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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 ;)
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.