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."
Who gets the compensation? Do they split it between the developers? How they decide who the developers are and what part each of them gets? What if PearPC is based on other open source projects? This is going to be interesting...
1's and 0's should be free.
'spose it also depends on if they have or have not included the GPL thingy. Have they REALLY violated GPL? Or are people just pissed because they want to make money on freely avail. code?
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Im sure these two organizations would be glad to take this matter up.
if I was a PearPC developer, I would.
this is blatant theft.
Why are people here up in arms when GPL code is stolen, but not when copyrighted music or movies are illegally downloaded or swapped?
Not trying to be a troll, I'm genuinely curious to hear a well thought-out explanation. It often strikes me that I'm the only visitor who's not tone deaf.
If it is possible to sue for ?damages? then I'm sure at least one geak who is a lawyer would like to take a stab at it.
If anything else I'm sure that somewhere out there is a geek lawyer who wouldn't mind taking a shot at it if s/he could be reimburst for expenses.
I'm a virgo and on Slashdot. Coincidence? Yes.
....legally take apart cherry (ie, decompile, hex edit, reverse engineer) the cherry exe to compare it to pear? IF they did this and found it to be the same, could pear counter-sue for reverse engineering? Would it hold up in court?
ItWasFree.com - Take the mystery
An anonymous reader writes ...
Gee. I wonder who that could be.
On the Trial Download page, there are 5 checkboxes you "have" to agree to. If you don't check them, and click Download, it still lets you download with agreeing!
Tired of free iPod sigs? Subscribe to my blacklist
I am, and always will be, an idiot. Karma: Coma (mostly effected by
Even worse, the PearPC side comes up with basically the equivalent of a smoking gun, bloody finger prints, CCTV, DNA and a man with red hands and he just makes a press release saying "sometimes variables and functions have the same name, damn a load of people would love to be able to use that excuse in other areas "well you see, sometimes in order to tell the same story a film will end up being identical to another.. frame for frame.."
Meanwhile the US government can arrest people without so much as opening an evidence bag.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
People are asking, how is sueing CherryOS different than becoming the RIAA and sueing music downloaders?
Answer: Neither is theft. The latter is considered copyright infringement. The former is copyleft infringement.
Think about it -- I was to understand the idea behind the GPL was specifically so that people COULD take the source, hack at it, and release something -- but that you had to continue to make the source available if you did. Compare to copyright, where the idea of sharing source at all is non-existant.
Maui-X-Stream (the people behind CherryOS, and a stupid name IMO) should not be sued to cease-and-desist. They should be sued to open up their source.
By all means, let this team of no-talent assclowns keep playing with the source -- they're allowed to anyway. And, in fact, let these dicks sell a distro -- so long as people have the choice between source code bases, even Joe Schmo's CVS build of the CherryOS "fork", that's fine.
But the biggest thing is that MXS is a bunch of stupid lying ass-grabbing money-grubbing bastards. I like how they used the term "never ever" when asked if they stole PearPC code. Sounds like they "never ever" grew out of elementary school.
Why should they bother? Because they think they'll make money. As long as they make more than they spend, they profit. It's true that their cherry has been popped, but only the naive scammer backs down at that point. If they back down now, the game is up, but if they keep denying they're code-stealing scum, they may have a chance, albeit a small one, of profiting from this. If nothing else, they may be hoping to get hired by some company that's actually stupid enough to think they're decent programmers with something to offer. Look at the virus writers who land gigs as "security consultants" if you don't believe me.
What they need is to get bitch-slapped by the PearPC developers and any other people they've stolen code from. If the GPL isn't enforced now, when the people infringing are amateur scum like this, then how will it be enforced when a big company tries a brazen ripoff of some project? Don't think this situation isn't being watched by potential infringers.
I don't understand how one can disallow anyone from making a emulator of your own machine... Theoretically, I don't even need to use their software/hardware to write one, so how can they enforce those terms on me?
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
Your points would be valid if they weren't so automatically cynical.
No, Slashdot is for the freedom to do things without big corporations having the means or possible means down to breathe down everyone's back, or against laws that are contrary to fair use. Many slashdotters don't practice what they preach, but to treat all slashdotters as equally hypocritical is itself hypocritical, unless you yourself are hypocritical. In either case you are a hypocrite. Slashdot *would* be okay with the RIAA pursuing legal infringement if they weren't trying to sue for $150,000 per song (or something). Do you think that the PearPC would claim millions in damages to Maui X-Stream? Duh, no. P2P copyright infringement is not theft. Selling copyrighted materials is. Taking GPL code is not theft. Selling GPLed materials is.
You take three extreme examples and apply stereotypes to all three. BTW, saying "but it applies to the majority" and then talking about "ridiculous double standards" is also a double standard. Congrats on hanging yourself with your own rope, hypocrite.
I don't know how self-serving that statement was, but it's worth pondering at least.
It's not self-serving at all - at the heart of the GPL lies the power of copyright law. In court the plaintiff will say "Your Honour, Infringer A is distrbuting my copyrighted work without permission - make him stop please." Infringer A has two choices: a) admit copyright infringment and get fined or jail time OR b) say "I have a license to do so - the GPL." Either way, he loses. Moglen and Stallman knew exactly what they were doing when the GPL was crafted.
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
> it's always a slam-dunk case that will be decided in your favor
That's because the FSF only bothers with "slamdunk" cases. As soon as you get into a gray area like the Linux nVidia driver, it turns out they'd really rather not risk it.
because it's always a slam-dunk case that will be decided in your favor; that it's always in the infringer's best interest to settle out of court.
Kinda like the RIAA cases. I Wonder why more of those don't go to court?
Could be. At least in a typical GPL case, the tables are turned with respect to the RIAA cases.
In a typical RIAA displute, the RIAA has deep pockets and ample lawyers. They're bringing a case against some poor schmoe. The schmoe isn't really profiting from the infringement. But it's in the schmoe's best interest to settle.
In a typical GPL dispute, some poor schmoe like me brings a case against a company with comparitively deep pockets and ample lawyers. The company's profiting from their infringement. But it's in the company's best-interests to settle.
In addition, on this page, they don't acknowledge Motorola's trademark on "AltiVec". It sounds like these guys really have their IP knowledge down.
When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?