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."

Comments

Free publicity. Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Not the only one.

[eddy]

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.

Re:why would it be illegial?

[pe1rxq]

The GPL doesn't permit just distributing binaries wihtout informing the receivers what the License terms are.
They should atleast put a notice with it saying 'This contains GPL code, send your request for the source here:'

Jeroen

Re:why would it be illegial?

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont think anyone is arguing that. The problem is YOU MUST GIVE BACK. If you take GPL code and modify it, and ship it, then you MUST provide the modified source. If CherryOS does this then no one can complain.

Re:Intellectual Property?

[FidelCatsro]

OK first off
IP is broken down into three main areas comenly on slashdot

1:Patents - Mainly refering to software patents , or the ownership of an idea , most slashdoters are against this and rightly so , as it stiffels freedom

2: Trademarks - Can be both very usefull on one hand to stop cheap rip offs but also gets abused alot by companys (IE: why pentium is called pentium as intel tried to trademark a number )

3: copywright : also a two sided blade , abused alot in the DMCA which companys use to stop us enacting our rights to fair use , and used properly in the GNU GPL and Creative commens license which i hope i dont need to explain to people here

Ok i do dice over the issues , but IP is not just one thing , and in this case its totaly right to complain about people violating IP , its the copyright equivelent of identity theft( well close enough)

Wired link

[blanks]

Found a good link with info from both cherryos developers and pearlpc developers. here

Re:It wasn't stolen

[BenjyD]

Theft means taking without permission. The GPL only grants permission to 'take' the licensed source code if you obey certain restrictions. This guy doesn't appear to have met those restrictions, so he has stolen the code.

The point of the GPL, in case you missed it, is that modifications to the source cannot be kept from the community if the modifier wants to distribute their work. If you want to benefit from GPL code, you have to give back in the form of your modifications.

Clear license violation

[Ulric]

If this is in fact based on another GPL program, which seems to be the case, and no source is provided, that is a violation of the GPL. Quoting:

2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

b) 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.

c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

You must not pretend that it's the original code. You must provide source. You must tell the users their rights.

Note that there is no requirement to credit the original authors, which some people seem to believe.

Re:Emulators?

[fr0dicus]

PearPC is slower than a calculator rendering doom 3 and MOL only works on PowerPC.

Insightful, my arse.

[Rufus88]

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.

Re:Smoking Gun

[canadacow]

Fixed links:

http://66.42.197.91/FromPearPC.gif

http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/screenshots/osx_inst all.png