PearPC Trying to Sue CherryOS

Varg Vikernes writes "PearPC developers are taking in donations to sue Maui X-Stream, the developers of the MAC emulator software CherryOS. There have been allegations that CherryOS is nothing more than PearPC code, which is open-source, but with a GUI attached to it. One of the PearPC developers tried to get in contact with someone from Maui X-Stream, but eventually were told to "speak with an Attorney" about the allegations. "

Comments

Evidence is pretty overwhelming

[daveschroeder]

It might be worthwhile mentioning that CherryOS (PearPC) is not a "MAC" (sic) emulator, but rather a general PowerPC architecture and motherboard emulator. PearPC presents itself as such. However, CherryOS markets and specifically targets itself at Mac OS X. Unfortunately, Apple's Mac OS X license agreement specifically states it can only be installed on an Apple-branded computer. Aside from the PearPC issues, CherryOS is a commercial product actively encouraging its users to break Apple's Mac OS X license agreement. And yes, this license agreement is binding: that's why no one makes clones. (And no, Apple "ROMs" are no longer required. Haven't been for ages.)

Funnily enough, Maui X-Stream president Jim Kartes said:

We are building an emulator like they are that uses Mac language. PearPC uses Mac language and next thing you know, they say we are using their code. This is a totally different architecture.

This comment makes no sense. "PearPC uses Mac language" has no meaning, and is, if anything, indicative of the fact that this company does not fundamentally understand the operation of innards of their product, which isn't surprising, since they didn't create it. PearPC is essentially a PowerPC motherboard emulator, which emulates a PowerPC processor, and various necessary elements of a PowerPC motherboard. I think what Kartes is trying to claim is that because PearPC and CherryOS do the same thing, it's no surprise that they'd appear similar. This claim is absurd, because the evidence is overwhelming that CherryOS is using PearPC as the emulation engine. CherryOS is essentially a graphical wrapper for PearPC, which does nothing more than pass instructions to PearPC and execute PearPC within itself. It tries to conceal, rather poorly, that PearPC is what's running underneath. Aside from the proof of very unique shared strings and symbols above, CherryOS also shares PearPC's featureset, or lack thereof in the case of support for sound and networking, and even PearPC's specific bugs. In sum, any claim that CherryOS and PearPC would share unique strings, variable names, and symbols simply because they're both emulators is ridiculous. Also, saying "Mac language" is really irrelevant because, aside from not making sense, PearPC (and CherryOS) doesn't have anything to do with the Mac or "Mac language". It's a *PowerPC* emulator. The fact that a Mac operating system runs on it is incidental; PearPC (and CherryOS) doesn't contain or use anything that could be referred to as "Mac language".

eWeek has a general overview of the situation:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1775386,00.as p

Below is a comprehensive collection of evidence, which runs the gamut from CherryOS including original PearPC graphics, extremely unique strings and error messages, debug code from PearPC, the same unique MAC address as PearPC's default network adapter (of which there are approximately 184884258895036416 different combinations), shared specific functionality, including bugs, and so on, not to mention code from other GPL projects:

http://www.ht-technology.com/cherryos-pearpc/cherr yos-pearpc.html

http://www.drunkenblog.com/drunkenblog-archives/00 0501.html
http://www.drunkenblog.com/drunkenblog-archives/00 0503.html
http://www.drunkenblog.com/drunkenblog-archives/00 0504.html
http://www.drunkenblog.com/drunkenblog-archives/00 0507.html

The GPL needs court cases

[RobPiano]

As a GPL developer I understand that the GPL needs court cases to maintain validity. So I donated $15. Please consider doing the same.

Re:Grrrrr....

[Ghetto_D]

As previously stated, neither are MAC or Mac emulators, but PowerPC emulators.

Just busting your nuts, or pears...or cherries.

Maybe offtopic but...

[northcat]

...take a look at this. [In Internet time it's kinda old, March 16.]

Re:In all respect

[gnuadam]

Not retroactively, the GPL has a provision that says if you violate it, it permanently terminates the license. Since they violated the license, it's terminated. They have no valid license to distribute PearPC at all now. Even if they belatedly decided to comply with the terms of the GPL. It's too late.

Re:License agreement

[daveschroeder]

The reason there are no clones is because Apple won't sell OS X in a form that can be easily installed in a production environment. It would be uneconomical for a clone maker to buy boxes of OS X to get the install CDs and license documents.

No. The reason there are no clones is because they'd get the living shit sued out of them, they'd have an injunction slapped against them halting all sales of their product, and they be out of business in months.

And Mac OS X can be imaged and configured for distribution easily in a variety of ways. They wouldn't have to physically open each Mac OS X retail box to install on machines; Mac OS X install CDs are identical. They would make one image to deploy on all of their machines' hard drives; this is painfully simple and is done on an extremely widespread basis in enterprise and academic environments that have large Mac OS X deployments. If the license agreement really weren't an issue, they could just include a shrinkwrap copy of Mac OS X with each machine.

The fact of the matter is that signatures are not required to have binding contracts (e.g., credit card receipts that you do not have to sign even when you're standing right there, electronic signing and filing of federal and state tax returns, etc.). So if you want to get on the "EULAs are not binding" kick, go for it.

after-the-sale conditions

[The Monster]

The fact of the matter is that signatures are not required to have binding contracts.

IANAL (But I watched The Paper Chase and learned this from Prof. Kingsfield))

The elements of contract are:

1. Offer
2. Acceptance
3. Consideration

So, if I walk into a retailer and they offer OS X under terms that I am willing to accept, and I give them the amount of money (consideration) they asked for, when we have a contract. Any additional terms or conditions that the seller wishes to assert after I've agreed to the stated terms of the sale are completely unenforceable.

So if you want to get on the "EULAs are not binding" kick, go for it.

Suppose someone were to purchase a Chevy floormat from a dealer, then when they go to add Calvin urinating on the logo and put it in their Ford pickup, they find a GM EULA that says they can't use it that way. I can't imagine an attorney that would prosecute that one.