.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
No, you're missing the point. Perhaps because you philosophically wish to call copyright violation theft because it offends your notion of right or wrong (it does mine as well, in most cases), or perhaps because the people you're responding to haven't clarified the issue enough.
... the copyright holder remains the copyright holder.
... unless one has a specific, political ax to grind in obfuscating the terminology.
... except theoretical income they might have made
Perhaps, but I don't think I'm missing the point. Or, at least, we're concerning ourselves with different points. Original poster claimes, rightly so, that you can't claim that copyright violation isn't theft when it comes to music, but it is theft when it comes to software, even if you re-brand it and pass it off as your own. I'm not saying the two are equally bad, and I'm not suggesting that copyright infringement deserves the label "theft". I'm simply refuting the fallacious argument put forth by the person I originally responded to (who responded to original poster), in which he argued that the software case, in the case of CherryOS, was more similar to removing physical posession from someone else (which he wrongly describes as 'taking ownership') than it is to copyright infringement.
Copyright violation is not theft
This is a ridulous argument. It's like saying that hot-wiring a car and driving off with it is not theft because the Title documents are still in the original owner's name. The fact that the legal Title owner remains so, is the reason why it *is* theft. Similarly, the fact that the copyright holder remains the copyright holder is the reason why copyright violation *is* theft. But anyway, whether or not copyright violation constitutes theft is not the subject of my post. This is an issue upon which reasonable people can disagree. My point is that people who argue that "copyright infringement is not theft because it doesn't involve the removal of tangible property from someone else's possession" are hypocritical if they claim that the CherryOS situation is theft, despite the lack of any removal of tangible property from the possession of the PearOS folks.
Stealing credit is, well, theft.
Personally, I agree with you, but that's because I don't restrict my definition of "theft" to the removal of someone else's physical possession of a tangible object by illegal means. I consider it hypocritical to assert that stealing credit is theft, but stealing source code is not theft. Neither credit nor source code is a physical tangible object. I respect the opinion that both are theft. I respect the opinion that neither is theft. I object only to the inconsistent labeling of one as theft and the other not.
The one is not theft, the other is. It really is that simple
I disagree on all three counts: (1) that one form of misusing someone's intellectual property is 'theft' while the other is not, (2) that it really is 'that simple', and (3) the anyone who disagrees with your inconsistent labelling must fall on a particular side of the political "copyright infringement is theft" debate.
The original creator loses credit
How so? The original creator can still claim credit. Just because one person "claims" something doesn't mean the other person "loses" it.
and has their rightful acclaim usurped, along with whatever legal rights to their work they might have had
Really? I've never heard of a plagiarism victim or copyright violation victim losing their legal rights to the work.
Replicating something without the creator's permission is not theft or stealing in any non-doublespeak sense of the word
If you claim that "credit" is something tangible that you can "own" and have "property rights" over, but that your "music" or "source code" is not, then you are the one committing doublespeak.
The creator loses nothing
And you consider this LESS deserving of the word theft than "taking credit" is? I consider the opposite to be true.
" as long as I am not making copies and giving/selling them to others." that IS 100% what "cherryos" is doing. they are selling pearpc without the copyright holders permission.
your argument ["Here, piracy is NOT theft..."] is based on fallacious reasoning. piracy and copyright infringement are not the same thing. just because you want to call copyright infringement piracy does not make it so, as i pointed out in my previous post.
the *aa orgs are suing based on their own very narrow, self-serving, and often incorrect interpretaions of existing [and imaginary] law. they would gladly like you to believe that fair use does not exist. they bend statistics to create a false picture of loss. they misdirect the fact that any real financial losses occur from commercial infringement and piracy in eastern europe and asia. we won't get into the fact that they have been convicted of price-fixing...
in some countries, some forms of p2p file shariing may be a copyright infringement. in others the same thing may be perfectly legal [eg canada]. however, non-commercial p2p file sharing is most definitely not theft, nor is it piracy.
cherryos is a clear violation of several sections of the gpl. as such, it is in violation and the the distributors lose all rights to the code under existing copyright law.
to argue the similarity of a commercial vendor attempting to hijack another group's code with people sharing music with each other is disingenuous at best.
from this point forward you will be arguing with yourself.
sum.zero
Like - it doesn't have good documentation, and after inserting disk 2 of OSX, it won't see the disk, and there's no way to mount/unmount it.
Maybe I'm just too used to VMWare.
Maybe the only realy vision for these guys is to get bought by VMWare...
[sig] 10 + 10 = 100 [/sig]
would someone POP this cherry already???
- Hi I'm Linus Torvalds and I pronounce Linux, Lih-nix..
Tinfoil hat time!
If IBM was smart....
They'd avoid what appears to be a deliberate attempt to test the GPL in court. As ackbar would say, IT'S A TRAP. I think at this point it's just a matter of finding the microsoft link to CherryOS.
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
If you want to try it without registering on this copyright infringer's website, here's the direct link: http://movies.mxsinc.com/CherryOS_Software.zip
Nobody in the tech world seems to grasp that defending your legal rights costs money. Every time Slashdot does a story about another round of Cease and Desist letters, we get a ton of posts saying, in effect, "That's obviously lame, people should just ignore them." But the sad fact is, you don't know how lame any legal action is until you've gotten legal advice. Nor can you take legal action without that overpaid guy in the suit.
Well, if you're very smart and very patient, you can represent yourself in Small Claims Court. But that's not applicable to this kind of issue.
Heh, I just had a 'conversation' with one of their sales people about this...//
Please wait for a site operator to respond.
You are now chatting with 'Gene'
Gene: Hello
you: Hello
Gene: How can I help you?
you: How do you justify selling gpl'd code outside of the gpl? I'm interested in your video product, but your tracking system looks like phpadsnew...
Gene: I sorry I work support for VX 30 I dont know what phpadsnew is.
you: phpadsnew is an open source ad sevrer that has ripped off by vx30 for use in your ad stats program
you: blatently so - your database error message in the demo are identicle.
you: Anyway, as it's based on open source code, do I get a copy of the source code with ad stats?
Gene: Sorry I can't help you with that. Do you have a question about VX30 encoder?
you: Why not? Ad stats is an application that you sell as part of the vx30 line isn;t it?
you: I'm interested in making a purchase, but want to know about source code availability.
you: hello?
Gene: I dont belive it would be available.You could make the request in writing to the company
you: But as your using an open source code base, you have to provide a copy of the source in an easilly accessable form BY LAW.
you: I could by a copy and sue you for not providing it...
you: How does it feel working for scam artists?
Gene: I am sorry but I don't know that and I would not be the person to talk to any way. I am a support person and you are trying to pick a fight.
Chat session has been terminated by the site operator.
boo hoo hoo fuckers.. somebody stole something, too bad, software was meant to be free right..? Someone re-packaged the same code and called it their own.. ha ha.
I believe that we have well established that there are serious GPL licensing issues to CherryOS.
That aside, who has installed and tried it?
How does it compare to Pear?
How much of the OS is emulated?
How stable is the product?
Here's one Mac user you shouldn't hate...
:)
Now about MacOS users who never open Terminal....
*ducks*
And because he's going wrong there, he can't distribute it, and so can't sell it. Grandparent just got a bit confuzled.
Fucking funny man
Just a little update on this. I'm on the PearPC developer's list. The code is a blantant rip off of several GPL projects. The violation here is that when the binary is run there is no GPL license agreement, as per the GPL requirements. Whether they provide source code or not is irrelevant. We will be contacting the Free Software Foundation (since they own the copyright) about where to go from here.
im curious about the naming of the two programs; to me naming your ppc emulator cherryos and "releasing" it a short time after a free ppc emulator called pearpc was released is suspicious at least. it doesnt make them theives, but it definitely makes them unoriginal.
lose != loose
Did I say something about court?
the /. link finally gets you nowhere, the 'authors' site pushes CheryOs as a learning tool, not a replacement. and requires the usual data harvest before possible download, yawn, maybe next year.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
He released it on a website. He's a publisher, protected by the First Amendment. Why are people suddenly against freedom to publish?
:-( But I don't know perl, just python...
"If Apple would lower their prices, they'd sell a lot more macs and get more marketshare."
;)
;)
I thought that's what Mac mini was meant to do: have a lower initial price tag. Although just so you know, I got this 4-year-old original TiBook I'm typing on at the moment for $250 for Christmas last year. For twice that price, I could have a Mac mini, but this here laptop runs sooo smoothly. Sure, it's not your dual G5, but I'm not playing Halo; I listen to/write music, code, work with graphics, etc., and it handles what I need it to do. In other words, I'm sure you realize that there are alternatives to brand new computers.
"one-button mouse"
As always, all you need to do is plug in a two-button mouse. I've been a Mac user my whole life (I must be young, eh?), but I found a nice $15 two-button + scroll wheel USB mouse, plugged it in, and used it. Not much more difficult than that. And if you buy a Mac mini, you won't feel like you're wasting that one-button mouse because it doesn't come with it.
"dancing title bar"
Huh? Do you mean the way the menu bar changes when you switch applications? Personally, I like that better than having to hunt down a new title bar every time I click a new differently-sized window. At least it remains constant within the same Mac application, and honestly I'm surprised that having it change might bother someone. I see it as analagous to the Windows taskbar... you click another window or open something, and the taskbar changes to reflect the current state.
The only thing I can think of that "dances" in the title bar of windows is the three close, minimize, and zoom button gems. If it's the color that bothers you, you can use the Graphite theme. If it's the fact that x, -, and + symbols appear when you move the mouse over them, I don't know how you can survive the toolbars in Windows.
"I don't really want to appreciate it. I just wanna test stuff on it."
You know, I think I understand completely. Virtual PC lets me test my own sites for IE6. I don't want to appreciate Windows (it's even more painful when emulated on my old Mac), I just use it so more people are happy when my site looks right and functions correctly.
I certainly don't believe that it's disgusting for Mac OS X to be running on x86, because hey, I use Windows on PowerPC. However, there's no way to appreciate either OS when they are being emulated. I know Windows can be usable, user-freindly(ish), and powerful when used on the hardware it was intended for, but it sure is none of these through Virtual PC. I imagine it would be the same for Mac OS X through CherryOS.
Im not sure if anyone mentioned this yet, but I noticed that CherryOS claims Altivec support, while PearPC does not.
Has anyone tested this yet? I would do it myself, but I don't have a copy of OSX.
I'm more curious to see if CherryOS is superior to PearPC then if it is a copy.
There probably won't need to be a lawsuit because no one will be dumb enough to buy it! No profit = no violation of GPL! :)
They claim this is a G4 emulator. Pear PC emulates a G3 processor. Why dont you just do a simple comparison and write a file that checks to see if the additional improvments in the G4 processors are found in the emulator. If they are then Cherry cant be a blaintent copy because Pear PC revolved around G3 emulation. Find true G4 emulation, which would require quite a bit of a reworking of PearPC code along with a bunch of new code, and there you have the evidence that the core of the emulator wasnt copied.
I haven't tried it yet, so I'm reserving judgement but I do notice that the CherryOS FAQ claims that it will not run under Windows 2000. But PearPC runs just fine under Windows 2000... so if it's the same thing, why the difference?
However, it would be a fun easter-egg. Put something in that detects if the rest of the code has been ripped off (maybe sometthing that searches for CherryOS). If it exists, then after 1 week of use start playing annoying sounds (maybe symphonic flatuation) through the speakers and saying foul things in various languages.
:-)
That ought to get somebody's attention
And in Daniel Foesch's words:
There is no step 2. Unless you want to post images of it for our amusement...
I already said that (in the subject line of my message). Why do you ask me to repeat myself?
Arguably, this is considerably worse than your conventional personal-use copying inasmuch as it's done for purposes of financial gain. Whereas most presently ongoing software piracy would have been unactionable prior to redefinition of the relevant laws (to include receipt of other protected works as "gain"), this in particular would have been illegal even under the older regulations.
(I'm likewise inclined to argue that from a moral perspective, use of copyrighted material without a license is considerably more reprehensible when done with the expectation of financial gain).
I can't get it to work. It installs fine, or seems to. Then it crashes when you run it. Has anyone got it working?
apparently there's an error in your web browser that jumbles all text containing references to the main points. i'll be nice and enlighten you.
PEARPC IS LICENSED UNDER THE GPL. WITH ALL GPL'ED SOFTWARE, YOU MUST MENTION THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND INCLUDE THE SOURCE CODE. TURNING GPL'ED CODE INTO COMMERCIAL SOFTWARE IS NOT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. TURNING GPL'ED CODE INTO COMMERCIAL SOFTWARE WITHOUT GIVING CREDIT TO THE ORIGINAL AUTHORS OR INCLUDING A COPY OF THE SOURCE CODE IS COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
this is what every fourth fucking post has been, you thick-headed moron. do you understand? it's not just that it's "probably" not their code. it absolutely isn't their code. they're about as stupid as you to think they can get away with such poorly concealed copyright infringement.
also, i'll take this opportunity to slap you p2p-gpl comparison nuts: copyright infringement by offering and receiving COPIES of copyrighted material is not the same as infringing copyright by PLAGIARISING and attempting to profit off of plagairized material. if some guy on the street was giving away free bootleg Binford hammers, that's not the same thing as making a Binford (c) hammer, changing the coloration and sticker on it, and attempting to SELL it on the street as a Benford (c) hammer. both are copyright violations, but one is copyright violation WITH INTENT TO PROFIT FROM IT, while the other is unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material. so you're not STEALING from a record store, because when you steal commercial property, not only do they lose your sale, they lose another sale, because the product can no longer be sold. you're making a copy of the CD that a FOAFOAFOAFOAFOAF bought without compensating the record company. mmkay? yall understand? lemme put on my asbestos temple garments real quick...
The Xerox products that were created at PARC were proof-of-concepts that people that worked there have said many times, loudly and publicly, were:
A. In no way ready for manufacture
B. Incomplete and quirky
C. Totally, absolutley unmarketable as they were.
I believe the quote I read was that if Xerox had tried to sell the computers that they were experimenting with, they would have cost 30 thousand dollars each to buy and wouldn't do any tasks that people wanted computer to do at the time. They were technology experiments, not products.
Anyone who looks at the Xerox Star interface and thinks that Apple "snagged" the Mac OS from them to any real degree is on techno-crack.
I would be willing to contribute money to some sort of legal defense fund for the makers of PearPC so that they could sue the ever-loving daylights out of these bastards... those of us who admire the concept of Open Source may have to be willing to stand up at times like this and defend it.
-Vendal Thornheart
Which is to say that it doesn't. At least not on my tyan dual opteron setup. Woof, Woof, Woof. Return of the bowser...
As a lawyer you should be aware of section 504(c) which offers the option of statutory damages that can be $150,000 per infringement if it is willful.
I thought you couldn't "steal" something if you were just making a copy of it?
Don't try to pretend like you've never heard a counter-argument to that. What's your point? Telling the world that you're in denial of the existance of people who can think P2P piracy is theft, and at the same time can also think plagiarism of GPL'ed code is theft? Plagiarism is stealing other people's work is theft, albeit a different kind from piracy. There's no mystery here. I'm not sure how you're trying to connect these two.
Well, it says PERL now but it still says:
Knowledge of IIS 5.0, IIS 6.0, Apachi, Tomcat, and Unix environments
The creator loses nothing ... except theoretical income they might have made
And you consider this LESS deserving of the word theft than "taking credit" is? I consider the opposite to be true.
Absolutely. If you define the "loss of potential (i.e. hypothetical, perhaps never-would-have-existed, and by no means certain) income" as theft, then you define all aspects of competition, upon which our capitalist system depends to function, as "theft."
Steal a man's wallet and you've committed theft -- the guy you stole from is out one wallet, assorted credit and identity cards, and whatever cash/family pics/what-have-you he was carrying. Refuse to buy the man's product, either because someone gave made a knockoff copy and gave it to you for free, or because you simply don't want it, and you've stolen nothing. Nada. Nichts. If the product was copyrighted and you obtained a copy, you violated his right to restrict copying and distribution (copyright), but you still haven't STOLEN anything, regardless of whether or not he lost potential income as a result.
In short, denying someone income isn't theft. Taking something they already possess away from them is. Or put another way, the potential that something may be does not equal the reality that something is. This applies to potential vs. already obtained income, abortion vs. murder, birth control vs. murder, not-watching-commercials vs. theft, copyright violation vs. theft, patent violation vs. theft, and any host of other controversial topics where logic is muddled beneath rhetoric because of emotional feeling on one side or the other.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
(Not that I believe anything on the site but) the CherryOS web site lists Altivec (G4) Emulation, which, if true is not yet included in Pear? Anyone verify this claim yet?
If you define the "loss of potential (i.e. hypothetical, perhaps never-would-have-existed, and by no means certain) income" as theft, then you define all aspects of competition, upon which our capitalist system depends to function, as "theft."
Non sequitur. Loss of potential income can be the result of the other guy having a superior product, for example, or the result of corporate espionage by the other guy, for another example. I don't equate the two.
Steal a man's wallet and you've committed theft -- the guy you stole from is out one wallet, assorted credit and identity cards, and whatever cash/family pics/what-have-you he was carrying. Refuse to buy the man's product, either because someone gave made a knockoff copy and gave it to you for free, or because you simply don't want it, and you've stolen nothing. Nada. Nichts.
Sure, as long as the knockoff copy was made legally.
If the product was copyrighted and you obtained a copy, you violated his right to restrict copying and distribution (copyright), but you still haven't STOLEN anything, regardless of whether or not he lost potential income as a result.
I disagree. It's not capitalism if you have to resort to unfair competition. If you compete by breaking the law, it is, for all intents and purposes, theft.