Slashdot Mirror
Finding the Pits In CherryOS
An anonymous reader writes "DrunkenBlog is carrying a story with piles of gathered evidence (including screenshots of code diffs) exposing the speed claims of CherryOS, and that the company behind it (Maui X-Stream) is not only stealing code from the open source project PearPC but at least several other OSS projects too. There are some choice quotes from PearPC developers on how it is harming their project. They appear to have a strong case, but enforcing the GPL could take help."
Looks like they had their cherry popped ;)
In all seriousness though, this looks like a perfect time to test the GPL in cou rt (if they make it that far.)
Does their use of OSS without complying with GPL violate copyright laws or justlicensing laws?
I'm a virgo and on Slashdot. Coincidence? Yes.
Stealing code? I though they were wrongfully copying it, or did we completely throw away the concept of copying alltogether?
The sad truth is that the GPL has no real teeth, because most of the people writing GPL'd code do not have the resources or time to do anything about "code theft".
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
...if after all that noise from SCO the first court case to test the GPL involves some little dorky scammer trying to sell code he didn't write.
REM Old programmers don't die. They just GOSUB without RETURN.
Though the article is /.'ed, I have to wonder, why does CherryOS even bother? Everyone already knows that their project was a ripoff of PearPC and they've already lost the trust of everyone.
I doubt that the FSF or the EFF are willing or able to get involved; but that doesn't mean that users and people who have a vested interest in keeping the integrity of the GNU license can't raise the funds needed to sue the CherryOS fools.
"Your admirers in the street
Got to hoot and stamp their feet
in the heat from your physique" -King Crimson
It seems like every couple of months or so we hear about some company violating the GPL. When are the OSS programmers going to do something about it? IMO it's not even close to enough for a violating company to say "Oops, we're sorry, here is the code" It's called commertial copyright infringement and the true copyright holders aught to sue the companies for every dime they can get. Companies violate the GPL because they feel its good for their bottom line. Someone should prove it isn't.
No, not really. Tell me what the PearPC group (or whoever) is going to do about it -- that's news. It might even be worthy of the front page. But this is beating a dead horse.
What I say does not represent the views of my employers, my friends, my cats, or myself.
Is now the time to test the legality of the GPL?
It seems like this might be a good case if the evidence is really so strong.
Actually, this is almost theft. If you make a LEGO fort and offer the plans to people for free, that's all well and good. But if I come along, get the free copy of your LEGO plans, change the title, violate the license it was originally licensed under, claim I made it all myself, and charge people for it.. I am a theif and I stole something from you. I've stolen your hard work and claimed it as my own.
If I download a song by *insert popular music person here* and claim that I performed the song and charge people for a copy.. I'm a theif and I've stolen their hard work and their income.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
Now PearPC is going to have to write it all over again! If only the CherryOS people knew how much damage their code theft has done!
Can we just call it breach of license and stop being all dramatic about it?
If persons are going to take GPL'd software and claim it as their own, then the work of many talented programmers can be passed off like cheap tracings of the Sunday comics. Pull together. Agree on this - blatent copying for no reason can't be allowed. Lest when those that take GPL'd software use it and fark it up, the first thing reported is that the software had an 'open source' base, further alienating the mainstream computer users.
But if I come along, get the free copy of your LEGO plans, change the title, violate the license it was originally licensed under, claim I made it all myself, and charge people for it.. I am a theif and I stole something from you. I've stolen your hard work and claimed it as my own.
No, you're not. If while he was distracted you grabbed hold of the plans he'd written down and walked off with them without permission then that would be theft. Claiming his work as your own would be fraud. Duplicating his work and distributing it without permission would be copyright infringement.
The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
They infringed the copyright and/or violated the GPL. I've said that copyright infringment isnt' stealing in many a P2P story, so I'll say it here too.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
in like less then a month random people have compiled more evidence supporting the idea that CherryOS is a complete and blatent ripoff of PearPC, then I ever saw come from the well funded SCO Group supporting their idea that Linux infringed on some of their code.
The rock, the vulture, and the chain
Why are people here up in arms when GPL code is stolen, but not when copyrighted music or movies are illegally downloaded or swapped?
Serious question? It's because most people here identify themselves more with the open source movement than with the music industry.
If you steal from my house I will be "up in arms", if you steal from my neighbours house I will be almost as outraged. If you steal from a bank I have no connection with on another continent then I may be interested in the news report, or maybe not.
The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
This is a casual discussion board, not a court of law. People use the word "theft" because it reflects their personal feelings about the morality of the action. They are not under any obligation to use the legally precise terminology.
Parent might be a troll, but he is on to something. They didn't steal the code, they infringed on the copyright.
Now this distincition is pointed out in any story covering so called software piracy, or lawsuits involving P2P and rightly so. Though infringing on the GPL is disgusting without a doubt, why simply pointing out that the code wasn't stolen (as in, it's still available to the developers) should be considered flaimbait is beyond me.
With that out of the way, those assholes broke the GPL, let's sue them to kingdom come! And if the PearPC guys need funds for legal action, I'm sure the FOSS community will be more than happy to help them out.
It's more than that. It's the difference between the goals of the RIAA vs. the Free Software movement.
The Free Software movement's goal is to increase the availability of software. Free Software advocates want to give control to the end-users. The GPL is designed to prevent people from hoarding it and reducing the availability. It basically uses copyright law against itself*, because if there were no copyright then all software would be Free.
In contrast, the RIAA's goal is to decrease the availability of music. They want to control it themselves. Their use of copyright is designed to augment their ability to control and hoard the music.
Even though both organizations use copyright as a tool, they use it for opposite goals. And that's why we believe copyright infringment is moral in one case and not in the other.
*when I say the GPL uses copyright against itself, I mean the modern (e.g. RIAA's) interpretation of copyright. Originally, the goals of copyright were more aligned with the goals of the GPL, to increase and spread knowledge. It could be argued that the modern interpretation is a corruption of copyright, and the GPL is a device to try to restore its original meaning.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
PearPC can be used for more than just running MacOS X, you can run PPC Linux on it and various PPC BSD's, aswell as Darwin.
I don't think Apples EULA statement about running it only on apple hardware is legal anyways, it sounds like illegal tieing, but what the hell do I know? IANAL.
This goes beyond mere redistribution though, they're claiming to have written the code. Which I think fits into the conventional definition of stealing. You couldn't say "He stole my theory" if someone sold a copy of a paper you'd written, but if they claimed to have written the paper, saying "He stole my theory" would probably be acceptable. So I think calling the code stolen in this case makes sense.
I am trolling
For the compensetory damages, a judge would likely just force Cherry to release all source code changes and enhancements. After all, that is what they where supposed to do from the start. Additionaly they may require the defendant to pay some or all of the plaintiffs cost of the law suit.
Punitive damages are different. It means the judge takes money from the defendant just because he was a naughty boy, it's a punishment. Typically it's awarded to the plaintiff but IIRC a judge can award punitive damages to a third party as well (this may vary by state). In this case an organization like the EFF would be a good candidate.
Arbitrary sig
Yep, I would be outraged too. In fact, I am pretty outraged about this.
But regardless of my personal feelings, I have to be fair. I refuse to call what the CherryOS guy did "theft" because I don't want the RIAA calling copyright infringment of their songs "theft." I would rather be pedantic than hypocritical.
It's just like the recent murder spree we've had here in Atlanta (where I happen to live). This guy was on trial yesterday for rape, when he grabbed the bailiff's gun, killed him, the judge, and another deputy, and ran. He killed a customs officer today, before he turned himself in to the FBI.
Now, my dad was saying things like "they oughta just shoot him." But I disagree. Even though it's blatantlly obvious that he killed those people, and he should be executed for it, he still deserves Due Process.
The CherryOS guy deserves to not be called a "thief" for the same reason. Get it?
I want to be able to argue my position (sharing music is moral, infringing the GPL is not) without the opposition being able to turn people's emotions against me (by calling me a "thief" or hypocrite). To achive that, I must give them the same consideration.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
"CherryOS surfaced as a PowerPC emulator for x86-compatible systems, specifically geared, and sold, to allow Windows users to use Apple's Mac OS X. This is actually kinda cool. Even though Apple Computer could sue your ass off because they have a clause in their EULA disallowing it, it's a really stupid clause and there are a whole host of reasons why someone might want to do this."
I agree, it is not OK for CherryOS to take code from PearPC under the terms of the GPL.
But it is also not OK for PearPC to write software to explicitly violate Apples EULA.
Its suicidal for PearPC to press the case on CherryOS because the nature of both is to violate the EULA of a 300lb gorilla. This legal copyright, liscencing thing is a two way street. If you want the GPL enforced then you're going to have to stop bitching when the EULA of any other software is enforced.
I may get modded down for this (I know, it's a cliched phrase), but I'm getting incredibly sick and tired of these CherryOS articles and their "stolen code" discussions.
Slashdot and its readership are quite happy to demonize the RIAA when it goes after infringers of its copyright. Posters will go so far to defend piracy that they will even initiate pointless discussions about how copyright infringement isn't theft (it is, because you are depriving them of revenue they would otherwise be receiving), and that it's just a cultural movement to take intellectual property. There are entire belief systems and mindsets invented to justify this piracy.
But since the very first CherryOS article, everyone has been discussing "stolen GPL code." People have even suggested legal action. Note that when I refer to Slashdot's opinion, I'm talking about the majority opinion as filtered through the upmods and discussion threads.
So, let's break it down:
I'm sorry, but I find this highly amusing. Four years of non-stop demonization of *AA and pro-piracy articles, and every time there's an incident of possible GPL infringement, suddenly everyone is on the side of intellectual property and the law. Look at all this talk of testing the GPL in court! Since when was everyone a fan of intellectual property all the sudden? Oh, that's right, when it didn't have to do with protecting the piracy you've grown accustomed to the convenience of all these years. It makes the pro-piracy opinions around here appear even more self-serving than they already were.
Note to those preparing to reply with "That's not everyone on Slashdot" replies, I know. If none of the above applies to you, congratulations. But it applies to the majority, and the nature of Slashdot's posting system tends to encourage groupthink. And so, you get these ridiculous double standards that people haven't full thought through.
No. Plagiarism is so much better a word. Much more fitting and has similar, if not greater negative connotations.
"enforcing the GPL could take help"
the average man may not be able to help in a court of law, but the best way for the average person to ensure the GPL is upheld is to boycot software that violates it.
lose != loose
Sometimes, I think it's quite fine for the company to repair the situation and be done with it. If the wronged developers are OK with that, and think it's a reasonable option, that's just fine.
... but attempt to find out what's going on and why before flying off the handle.
One one hand there's the desire to "send a message" but on the flip-side, some OSS developers feel that it's important not to totally alienate the commercial devel world, and understand that sometimes screwups and misunderstandings happen. Especially in a world of cheap contractors, offshoring, MCSEs who think they're developers, and limited knowledge of OSS and its licensing.
You may have guessed that I fall on the side of playing things cautiously. If someone stole my code, I'd either (a) laugh at them and tell them how utterly stupid they are for actually bothering to steal code that bad, or (b) get rather pissed off
I'm not at all convinced that much tolerance would be extended to really blatant offenders who deny it and continue to offend. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any cases like that that've come to court.
It may be true that no GPL cases have come to court (although I'm not sure about that either). But there has been a very large number of infringement claims that never made it to court, becuase the guilty party gave in. In summary, to win against the GPL, you cannot argue that it is invalid: if it were invalid then normal copyright law would mean that any copying or distribution was illegal - so that approach would be the lawyer equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot. Instead you would need to convince the judge that it is both valid but allows more than it appears to allow. But that is a difficult case to argue ;)
"In contrast, the RIAA's goal is to decrease the availability of music."
Not 100% correct (or badly phrased): the RIAA's goal is to restrict the number of competing sources of music and control the distribution of music (even exclusive distribution is quite different from hoarding). The record industry relies on having a large, clearly demographically defined market and exclusive control over promotional channels. P2P threatens to fragment that market by making more styles of music readily available and responding to changes in styles more rapidly than major media outlets.
Illegal P2P usage plays right into their hands, as it gives them the legal basis they need to shut down or absorb any potential competition and continue the status quo. So instead of P2P becoming a great new way to spread ideas and promote culture from a grass roots level with everyone on an equal footing (the true egalitarian utopia the 'net was supposed to be), we'll just have a continuation of the existing cycle of a brief blaze of protocol glory followed by a flurry of lawsuits, with big media still in the driver's seat. It's ridiculous to complain about media oligopolies, then effectively swamp the only truly uncontrolled distribution channels with exactly the same material in a pretense of being an electric Robin Hood. We don't need more sources of the same, we need alternatives. That's what real competition is about; currently, the majority content of P2P networks simply confirms that people want the **AA's products as is (at worse quality, even), so what incentive do they have to work harder?
I would like to see a day where the only things on P2P networks are GPL, creative commons, or public domain. Sure, you won't be able to download Generic Pop Diva #437's latest single, but which is better: a forum where anyone can express themselves to the world with an equal voice, or 3 minutes of ear-candy and a billion good ideas lost forever?
There is no moral high ground since both groups insist on forcing their moral values on the everyone else. At the heart of the issue is the right of the creator of a work to do with it as they see fit, whether it's release it free, ask a fee, or shove it up their nose. That's part of free speech: the right to limit who you're speaking to on a totally arbitrary basis, even the right to remain silent. Does Scoop Dogg Doody (or whatever that rapper's name is today) have the right to come round to your house and demand you perform a few songs for him? No, you have the right to tell him to sod off. Reverse the places: just because he's a rich bastard who can afford to record himself, does that mean you now have the right to demand his performances? At what level of wealth do we start repealing constitutional rights? I'm just curious, since you seem to be trampling the rights of others in the quest to assert your own, what makes you believe you deserve rights and others don't, and how exactly does this make your position more moral? And as far as protest and civil disobedience goes: six years, zero improvement; in fact, thaks to knee-jerk reaction legislation like DMCA and PIRATE, things are now considerably worse. Might be time to re-think the strategy perhaps?
I believe there's no reason the laws of supply and demand shouldn't apply when ever people's time and effort are involved (in fact I think OSS and public domain work should be subsidised by tax deductions*; it would be more than worth it for the economy). And if that doesn't suit you, there should be a legitimate alternative. Which might be there, but it's really hard to tell with all the illegal warez clutter.
*On a per-title/stable release basis would probably work the best.
Blank until
I think we need a better form & delivery of licensing, not to mention what the license reads.
This has nothing to do with licenses, since they are not following the terms of the license (GNU GPL) offered to them by the copyright holders.
This is copyright infringment, plain and simple.
1) They copied copyrighted works and claim it as their own, in some cases without even removing the orignal author's name and GNU GPL license notice.
2) The only way they can legally use the copyrighted works is by honouring the license under which they authors have released it with
3) They have not honoured the terms of the GNU GPL (Unless they are simultaneously denying the use of GNU GPL'd code and are also providing downloads to said source code).
4) Now we fall back to good old-fashioned copyright law. If you don't have permission, you can't copy it.
Considering the complete lack of evidence of there being even a sliver of their own code in the PPC emulation, apart from doing a "search and replace" for "PearPC"->"CherryOS", then this does in fact need to be taken very seriously.
Ok, so if they follow the gpl, so what?
So what? They wouldn't be breaching international copyright law, that's what.
Contributors to PearPC don't want to work 40hrs a week at their real job and come home to find their pride and joy/hobby being ripped off to profit some wanker who just slapped together a nice VB frontend over a couple of weekends.
And his "right" to make a profit through copyright isn't a constitutional Right at all, so that can't be what you're talking about. If the choice is between his "right" to profit, and the public's Right to freedom of information (i.e., culture), the public wins. That's the stated purpose of copyright, donchaknow.Now, that really is a legitimate argument -- the idea that copyright infringment via P2P is counterproductive. Honestly, I don't really have an answer for you on that one, because it's hard to say "this is morally righteous blah blah blah... and by the way, don't do it." For what it's worth, I personally don't download all that much music anyway, and it's usually old stuff (like the Beatles et al. where the artists are dead).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I think this case clearly shows the weakness of GPL. The Open Source Movement is not inherently litigious (nor should it be). However a license like the GPL is forcing it to be. The moment we go and start suing other software developers is the moment we become no better than Microsoft and other proprietary vendors.
All OSS should be relicensed under BSD or MIT. Code should be free. Let them do what they want with it, we'll all be better for it.