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.
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.
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.
Of course, the pro-piracy opinions are largely self-serving, but there is an important difference here: Cherry OS is for profit. I expect that most of the pro-piracy posters on Slashdot are against selling bootlegged CDs or DVDs, and especially strongly against taking obscure works and selling them as your own.
I think that Slashdot as a whole tends to be against making money without making a useful contribution to society, and against corporatism. So they're OK when someone patents a specific, useful, non-obvious idea and makes money from it, but not when a corporation which probably didn't invent the idea buys up an obvious patent and goes around suing people who are using the idea independently. Similarly, if someone copyrights a work and makes it available at a reasonable price, most Slashdotters would be fine with that, even if they would prefer that he give it away. But when the RIAA gets rich by selling crap music with ridiculous contracts to prevent the artists from making a buck, this is a bad thing.
My personal views are pretty similar. I hate obvious patents, especially software and business method patents, and patent-whoring companies as well as copyright-whores like the RIAA (but their music is mostly crap, so I don't pirate it). I'm fine with copyrights on say Windows (although I wish it were better), and I think the copyrights on PearPC are legit also. Personally, I try to make my work public domain, because it's not good enough to sell and I don't want people to bother about credit, but if I do something saleworthy, I'll certainly sell it.
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
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 ;)