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.
According to this thread on PearPC.net, he is using a warez'd copy of several programs as well.
WASTE - The Secure P2P
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
The DrunkenBlog site is very slow, so here's a MirrorDot mirror of it.
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.
...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.
Article through coral
Article through mirrordot
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.
...at the sheer cheek of putting up a "performance comparison table" on the CherryOS website between CherryOS and PearPC...
I mean, even the name itself smacks of copyright infringement...
It is copyright infringement, just like the subject says.
It does not matter who's copyright is being infringed or who is claiming it, it is STILL NOT THEFT.
I'll bet I'll be modded down now, since this sort of thing is only accepable on an anti *AA thread.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.
"Troll"??? It's not a troll. And it's not a condemnation of GPL either. It's a truthful statement that most FOSS developers can't afford to sue people.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
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.
...it has been discovered that Canada Dry is shockingly similiar to ginger ale.
I don't get it.
http://google.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fww w.drunkenblog.com%2Fdrunkenblog-archives%2F000501. html
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?
In all seriousness though, this looks like a perfect time to test the GPL in court (if they make it that far.)
If you consider public relations aspect of such a trial, it's really a bad choice. You cannot legally run MacOS on non-Apple hardware, it is explicitely forbidden by MacOS EULA. Obviously CherryOS is an illegal rip-off of a GPL tool - but the legality of said tool is also dubious. It won't look good in the press - I can already imagine headlines quoting the famous communist slogan, "steal what was stolen".
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.
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
Sounds like a false representation, for sure. However, this does not cross the causality barrier to be anything like "therefore, this is theft".
I can claim to be the King of France (or even Britani Spirit!), but does that make me a thief? No.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
I just don't understand. A regular rumor/hype/unsubstantiated-claim is made and the general tendency is not to give them the benefit of the doubt - they get flamed and hen-pecked to hell before they even have a chance to prove their claims. Then CherryPC comes along, which is SO MANY WAYS is such an obvious rip-off that IT'S ALMOST AMUSING, and people act so damned civilized, presenting balanced views, structured evidence, etc. Why bother with the niceties in this case? Just call Hawaii5-0 and bust a cap in his ass already.
He's right, you know!
I, for one, am not a hypocrite. What the CherryOS guy is doing is wrong, but it's not theft. It really is copyright infringment, even if we don't like it this time.
So, who else here on Slashdot has the integrity to stand with us?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
....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
Just wondering, could cherryOS file lawsuits against the people who are discovering this information?
I dont know what levels people are going to find this information, granted its ovious that nearly the entire project is stolen from one or more other projects, but could they use this as a line of defence?
TruePunk | Games
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.
Stand with you on what precisely? Changing the name of the crime? Fine, it's "copyright infringement" and not "theft".
If your next step is to say that "copyright infringement" is not a crime, then "integrity" is not the word I'd use to describe your position. They're taking credit for something they didn't do, and violating the license to boot.
What punishment is appropriate is entirely open to debate (I'm not certain what an appropriate punishment for ordinary theft would be). I find that a far more interesting question than imagining that I can excuse the crime by renaming it.
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
Not that I feel guilty about it at all, mind.
Just providing equal yet opposite pull!
Come now, let's have some consistency, shall we? Violating the terms of the GPL is not "stealing" any more than copyright infringment. It's illegal, sure, but it's not theft.
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
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.
Yeah, he seems trustworthy.
Hey, where's all the "people posting random stuff about their cat isn't journalism" posters? This is from a 'blog, after all.
Or maybe "people posting random stuff about their cat" isn't the total picture of the blog world?
Sometimes it's shockingly easy to scoop the "pros", when they can't understand the technical arguments enough to be comfortable making a fairly serious accusation like saying "CherryOS is a fraud", but a "blog" writer can understand things well enough to do so. (Actually, you can drop the word "blog" entirely; what matters is not the software running the website but the fact they can write and we can all read it.) Neither group is doing anything wrong; if Wired can't satisfy itself fully that CherryOS is a full-on fraud, they shouldn't report it that way. But it does definately leave room for others to get in there and do some real reporting and research.
(Mods: This is on topic, just one meta up, regarding the veracity of the source.)
That having been said, there's nothing really wrong with using the terms "theft" or "stealing" casually while making a greater point.
Absolutely. There's nothing wrong with using "theft" to describe copyright infringement any more than there is to dscribe high prices as "daylight robbery" or to say that getting to work some mornings is "murder" (without any actual corpse generation).
However, when someone says "that isn't theft/robbery/murder" the proper response is along the lines of "I was using a metaphor DUH!" not "yes it is theft/robbery/murder because ".
It's only the latter that I have a problem with.
The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
There is a legal doctrine of clean hands that covers this. Basically if you act wrongly or illegally then you can't go to the court and expect help in regards to the matter where you've acted wrongly. So although normally the CherryOS people might be able to go after people for a violation of their EULA, they can't do so in court if their code violates someone else's copyrights.
"When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it
IANAL but it seems to me that one if could find some examples of fraud and deceptive advertising on the part of these guys, a criminal case be pursued instead. That might be a more productive avenue to investigate.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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.
so how would this be any different than what the BSA,MPAA, and RIAA are doing to P2P users?
Why don't we all send a nice letter to the makers of CherryOS? Here are some email addresses:
mail@cherryos.com; press@cherryos.com; info@mxsinc.com; arben@vx30.com; vx30@mauionline.com
I was thinking of posting this anonymously, but I didn't. Feel free to mod me as troll or anything else you want, but before that just think - how would you react if they were doing this to your own software project?
A nice letter is not as much as those guys deserve... They are scammers and deserve to be trusted as such.
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
To search for pits in CherriesInBrandyOS... HIC!
Free Firefox news reader.
"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.
Mod parent whichever way you please but it is so important to exercise your right to Mod! Think about the issues and Mod with your conscience.
Okay, not really.
The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
Oops, I meant "deserve to be TREATED as such". A Freudian slip?
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
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.
IANAL, but it seems that with the major investment ibm has been making in GPL'd code, you might be able to convince their (rather large) legal department to assist, inasmuch as it would solidify the position of the courts on the side of GPL'd developers.
This seems like the slam dunk decision that could set a good precedent for more nebulous cases later.
just a thought
Talk about double standards
They're not code diffs, and they haven't released any code - they're diffs of hex dumps of libraries and executables - a lot of strings remain human readable - play around with a hex editor a bit, or use 'strings' in unix.
Nope, it fits into the conventional definition of "plagiarism."
When you call it "stealing" you become no better than the RIAA.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Yeah, my cousin Bruno says he knows how to handle this... He's on a flight to Maui (with a couple of his associates) as we speak.
Ok, so I read the blog, great arguments. I am wondering though why this post was posted under "Apple"!?
There is a difference between the GPL not having teeth, and ppl being able to afford to deal with legal issues in the USA. But, that is what EFF is about. They wish to see see that the GPL is upheld and our freedoms preserved. So, I suspect that if there is good evidence, we will see a good court battle coming soon.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
its about time someone busted these losers open. and yes, this is a perfect time to test the GNU General Public License in court
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
You're assuming that Maui X-Stream actually has any money.
My other first post is car post.
From their website:
"Jim Kartes is the president of Maui-X Stream... He later worked as a news and documentary cameraman for CBS News in New York." (emphasis mine)
I guess we should have seen the writing on the wall.
What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
http://houndwire.com
"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
That's the issue. Not everybody knows. I saw a post on the local Mac user group list (I support macs at work so I need to keep track) about CherryOS. They had no idea of the issues involved and the article they referred to did not mention them.
It's worth making some noise even about something this blatant.
The guy who brought the DVD ripper to Windows by stealing Linux code, is now worth 10's of millions. The feds finally shut him down, but not before he made all sorts of money.
I had to laugh. About a year, after 9/11, I was forced to put my house on the market (fortunately, I got by). One of the possible buyers was a cousin of his and she was bragging about how much money this guy had made from it. Basically, the moral of the story was, crime pays.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
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.
Well, partly or largely it's hypocrisy, but there's also the issue that most people who're infringing the copyright on music and films, even if they distribute them publically, do not claim they personally created them.
That makes a big difference.
Yes, parent is correct. It's not "theft". Just like pirated movies/mp3s are not "stolen".
CherryOS -> CheeryOS -> Cheerios
*Splort*
It's obvious this sort of thing is an outrage, and we should stand up and do something better than preaching to the choir on Slashdot.
1 08675 . I'm sure if enough donations piled up, PearPC's authors would go after CherryOS in court.
This story made me decide to donate to the PearPC project http://sourceforge.net/donate/index.php?group_id=
Without checking out claims or code made by cherryOS, apple or the comments of the yes-men I can say this is plain silly.
I think it's nice that coders live for the day but sometimes they take this notion much too seriously and don't look at what the future can bring.
Maybe cherryOS is proprietary with only slivers of open source here and there. Maybe they're going to release another version soon. Maybe it's a logistics thing and they're waiting for apple or somebody else to release certain code to juxtapose their own which performs new or different functions for graphics / etc library routines, I/O stacks (interlaced UDP or some better transmission protocol than TCP) or a nifty cutting edge thing nobody's thought of. Let's show a little vision & planning for a better UI / filesystem / spectrum, shall we?
Ok, so if they follow the gpl, so what? A license is a credible method to grant agreements by which to use and exchange some thing and promulgate memorandums of understanding between all involved parties. I think we need a better form & delivery of licensing, not to mention what the license reads.
All true, but contradicts the FSF's stated legal position on the matter.
... if you provide proof.
That's all fine and good
Not saying this is right or wrong, just saying, such a statement is uh, random at best without proof - links please.
So, you've never heard "free as in speech, not as in beer?".
... I thought that was a freedom for the betterment of mankind, or some such garbage rhetoric?
...ahem... hall rental, you're upset about it?
... etc.
Freedom of association...
Now
Now that someone is charging you for the
What does one type of free have to do with the other? You can sell software based on free software, charge money for it if you like, or give your contributions away too.* So if someone takes your work, and lies, claiming they did it and you didn't, that's OK if no money is involved, and only becomes criminal if they are charging for it, right? Free in one sense is free in all senses, or none, right? Since either case implies a contradiction, there are no freedoms anywhere, right?
What you seem to be argueing is:
There's no such thing as freedom of worship, churches pass collection plates.
There's no freedom of travel, airline tickets cost money.
There's no freedom of speech, unless you own a TV station.
The GPL gives people some freedoms they do not otherwise have under law - more legal freedom than they have otherwise. You're complaining that it doesn't give all possible freedoms under all conditions, even freedoms that contradict each other. I'm not sure if you're even taking a position on the GPL as a matter of law - It's more like you have a problem with the very way reality itself is constructed, and think contract law can change reality.
*the details depend on the exact liscence, naturally. GPL'ed software is not the only free software out there.
Who is John Cabal?
Hey, you're not supposed to actually read or to even understand the GPL here. You're just supposed to bludgeon people with it when they disagree with you. You're not new here; you should be ashamed! =)
The saddest truth is that I'll probably be modded funny (at best) or troll, instead of insightful. =)
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
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?
yes, they have, read any of the forums or blog's about it and you'll see plenty.
it is definately pearPC , and it doesn't perform as well, tey've just changed the default pearPC config, if you match the config in pearPC pearPC runs much better.
Those free CDs dont have the license/copyrights changed/stripped out, and nearly almost always have the manpages/doc files to go with the binaries they install, which detail who wrote the program, the copyright, etc. You may not be able to get the source on CD, but you can usually always get the source through the web.
On the other hand, CherryOS not only stripped out the license/copyright, but there is no source, and the author is claiming he wrote it all. He's also stealing code/binaries from HFV Explorer, Winrar, OpenVPN.
There is a huge difference.
Brielle
Disclaimer: Nothing you read on Slashdot is legal advice.
Title 17, United States Code, section 1201, commonly called "DMCA", contains an exemption for some law enforcement actions:
So if your day job is with a government agency and your night job is PearPC developer, then you are an "employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State". Investigating alleged copyright infringement is certainly "investigative, protective, information security, or intelligence activity".
In addition, others have pointed out that should it turn out that CherryOS is an infringing copy of PearPC, then the developer of CherryOS did not have standing to make the offer expressed in the EULA.
Apple Computer Inc. is the vendor of the most popular desktop computer platform emulated by PearPC and CherryOS software.
This is an obvious troll from a known hypocrite and copyright infringer
Please mod him down.
Mod the parent up. If 1% of Slashdotters kicked in $5 or $10, the PearPC group would be very well funded. Think of it as supporting the GPL. :)
"The newly born animals are then whisked off for a quick run through a giant baking oven." --heard on Food Network
AC: Plenty of people "steal cable".
Wrong. The only way to steal cable is to cut the wire and run away with it. Nobody has ever been legally prosecuted for theft in a case of unathorized cable access.
AC: theft of service
The "of service" is added to it because it's not really theft, the same way they add "statutory" in front of something that's not really rape. If it were actually theft, existing laws against theft would apply, and there would've been no reason to invent "theft of service"
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.
1. CherryOS riped of some other guys in order to make money, this is of course a fundamental difference from say some people downloading songs just because they like to listen to music.
I wouldn't really consider it ripping off anyone, when the original source code is not only still there but available for free. Why should money have anything to do with it?
2. The actions of the organisations you mentioned are not only targeted at stoping copyright infrigment, they are also clearly targeted at further and further diminishing consumers rights and privacy rights, something that isn't the case in the PearPC/CherryOS case
The FSF goes after people in court for violating their license and so do the RIAA/MPAA. Rights are violated in both cases.
3. One of the things that makes the idea of free software so appealing to me is that fact that free software better than any other concept reflects one of the basic properties of software (and knowledge in general in the digital age), namely zero marginal costs of distribution. This is in fact one of the greatest advantages and most promising developments of the digital age.
Now the organisations you mentioned are directly involved in denying this basic property of the goods they make their money with, thereby destroying one of the greatest advantages of modern technology. Their actions are aimed at throwing us back to the pre-digital stone ages, so to say.
so because you can't get digital goods for free, you are back in the pre-digital stone age?
The only true free license is the public domain license. It allows all uses for software, commerical or noncommercial and is compatible with all licenses.
No one has really touched on the support nightmare that this could mean for Apple if these emulators ever DO become popular or viable.
That is of course, except for my site.
HTTP://JACKWHISPERS.BLOGSPOT.COM
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
Apple has EULA that violates having Mac OS run on other hardware than theirs. It's their rule, it's their product, you don't just ignore it.
So, does having it developed under open source make everyone close eyes on the PearPC side?
Of course, on top of that CherryOS seems to be violating GPL, if they're stealing code out of PearPC.
Wow, please be unbiased.
This case illustrates that reverse engineering can be a legitimate and even necessary thing to do.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
Yeah, okay. Apple says. Monkey does?
Wait. I *buy* hardware (x86), then I *buy* software (Mac OS). And then *Apple* tells me what I can do with them? If I'm not violating copyright, I don't see how they can even hope to enforce something like that. It goes against property rights.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
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.
In the SCO vs IBM case, people have been saying that such interface code (such as header files) is not copyrightable. If that is the case, then there is no GPL violation because the person using the GPLed code is not breaking copyright to include such derived interface information, and thus they don't need the license provided by the GPL to allow them to distribute. (Remember that the GPL is not a contract, so there is no requirement for someone to GPL their derivative code -- they normally need to abide by the GPL in order to get the right to distribute someone else's copyrighted work.)
..wayne..
Everyone at drunkenblog knows about it too.
Inline with the rules of the GPL taking the guts and renaming them under a new guise is theft due to the fact any work performed on the code and not released under the inherited license is building on components that are clearly labeled as property of the community.
What CherryOS has done outside of PearPC is what has been stolen. If it is committed to the main repository or not is another story.
So if it turns out CherryOS didn infact use some gpl code, do the developers not only get to sue for monetary awards but also dont they get access to all the "improvements" code that cherryOS dev's wrote as well?
As it is technically licensed under the GPL.
If you are new to the phenomenon known as "bonch" I suggest you read his posting history and submissions history. This guy would bat for the other side, but they don't like him either.
I want to start this comment stating that I have nothing but deep admiration for you and your work. So, I am not flaming.
But the fact is: when you link only to "EXPORT_SYMBOL" symbols in the Linux kernel, there is a promissory estoppel from the person that wrote the exporting module, saying: "the use of the entity (function) referred by this symbol does not constitute evidence that the importing module is a derivative work of the exporting module; as a matter of fact, I, the exporting module author, chose to make this 'EXPORT' and not 'EXPORT_GPL' because I promiss any importing modules that they won't be held liable... any use of the referred entity (function) must be removed in the Filtration phase when determining the derivative status by Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison."
That IS, after all, the whole point of 'EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL'... to document that some symbol refers to a function that is intrinsecally connected to the "intimate parts" of the kernel.
Now, AFAIK, the nVidia binary kernel module just uses EXPORT_SYMBOL symbols. Furthermore, AFAIK again, their driver is a derivative on their proprietary Windows driver, just transformed to use the linux driver API instead of the Windows driver API.
And, to boot, APIs are not copyrightable, as someone else already stated.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
I've already added this troll to my foes list, I hope you'll feel compelled to do the same to him (and a few others) after reading this.
1- He's a known copyright infringer, so he has no moral at all to post stuff like this.
2- He's a friend of some known trolls, such as CmderTaco, MondoMor, sllort, Trollback (check out his journal) and BankofAmerica_ATM.
Some other interesting things about trolls you may not have known about yet:
1- Trolltalk (which you can read here), a hidden story at slashdot where trolls discuss their trollish affairs (I don't know how/when/by who this was created...)
2- Trollback's journal, where the current state and news of trolling are discussed each month.
Conclusion - there are a LOT of immature people who waste their time by trying to annoy others at the internet. What a waste of neurons and oxygen!
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
Do you care to elaborate on this, Bruce? What textual inclusion of non-interface material is required by the driver to work?
Regards,
Massa
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
You know, compiling something is not an act of intellectual creation... it's just a step in an automated process, that is, copyright law does not kick in this particular step. So, when I write (pseudo-dd-code):I am not, in any moment, pulling in to my work "linux/pci.h" nor the definitions of the structs dev_t and bus_t. I am referring to them, and this is what case law already permits. The step that "includes" effectively the bits you mentioned is an automated step, and is not made by me, it's made by cpp.
And no, you cannot copyright the output of a program because it's never an intellectual novel creation (Brazilian copyright law -- and I'm sure others based in Berne's convention -- mentions explicitly that "protected works are those that are creations of the spirit).
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
There lies your first mistake. A program is copyrightable art, but a header file is considered (at least by USofA's case law and by Brazilian Computer Programs Act) uncopyrightable. Brazilian law makes a special exemption that normally applies to header files: they are, as a rule, the definition of an interface (what I called API in the course of this conversation with you) that admits little variation of expression is not copyrightable.
Hence, for instance, errno.h:cannot be expressed much differently, so, it's not copyrightable.
In no moment I said, under a blanket, that the output of a program cannot be copyrighted. I said the output of a program is not per se copyrightable. Obviously, if it's a transliteration of a copyrighted work, it is for the the purposes of copyright law, the same work. Mind you, what I said is that automated-automatable works are not copyrightable, but if the input to an automated work is copyrighted, the output is just a transliteration of the same work, so it's under the same copyright.
When my program #includes errno.h, this (and errno.h contents -- which are uncopyrightable) is just an instruction to the compiler/preprocessor of how to transliterate (automatedly transform) the work. The work is my (source) program. My binary program is just another aspect of my work. Get my source program, the same toolchain, compile... you have a copy of my binary program. This is very different than a derivative work.
A translation, for instance, is a derivative work, that involves transformation of the original work and the transformation is, per se, a work of the spirit. Which is why we do have a lot of crappy translations in our
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
The fact the cherryos uses the same MAC address as PearPC pretty much means they ripped off the code.
The chance they would use the same code is 281,474,976,710,656 to 1.
If the PearPC group can lay claim to the first 3 digit groups, such as 00 FF C0, and those were assigned to PearPC then the case is pretty much closed.