CherryOS On Hold

aberkvam writes "MacWorld is reporting that CherryOS is "On Hold - until further notice." Does this mean that they are going to confirm that they used PearPC's code or is this just a delaying tactic due to the potentially pending lawsuit? Slashdot has covered this saga before."

Comments

Deserve

[Wizy]

They are getting what they deserve and I hope the case does happen. They plainly stole PearPC and are trying to profit off of others hard work.

Re:Deserve

[Robocoastie]

umm that always happens with Open Source.

Re:Deserve

[Kaamoss]

I have to aggree, it's about time someone did something. There are countless websites compairing the two program's code. http://www.ht-technology.com/cherryos-pearpc/cherr yos-pearpc.html/ [ht-technology] is one of the better comparisons. This can't go untreated, or the GPL will lose it's merit IMHO.

Re:Deserve

[Wizy]

And this means what? That they dont deserve it?

Re:Deserve

[tomjen]

While i think it is wrong, it must say:
It is not stealing/piracy/buzzword of the week. It is copyright infrigment.

Re:Deserve

[Anonymous Coward]

Stole? Don't you mean copyright infringed?
As I understand it, the original developers were not deprived of their source - thus nothing was acutally "stolen"?

Re:Deserve

[Wizy]

Indeed, I stand corrected. But I figure that difference is only an argument of semantics. Seems pretty much the same thing (in this case) to me.

Re:Deserve

[Stevyn]

Yeah, I've seen this issue raised before, however, when I download a song I don't start a record company and try to sell it under my label.

Yes, both cases are copyright infringement, but I guess "it's worse" when you take code, repackage it, call it your own, deny you stole it, and try to sell it.

Re:Deserve

[airrage]

No it's not worse ... it's the same thing ethically speaking. I will now remove the log from my own eye ...

Re:Deserve

[Anonymous Coward]

They plainly stole PearPC

They are plagiarists and they are copyright infringers. They are not thieves.

and are trying to profit off of others hard work.

So what? Redhat do that too. The profiting isn't important. The copyright infringement and plagiarism is.

Re:Deserve

[dnoyeb]

Legally its copyright infringement. Morally, religiously, or whateverelsely, it's stealing.

Re:Deserve

[Overly Critical Guy]

They plainly stole PearPC

So, you're saying they took an instance of PearPC that the PearPC authors no longer have?

It seems that only piracy isn't theft. Anything else, especially if it involves GPL code, is evil thievery around here. It invalidates everybody's position on piracy. Think before you post!

Re:Deserve

[91degrees]

or whateverelsely

controversially?
Arguably?

Considering the inevitable arguments regarding the fact that the owners still have their software, and are in no way deprived of the use of it, there are many people who disagree.

Religion doesn't enter into it.

Morally, morality is a personal thing.

Practically there's a key difference. The PearPC creators still have their code.

If you're arguing that it fits your definition of stealing, fine. I'll argue its jaywalking because it fits my definition of jaywalking. But then we might as well be talking different languages.

The only reason to call it stealing is because the term has negative connotations. How about using a less emotive term?

Re:Deserve

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, both cases are copyright infringement, but I guess "it's worse" when you take code, repackage it, call it your own, deny you stole it, and try to sell it.

Yes, it's worse. No, it's not theft. No matter how bad an infringement is, it's never theft. An infringement can cause more harm than a simple theft might, but it still wouldn't be theft. That's because they are fundamentally different things.

People don't say that it isn't theft because they want to make it seem like less of a crime. People say that it isn't theft because it isn't.

If I walk into a shop and take a CD that doesn't belong to me, costing the record company maybe $5, then that is theft. If I rip it and distribute it on the Internet to hundreds of thousands of people, costing the record company a million or more, that is not theft, that is still copyright infringement.

"Theft" isn't a synonym for "really bad copyright infringement".

Re:Deserve

[Anonymous Coward]

But I figure that difference is only an argument of semantics. Seems pretty much the same thing

Do you even know what the word "semantics" means? Yes, it's an argument of semantics - in that the two terms mean completely different things.

Re:Deserve

[chronicon]

This can't go untreated, or the GPL will lose it's merit IMHO.

What??

While I agree that those that infringe on the GPL should be pursued and prosecuted, I don't agree that "untreated" actions have any bearing on the validity of the GPL as a software copyright license.

From my vantage, there are two avenues for pursuing violators--one equals cash (as in lawyers), the other (in this case) equals exposing the truth (as you have indicated). As the article states numerous bloggers and others have pointed out that CherryOS is a blatant rip-off of the PearPC project. If the distributor had abided by the license (GPL) they could have packaged it under any name they wanted (barring trademark infringement) and sold it for whatever they wanted to... (providing they supply you the binary + the SOURCE code).

(If I may be redundant), as it is, they tried to sneak it under the GPL radar and market it as their own devise (device?), which is clearly and blatantly wrong, not to mention illegal.

However, and to the point: NOT challenging them in either of the two manners I have suggested does NOT in any way invalidate the legal strength of the GPL as a software license.

I totally reject the claim that the GPL has not been tested in court. As Eben Moglen says, it hasn't been 'tested' in court because the defendants have always known that they would lose.

To those who like to say there has never been a court test of the GPL, I have one simple thing to say: Don't blame me. I was perfectly happy to roll any time. It was the defendants who didn't want to do it. And when for ten solid years, people have turned down an opportunity to make a legal argument, guess what? It isn't any good.

The GPL has succeeded for the last decade... because it worked, not because it failed or was in doubt.

I agree with part of your statement. CherryOS was exposed by 'countless websites' and this had the appropriate effect. Nevertheless, the GPL is a solid license whether anyone sits on their butts (regarding infringement) or not.

Re:Deserve

[badasscat]

Indeed, I stand corrected. But I figure that difference is only an argument of semantics. Seems pretty much the same thing (in this case) to me.

It is not even close. Nobody can "steal" GPL'd code - it is there for all to see and modify as they see fit. That's the whole point.

What you can't do is take that code, modify it, sell the binaries and then refuse to give your contributions back to the community. That is what the CherryOS people have done, and that is a GPL violation. As the copyrighted code is provided under the GPL only under the terms of said GPL, violation of it is by extension a copyright violation.

But you can't "steal" something that is freely available, so it is not just semantics whether or not it was "theft".

Yes, it was wrong - that's not the issue. But just as we're constantly berating the RIAA/MPAA for their hyperbole on such issues, we have to be careful in what we say about GPL-related copyright violations too.. especially as this is even further removed from "theft" than what people do when they download music or movies.

Re:Deserve

[Kaamoss]

I suppose that I never really looked at it that way but you are right. Because enough people have reverse compiled the cherry os code and compaired it the the pear pc code it has generated quite an angry buzz in the opensource community. It's funny how allmost anything can be controlled by a large enough online community. just in case anyone is interested I stumbled across this http://www.gpl-violations.org/the other day. Good site to keep an eye on and support, if I do say so myself.

Re:Deserve

[InfiniteWisdom]

It very much is piracy, because every major dictionary lists "Committing copyright infringement, eg. software piracy" as one of the definitions of piracy. Saying copying software is like attacking a ship may be OK for a cheap laugh in RMS's talk, but people like you need to stop taking that joke too seriously.

Re:Deserve

[zootm]

Yes, both cases are copyright infringement, but I guess "it's worse" when you take code, repackage it, call it your own, deny you stole it, and try to sell it.

Why? Serious question.

Re:Deserve

[Lillesvin]

<note>This is completely OT, so feel free to mod me as such!</note>

"Theft" isn't a synonym for "really bad copyright infringement".

And just because the "theft" doesn't remove the item in question from the rightful owner doesn't mean it's any less of a theft.
Should you still be clinging to your dictionary definition, then I'd like you to explain commonly used phrases such as:

• identity theft
  You don't lose your identity because someone knows your SS# and your credit card number and "claims" to be you. At least, if your entire identity is based on relatively few informations, then it's just plain sad.
• stolen data
  You don't actually lose the stolen data, but someone broke into your system and made copies of the data. (Just look at the whole ChoicePoint incident.)

When will people realize that dictionaries only gives clues about a word-meaning and usage --- they're not in any way the ultimate definition?

It's the language users that form the language, not the other way around! Otherwise you'd have to go back to saying "a napron" instead of "an apron" and "an eekename" instead of "a nickname".

Re:Deserve

[Luke-Jr]

No, it's the same thing *legally* speaking (or not?). If you want to get into ethics, simply copying information is perfectly fine so long as credit goes where credit belongs.
Check out natural law sometime... and also realise that it is impossible for you to do anything without copying information into your mind... and impossible for you to do anything creative while preventing yourself from making use of what you remember seeing earlier.

Re:Deserve

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason to call it stealing is because the term has negative connotations. How about using a less emotive term?

Exactly. The only reason to call it stealing is because the term has negative connotations. That would be because the action has negative connotations, and CherryOS engaged in it.

Re:Deserve

[nytmare]

Why does your definition of "steal" require that the victim be deprived of the stolen item?

Re:Deserve

[91degrees]

Because that seems to be a definition most people agree on.

Because it distinguishes it from plaigerism.

Because that's where the harm is.

Re:Deserve

[MaDeR]

...attacking a ship, murdering/raping all on board and take all of valuable. How poor are all sofware companies, if they feel illegal copying/copyright violation like piracy described above...

Re:Deserve

[Jesus_666]

They are plagiarists and they are copyright infringers. They are not thieves.

They are! I saw them coming from the PearPC website, carrying a huge bag with "PearPC sourcecode" written on it!

Re:Deserve

[InfiniteWisdom]

No they aren't poor. You're just a fool who doesn't realize that some words have more than one meaning, and belong to a class of fools who keep making that stupid argument.

Re:Deserve

[iamacat]

If I rip it and distribute it on the Internet to hundreds of thousands of people, costing the record company a million or more, that is not theft, that is still copyright infringement.

Such a thing never happened. People who downloaded your song already decided not to buy it. If you didn't post it, they would just keep looking, borrow friend's CD, or would just record it off the radio. That's the real reason why "thief' or "pirate" are not appropriate labels for P2P users. They are just benefitting themselves without really hurting others.

Re:Deserve

[MaDeR]

Specially for you I will start marking posts like [irony], [sarcasm] or [text for idiots whom don't understand it anyway]. Oh, nevermind...

Re:Deserve

[InfiniteWisdom]

You might want to learn to spell correctly and use proper grammar before trying to act too clever.

Re:Deserve

[Kurt Wall]

Bzzt! Thanks for playing. Being physically deprived of something is not the standard for theft; it's unauthorized use. "Morally, morality is a personal thing." What a self-serving, navel-gazing crock. When one person's so-called "personal morality" affects someone else, it's no longer personal.

Big surprise... feh

[SoTuA]

Maybe holding the release because a sold copy of CherryOS would give PearPC's lawyers ammo for bigger damages?

Re:Big surprise... feh

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet it's more along the lines of "We got caught with our pants down, again... quick, let's change more identifiable code slightly to evade them!"

By the way, what does this have to do with Apple? They're both PowerPC emulators, the fact that it will run OSX is incidental.

Re:Big surprise... feh

[shamowfski]

Maybe it already has sold....

Re:Big surprise... feh

[NetNifty]

" By the way, what does this have to do with Apple? They're both PowerPC emulators, the fact that it will run OSX is incidental."

Correct, however CherryOS specifically says on their web site that it is there in order to run OSX on x86 hardware. PearPC gives instructions on how to run OSX but doesn't really claim that it's whole purpose is to do so, which CherryOS does.

Re:Big surprise... feh

[Bastian]

Also interesting that they refused to make any sort of comment in the MacWorld article. I don't know the legal system well, but could this be a sign that they know they're in so deep that there's hardly a think they could say that couldn't be used against them in court?

Re:Big surprise... feh

[Anonymous Coward]

though this tech is so slow that its probablly not a bad thing for apple

people can use pearpc/cherryos to develop/test for osx but they are very unlikely to use it as thier main system.

Re:Big surprise... feh

[Trepalium]

Unless you're SCO, you NEVER talk to the press about an impending lawsuit. One way or another, the other side will find a way to make those words come back and haunt you. Just about the only comment that is safe is to simply say that you deny all the allegations the other side has put forth against you, and leave it at that. If you tell the press you've found a mountain of illegally copied code in a public operating system, the other side will get the judge to force you to disclose it to them.

Re:Big surprise... feh

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, CherryOS is a "G4 emulator" and won't even run anything but OS X. CherryOS deserves a lawsuit with Apple for this.

Re:Big surprise... feh

[joe user jr]

From reading some of the posts at PearPC forum CherryOS thread, the developers' lawyers have been in touch and CherryOS has not only been withdrawn, but the company are offering refunds to customers requesting them.

One post quotes a letter from them:

We are currently evaluating a number of issues with the product [CherryOS]. Unfortunately at this time we have another important requirement with a different product. Since we cannot fix CherryOS right now we've decided to take it off the shelves.

Should you require a refund we would be more then happy to obligate you.

That might also fit the scenario of limiting legal exposure and/or acting in response to legal approaches made on behalf of the PearPC developers.

Re:Big surprise... feh

[Jugalator]

I bet it's more along the lines of "We got caught with our pants down, again... quick, let's change more identifiable code slightly to evade them!"

Unfortunately for them, it's too late now if they've already violated the license. It would be particularly apparent they did this if they changed sepcific obvious bits in their code now. However, at the same time we see a disadvantage with open source code; no one was easily able to sue them. I read about the donations taken, yes, but since then everything went silent. I hope they'll be able to do something though.

Re:Big surprise... feh

[emptor]

Should you require a refund we would be more then happy to obligate you

Obligate me? Obligate me to what? Perhaps receipt of stolen goods?

Re:Big surprise... feh

[vertinox]

"but the company are offering refunds to customers requesting them."

Customers? Whaaa?! You mean to tell me that there are people out there that would actually have a need to purchase software for an x86 that emulates software on OS X?

I mean sure I would like to look at an apple up in my left hand corner of my PC screen for a novelty, but there aint no damn need for me to spend money to get it to be so.

I mean did someone purchase Final Cut Pro or Photoshop for the Mac and realize that they needed a different OS after realizing it wouldn't run on WinXP and thought purchasing an emulator would fix their problem?!!!

Re:Big surprise... feh

[fireman sam]

Ever heard of developers who create cross platform applications?

Maybe that have an x86 and want to test a PPC build.

Instead of having a PC for Linux a PC for Windows and a Mac, a developer can test all these platforms on one computer with the help of VMWare and PearPC.

Re:Big surprise... feh

[Azzhole]

Cherry on hold ? How Peachy .................

Re:Big surprise... feh

[paulatz]

I don't know if you ever tried PearPC. It is so slow that compiling some code with it truly is a pain in the ass.

Re:Big surprise... feh

[punkass]

Wah?! Does that mean Intel should sue Microsoft for Virtual PC?

Re:Big surprise... feh

[fireman sam]

Yeah, I have tried it and it isn't that slow. For example safari takes about 5 seconds to start.

Re:Big surprise... feh

[paulatz]

It is almost as fast as a real mac for reading and writing to disk and RAM, for accessing harware and a bit more. But pearPC is definetly slow when it emulate de processor (from 20 to 500 times slower) and the most processor-consuming activity is.. compiling.

Was there ever any doubt?

[pwnage]

So goes the latest twist in the CherryOS saga: the most probable end to clear OSS theft and a massive stint of publicity whoring.

Which reminds me, if your really want Mac OS, then just get the real thing.

Re:Was there ever any doubt?

[northcat]

Um, we want PowerPC (those who use PearPC) not Mac OS. If we wan't Mac OS we *should* get the real thing since there is no "Mac OS emulator" (AFAIK).

Re:Was there ever any doubt?

[lgw]

I haven't been following this - can someone explain how CherryOS has gone wrong? I've bought previous products that were commercial wrappers around GPL products - for example a GUI front end to CVS - that had a closed proprietary piece and a GPL peice, distributed with the source for the GPL piece, of course. Of course, perhaps there was no linking between products in that case, just a command line used behind the scenes.

Couldn't CherryOS just add the source to the PearPC peices to their distro package? Or have they directy modified PearPC soruce to get what they want?

Re:Was there ever any doubt?

[over_exposed]

The problem is, CherryOS denies that they use and GPL'd code and don't give the original authors (PearPC as I understand it) credit for their work.

Re:Was there ever any doubt?

[SirTalon42]

They also directly link against it AFAIK.

Re:Was there ever any doubt?

[Knights who say 'INT]

You can emulate older Macs on a relatively ancient PC very very very well. I used to run a Macintosh Quadra emu on my K6-II/500 before I got an actual Mac -- and I might have gone Mac because of it.

The only piece of the puzzle that's illegal is getting the boot code ROM. If you actually own a Macintosh Quadra, you can rip it and be done with illegally. Or you can hunt around for pir8z0rz, being a (here comes flamebait) a thief :-P

wrong season

[Anonymous Coward]

the last i checked, cherry harvest begins in june

Re:wrong season

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought cherry harvest coincided with Spring Break, usually in a warm location with lots of alcohol. In which case, they're too late!

Re:wrong season

[Frac]

the last i checked, cherry harvest begins in june

The last I checked, cherry harvest begins starting spring break, in Cancun and Miami.

Re:wrong season

[Anonymous Coward]

in washington state we harvest cherries in june.

Re:wrong season

[Anonymous Coward]

last time i checked it was on spring break.

Re:wrong season

[Anonymous Coward]

Like there are any "cherries" to be found there....
Silly /.er.

Why does everything take so damned long?

[PornMaster]

It's frustrating that everything takes so damn long... since it's trivial to show that CherryOS is a rip-off of PearPC, why does this guy still even have a home to sleep in? Justice is too damned slow.

Re:Why does everything take so damned long?

[pHatidic]

I read on the internet that the parent poster touches little kids. I read this on a blog several months ago. Why does the parent still even have a home to sleep in? Justice is too damned slow.

Re:Why does everything take so damned long?

[mattkime]

I was organizing an angry mob of gnu/linux hippies to burn his house but no one wanted to leave their parents basement. :(

Re:Why does everything take so damned long?

[PornMaster]

I'm not talking about not having due process. I'm talking about having due process not take years. This isn't about something that's been done behind closed doors. This fuckbag is a commercial pirate hiding behind the thinnest veil. It's like he burned copies of an X-Men DVD and put a label on it calling it Y-People, and selling them as a product of his own.

Re:Why does everything take so damned long?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like Mutant X?

Re:Why does everything take so damned long?

[aichpvee]

About Atheist Fundamentalism?

Re:Why does everything take so damned long?

[SirTalon42]

Exactly!

Re:Why does everything take so damned long?

[dmaxwell]

This might be what he had in mind:

http://www.atheists.org/

Thanks to Madalyn Murray O'Hair atheists get to inspire the same warm fuzzies that Jerry Falwell inspires.

Re:Why does everything take so damned long?

[Anonymous Coward]

??

But to date, the PearPC developers have not AFAIK taken any legal action. They merely need to ask a federal court for an injunction.

The loser pushing CherryOS needs larting. A federal judge could do it.

Re:Why does everything take so damned long?

[lithron]

No, like X-Force.

Re:Why does everything take so damned long?

[Jesus_666]

What does an X-Com clone have to do with that?

Re:Why does everything take so damned long?

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting Atheists to organise themselves into groups like that seems to be a purely American thing. I'm not aware of any organised Atheists groups here in the UK; in fact, the entire concept baffles me. It baffled Douglas Adams as well; I seem to recall reading a snippet of an interview he did for an American Atheist association. He seemed bemused, as I imagine many non-American atheists would be.

The thing that baffles me above all else is that people from a country which values individuality so much are seemingly so desperate to organise themselves into various groups, wether religious or otherwise. US citizens don't want to be individual, it seems.

Re:Why does everything take so damned long?

[lithron]

No no. X-Force. Marvel's comic. It went to issue 100 before they killed a perfectly good storyline.

Re:Why does everything take so damned long?

[ccr]

Two words: Judge Dredd.

You think?

[t_allardyce]

Without undermining due process, i think its pretty obvious that they are as guilty as a man with shit on his dick standing stark naked next to a goat.

Re:You think?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wiping mental picture caused by parent

pass01...

pass02...

pass03...

pass04...

pass05...

pass06...

pass07...

Re:You think?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not working!!

Dammit....

pass12543...

Re:You think?

[Jedi Alec]

ehmmm, ok, but in these here parts that actually ain't a crime :/

Re:You think?

[WoBIX]

"If the goat don't fit, you must acquit!" - Johnny Cochrane

Re:You think?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now why would you be checking out if something like that is legal or not?

Re:You think?

[kernel_dan]

pass01...

Everyone knows indexing begins at zero!

Re:You think?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually...that's legal in the south.

However, if the goat were a man, it'd be ILLEGAL.

Re:You think?

[AndroidCat]

My brain uses older technology. I just hold my head upside-down and shake it.

Re:You think?

[puddpunk]

Someone pass me the brain bleach. PLEASE

Re:You think?

[sharkey]

Texans read Slashdot! Hoo'd'ah thunk it!

Re:You think?

[sharkey]

Chewbacca got raped on Endor?

Re:You think?

[Anonymous Coward]

Say what you will, but that was fucking hillarious.

Re:You think?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he got raped on the forest moon of endor.

Re:You think?

[operagost]

See, your analogy is both disgusting and amusing, but maybe he just rubbed one off with a turd. CASE DISMISSED!

Re:You think?

[glen604]

If the goat doesn't fit, you must acquit!

Re:You think?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mental floss!

Re:You think?

[Dancin_Santa]

That's not older technology. That's the Manager version.

Re:Re:You think?

[Anonymous Coward]

I rubbed one off with a terd once

Re:You think?

[Anonymous Coward]

My brain is more ancient, you simply light my head on fire until the data is all burned up.

Re:You think?

[Dehumanizer]

That's absolutely completely DISGUSTING!!!!!

Now, if it was a sheep instead of a goat... :)

Re:You think?

[alc6379]

My brain uses older technology. I just hold my head upside-down and shake it.

This coming from one who has a link to Caveman porn in his/her sig. Unga Bunga?

Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

"release" the code in some obscure format in a place nobody would ever think to look in a way nobody notices.

nice and legal.

Re:Easy

[X0563511]

So are you saying C/C++ are obscure? Er, did I miss something? Then again, maybe I shouldn't have even bothered replying to flamebait. (GNAA is troll, parent was an opinion)

Re:Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the parent means releasing the code in an obscure format - like for example releasing the code on old fashioned printed cards. Not that I've heard of Linux distros doing this at all.

Re:Easy

[stratjakt]

Where can I download the source for my Series 2 Tivo, and how can I compile and use it?

Aww shoot, I can't.

CherryOS just needs to encrypt their binaries, and the source is absofuckinglutely useless.

Re:Easy

[emurphy42]

If it's "machine-readable" and "on a medium customarily used for software interchange", then it satisfies section 3a of the GPL and is thus legal (albeit annoying). For instance, if the cards are readable by any IBM card reader that still has a reasonable number of units in service.

I'm reminded of the Terrible Proposals from Nomic World - particularly #6, which (if adopted) would have required all future proposals to include page 106 of the 1961 Vladivostok telephone directory. (Nomic is a family of games in which changing the rules is a type of move. The Terrible Proposals were designed to exploit a rule that awarded points based on voting.)

Re:Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. If you read the license. It doesnt say HOW it must be released. Only that it must be to comply.

Release the source code in a .zoo'd pdf image of 54,000 sticky post-it notes written in greek.

Ok. thats excessive and not by the rules. but you get the idea.

Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad I donated my $5 to PearPC. It's about all I can really afford, and I only use Apple's anyways, but people who put all that effort into source-code like PearPC (which is amazing, by the way), deserve some help when theiving bastards like CherryOS come along. Viva la Open Source!

Re:Good!

[lemon031]

You only use Apple machines but you can only afford five bucks to donate to PearPC?

Re:Good!

[SillyNickName4me]

> You only use Apple machines but you can only afford five bucks to donate to PearPC?

Typical case of cause and effect?

Confirm?

[Rightcoast]

I thought Netsniper already did that for them? http://www.ht-technology.com/cherryos-pearpc/cherr yos-pearpc.html

Why does this scam get so much coverage?

[Eminence]

Is it just because there are tonns of people who are dying to get OS X running on their PC, because for various resons (mainly financial) they can't or won't buy a Mac? And, aforementioned crowd is so hot about it that it would hang on lips of any snakeoil vendor promising them just that despite being an obvious fraud?

Re:Why does this scam get so much coverage?

[NetNifty]

Probably getting so much coverage because CherryOS made absurb claims first of all (IIRC they claimed G5 emulation at 100% speed, which IIRC due to the alvitec unit makes pretty much impossible), now is so blatently commiting copyright infringement on PearPC's code (IIRC the first clue came from a screenshot of CherryOS' boot screen displaying a line of nonsense text which the PearPC team put in, and binary comparisons on the demo have backed that up), while claiming that they wrote the whole thing and dismissing claims in an absurd way (claiming it was entirely a coinsidence that the text mentioned earlier was the same) and constantly changing their story (IIRC first they said one person did it, then they said a dev had been fired who used GPL code and the code removed, then denied all accusations of GPL code completely).

Basically it gets so much coverage because it's so unbelievable how stupid they are.

Re:Why does this scam get so much coverage?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot. Your blog sucks. And I just saw your mother putting out for a goat.

Re:Why does this scam get so much coverage?

[Matilda the Hun]

No, it gets so much coverage because this, being such an obvious violation of the GPL, is probably the first time that the aforementioned GPL is going to get a trial-by-fire in an actual court of law. Thousands of people who've written GPL-protected code are going to be waiting to see if what they've written is actually going to be defended in a US Court of Law in such an obvious case of steal-sell-profit. If it isn't, well then, we're all screwed.

Any other questions?

Re:Why does this scam get so much coverage?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there really any demand for this except for mac users who lost their shirts in the bush economy and now can't afford to upgrade their macs but COULD afford to buy a new PC?

The number of people "dying" to run OSX at all (on PC or otherwise) is so small as to be irrelevent. Get over it, guys. Mac lost. And for good reason.

Re:Why does this scam get so much coverage?

[Anonymous Coward]

But I thought that Bush gave tax cuts to the rich and gave support to "big business" so why would anyone who could previously afford a mac not be able to now? Wouldn't they be the type of person who would benefit from a tax cut for the rich and from a big business getting extra money.

You need to help me out here because I'm having a hard time reconciling Bush hurt the rich in my head.

Re:Why does this scam get so much coverage?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, you recalled incorrectly.

Now guess which one.

Re:Why does this scam get so much coverage?

[ArbitraryConstant]

"which IIRC due to the alvitec unit makes pretty much impossible"

It's mostly because PowerPC has more registers.

An x86 emulating PowerPC must supplement its limited supply of registers with memory, which is really slow even though it happens mostly in L1 cache. Emulating x86 on PowerPC is easier because PowerPC has enough registers to emulate all of the x86 registers without touching memory.

Altivec emulation sucks, but it's not the primary suckage.

Re:Why does this scam get so much coverage?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I pointed this out the very first time Slashdot ran a CherryOS story, and everyone refused to believe that the amazing new CherryOS was making bogus speed claims.

Re:Why does this scam get so much coverage?

[ArbitraryConstant]

No; people that agreed simply didn't feel the need to contradict you.

Re:Why does this scam get so much coverage?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever hear of the Amiga or Amiga Inc's current persuits?

They owe developers money, and are literally hiding from them, changing addresses monthly, third party PO boxes, etc...

All this, after the court already ordered Amiga to pay.

Re:Why does this scam get so much coverage?

[NetNifty]

I'm not sure but I think your thinking of MorphOS (or at least they have done the same thing), which is sort of an unofficial AmigaOS on PPC which runs "Classic Amiga" code. MorphOS also seems to be violating the GPL (not releasing sources to their modified GCC versions).

Re:Why does this scam get so much coverage?

[Eminence]

• Basically it gets so much coverage because it's so unbelievable how stupid they are.

That's exactly my point. But why post news about stupid things - it was funny for the first time, but now is not even original anymore.

Various conspiracy theories...

[jd]

• They are planning to buy out PearPC, so that there is nobody left to sue them
  
• CherryOS is being developed by the Amiga OS development team
  
• Microsoft bought both, the Amiga AND the Vatican
  
• Investors pulled out when they realised that Cherry is a really pathetic name - and I'm pretty sure it's already trademarked for some other computer equiptment
  
• Both operating systems, all companies involved and the entire case was fabricated by the same UK journalist who invented "toothing"
  

Re:Various conspiracy theories...

[AKAImBatman]

Here's a conspiracy theory for you:

Maui software actually was "inspired" by PearPC and hired a Pakistani company to create a similar product. The Pakistani company secretly stole PearPC to deliver the product on time (partly because they had no idea what they were doing) and then Maui compounded the issue by covering the fact that they'd used an overseas company. (They didn't want to drive customers away by admitting that.) So now Maui has a hot (as in stolen) product on their hands, and is trying like hell to get rid of it.

How's that for a conspiracy theory? Considering everything we know, quite plausable too.

Re:Various conspiracy theories...

[plimsoll]

| Investors pulled out when they realised that
| Cherry is a really pathetic name - and I'm pretty
| sure it's already trademarked for some other
| computer equiptment [sic]

Yeah, no kidding. Smells like another Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox to me. For instance:

Cherry Corporation Point-of-Sale, Automotive Cherry Semiconductor Discrete IC's (now owned by ON Semiconductor)
Maybe they are getting out of the whole crowded fruit-based naming convention, and thus, avoid the obligatory Pac-Man jokes that plague these stories each time they're reported here.

Re:Various conspiracy theories...

[Anonymous Coward]

Investors pulled out when they realised that Cherry is a really pathetic name - and I'm pretty sure it's already trademarked for some other computer equiptment

It may not be computer equipment but...

Re:Various conspiracy theories...

[jd]

Let's see. Apple. Peachtree. Orange are a cell phone vendor. Blackberry. I'm pretty sure there was a Cherry that made computer keyboards. SCO is a lemon. Acorn isn't strictly a fruit, but they're nuts anyway.

Re:Various conspiracy theories...

[sharkey]

Actually, it appears that SCO invented Apple, and are charging $699 US for each copy of CherryOS downloaded, installed or referred to on the web.

Re:Various conspiracy theories...

[Monkelectric]

Thats possible. Its also possible that the pakistani company is a straw man, it may exist and was told to customize pearpc or it may not exist at all.

I interviewed for a contract position at which the labor was estimated to be about 1000-1500 man hours. 500 machines, each process took 2-3 hours. And yet -- the contract duration was 2 months. It was obvious at the end of the two months either, I would take the blame for not having done the impossible task, or depending on the terms of the contract, I might even have been LIABLE for not doing the impossible. Needless to say, I never saw the contract because I told them where to stick it.

My point is--people use contractors in a lot of creative ways. Its a great way as a manager to shield yourself from blame. Id say either scenario (yours or mine) is equally likely

Re:Various conspiracy theories...

[plimsoll]

| I'm pretty sure there was a Cherry that made computer keyboards.

Right on; same Cherry.

In addition to making lots of cool POS keyboards and bump bars, you may recall the Cherry CyMotion Master Linux keyboard (scoffing emphasis mine).

I love their POS stuff, but that Linux keyboard was a little schmaltzy.

Re:Various conspiracy theories...

[Anonymous Coward]

Arben already admitted that the "shared drive" and network adapter were outsourced to an overseas (Pakistani?) developer who DID use GPL code from OpenVPN and HFVExplorer...

Re:Various conspiracy theories...

[Ohreally_factor]

Don''t forget Cherry Poptart. (NSFW)

too right

[SweetAndSourJesus]

Due process is a pile of horse shit.

We should firebomb the home of anyone suspected of violating a software license agreement the moment suspicion arises.

Re:too right

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like all the righteous Linux users violating copyrights and software licenses by downloading movies, as well as using unlicensed DVD codecs?

Right.

Re:too right

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the GP was being sarcastic. Here, I'll draw it out for you:

* ---- Joke

O
-|- --- You
/\

Any questions?

Re:too right

[Karma Farmer]

Why is there a litte star named "joke" so far above that little person's head?

Re:too right

[afabbro]

I believe the reply to the GP was also being sarcastic. You know - the whole extreme firebomb thing. Kind of funny. Here, I'll draw it out for you:

* <---- Joke up here

O
-|- <---- You not getting it down here
/\

Re:too right

[operagost]

Not only that, but someone snapped his head off. Ouch!

Re:too right

[cerebis]

I believe it's an alien being of pure energy. Someone is infringing on the Star Trek universe, or the latest Hollywood storyboarding technique.

Re:too right

[Anonymous Coward]

GP (i.e., the first one with the ascii art) was replying to a GGP that is (as of now) Anonymous Coward, score: 0 (Troll + Underrated).

Insert your ascii art here, s/Joke/Clue/

Re:too right

[Bryan_W]

Oh. My. Gawd. How stupid can you be....

That's a asterisk not a star

Re:too right

[DavidTC]

DVD codecs don't have to be licensed. There's no patent behind CSS.

Re:too right

[Totally49]

Oh. My. Gawd. How stupid can YOU be....

"That's AN asterisk, not a star."
Sorry... couldn't resist!

Re:too right

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he's actually wearing a jet-pac, and walking left.

Too bad

[Stick_Fig]

Guess they're like a hot virgin at a Star Trek convention, too afraid of a bunch of nerds popping their Cherry.

Re:Too bad

[Stick_Fig]

I make a funny joke about popping a cherry, and it gets modded down as flamebait. Such is life. Whenever I call someone a nerd on /., it's meant lovingly.

To not take this post off-topic, it's terrible that the CherryOS is getting so much attention. PearPC is a great project, and the damage that CherryOS has done to the PearPC project is almost irreversible.

Re:Too bad

[krakelohm]

I think the whole problem is that it was not funny at all. Take a second look, give it a second, then hang your head in shame.

:)

Re:Too bad

[Donald Ferrone]

Funny joke about popping a cherry? First of all, try writing about what you know instead. Second of all: IT WASN'T FUCKING FUNNY. Until then, get your ass off Slashdot and drive to the drug store: acquire some acne medication and maybe some apple juice. Apply your intense power of thought in determining how to work these two items, and also in shutting the fuck up.

Re:Too bad

[Stick_Fig]

It's not often that a Ph.D. tells me to shut the fuck up.

Re:Too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the reason it really wasn't funny is, a Star Trek convention is probably the safest place on earth for a hot virgin. It's the nerds who would be afraid of her...

Re:Too bad

[alc6379]

Usually it's just your pals?

Ooh! I kid! But it's only because I love!

Re:Too bad

[Donald Ferrone]

Congratulations.

Also, I'll be lecturing on sucking the crusted cum-covered shit out of my dad's asshole before next week's end.

In the page source....

[Flaming_cows]

There is a date in the page source (which doesn't conform to the stated HTML 4.01 Transitional doctype along with other random attributes given to various elements, by the way):

<st1:date Month="11" Day="25" Year="2004">

I wonder what it's there for, as it is nowhere near accurate.

Re:In the page source....

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a date in the page source (which doesn't conform to the stated HTML 4.01 Transitional doctype along with other random attributes given to various elements, by the way):

<st1:date Month="11" Day="25" Year="2004">

Remember in XHTML you can declare <xmlns:st1> and then you're free to throw in any st1:foo tags and add st1:bar attributes to existing tags.

I haven't looked at their page myself, but if there's an xmlns definition then they're sort of OK, but against a HTML 4.01 doctype though.

Re:In the page source....

[Flaming_cows]

Remember in XHTML you can declare and then you're free to throw in any st1:foo tags and add st1:bar attributes to existing tags. I haven't looked at their page myself, but if there's an xmlns definition then they're sort of OK, but against a HTML 4.01 doctype though.

I know you can use an XMLNS element, but it's not XHTML and no XMLNS elements either.

Of course its on hold!

[Anonymous Coward]

... They are waiting for PearPC to finish up all of the CherryOS promised features first!

Re:Of course its on hold!

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it is on hold, they are being slashdotted !

Re:Of course its on hold!

[iCEBaLM]

This is actually quite true. There are non-public and unreleased patches for pearpc which include features for sound, etc. They are unreleased because of the potential for CherryOS to steal them and will continue to be private until such time as the CherryOS threat is negated.

Re:Of course its on hold!

[TravisWatkins]

Not true at all. There was a publically available patch for sound but it was horrible. Some have talked about starting work on it again but not much has happened with PearPC lately, period. It's only started looking like an active project again in the last few weeks.

Re:Of course its on hold!

[iCEBaLM]

The patches are unreleased and private, which is why you don't know about them.

Don't speak about things you don't know about.

Re:Of course its on hold!

[G-funk]

Anybody who keeps open source software at home on his peecee to stop other people from using it, really shouldn't be in the open source arena.

Re:Of course its on hold!

[TravisWatkins]

Am I supposed to believe that these people are lying to the -devel list about what they're really working on? The only ones that would know PearPC enough to implement sound support have all stated what they're working on. Unless some random person never seen before has been writing a patch without asking for any help with PearPC internals I don't see how this can be true. I'd be happy to be proven wrong though, it'd be nice to have sound so I can get a mac version of my software working.

Re:Of course its on hold!

[BlacKat]

Go read the pearpc.net website, you will see a five page thread from the author of the sound patch in the Development forum.

In this thread they state they have fixed the issues with said patch so it will work on the latest version of PearPC.

The problem before was timing issues with the JITC which caused serious issues with the sound quality.

The author (canadacow) also states the reason they have not release the new patch is because they feel Maui X-Stream will "steal" the code for use in CherryOS.

Re:Of course its on hold!

[Anonymous Coward]

I really don't know about this case, but it isn't all that uncommon in open source projects that somebody just comes up with a patch to implement some significant, non-trivial functionality.

The quality of such improvements is usually better when the person implementing them hasn't asked for any help. When all of the source code is available, a good enough programmer shouldn't need to ask for help.

Cherry O's

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news
Cherry OS has decided to restructure and rename their company/product, in response to a possible lawsuit.

Their new name is no Cherry O's, and they well now be selling breakfast cereal.

Later that day Kellogg's has announced they are seeking to sue Cherry O's claiming that the company "Just slapped a sticker on our boxes of Apple Jacks"

A Cherry O's spokesman was quoted in saying "I don't know what the problem is, we both use the cereal language."

Re:Cherry O's

[rhendershot]

at the risk of a karma hit... mod parent up. that is FUNNY. IMO.

Re:Cherry O's

[alexwt]

God, that is funny.

Re:Cherry O's

[gr3g]

This is of course even funnier considering that Cheerios used to be Cheery oats. But they got sued by quaker oats and had to change their name.
Cheerios history

Hope this goes to court

[rve]

It would be an interesting test case to see if the GPL can hold up in court. My guess is that it wouldn't in the real world (money vs. no-money), but the evidence seems to be pretty hard to sweep aside in this particular case.

Re:Hope this goes to court

[phoenix.bam!]

The nice thing about the GPL not holding up in court is that all code released under the GPL will not become part of the public domain. Therefore any company trying to profit from GPL code cannot claim the GPL is invalid and use the code. The GPL is the only thing that makes the code legal to distribute.

Re:Hope this goes to court

[Anonymous Coward]

Ehm, even if this case doesn't go to court, but cherry os complies with the GPL, wouldn't it be a strong indication, that the GPL is valid?

And though a lot of people still seem to think it, the GPL never having been tested in court doesn't show that it is invalid, on the contrary, there have been quite a few cases where companies didn't adhere to the GPL and then gave in when confronted.

They surely wouldn't have done that, had their lawyers thought the GPL wasn't valid.

Re:Hope this goes to court

[Anonymous Coward]

> Ehm, even if this case doesn't go to court, but cherry os complies with the GPL, wouldn't it be a strong indication, that the GPL is valid?

Not really. It's pretty clear copyright plagarism, regardless of the license. Probably a fair number of misleading claims to throw in, if not outright misrepresentation as well. The terms of the license don't even need to enter in to it, except to compound the charges, but even BSD-licensed code could make that claim. You just can't claim other peoples work as your own.

Re:Hope this goes to court

[Dhalka226]

Ehm, even if this case doesn't go to court, but cherry os complies with the GPL, wouldn't it be a strong indication, that the GPL is valid?

Logically? Yes. Legally? No. Legally, all it means is that they either think it is valid (as you state later) or think it a cheaper solution to simply adhere than fight a court battle even if they are likely to prevail in that fight.

That is why people want the GPL to actually go to court. Once a decision is issued about it in a court case, there is a binding legal precedent.

That said, however, aside from not being tested I'm not sure why anybody would think that the GPL would not stand up in court. If I require people to fly over here, meet me and do a gymnastics routine before using my code, so what? It's not likely to be done, but then they can just find some code with a less restrictive license if they are unhappy.

Re:Hope this goes to court

[Anonymous Coward]

In regards to copyright infringement, I don't think it matters whether or not the GPL is valid - if it's valid, they've violated it and they lose. If it's invalid then they don't have rights to the code anyway so they lose. IANAL but only thing they can defend themselves with is that the so-called "viral" (leaving code open etc) sections of the GPL are invalid but the license allowing them to distribute the code is valid, but like I said IANAL so don't know how that would work at all (is a license still valid if a part of it is invalid?).

However, if the GPL is found completely invalid, then presumably company "X" which has released code under the GPL could sue people using their code as with the GPL invalid would mean that they are guilty of copyright infringement, as they don't have a valid license to distribute the code.

Re:Hope this goes to court

[moeffju]

Not public domain! If the GPL is seen as invalid, then normal copyright still applies, so people would not have a license to use the code.

Re:I have to laugh ...

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what color is the sky in your world, Bill?

Off-topic curiosity...

[aztektum]

And since we know CherryOS is crap, I thought I'd ask a question related to emulation as a whole. I'm not very "up" on PearPC or OS emulation at all...

At some stage would it be possible to run OS X through a Linux back end w/o having X or a Linux DE running at all?

What I'm saying is, could it evolve to where you boot right into OSX? Or does it have to run in a window (like the screenshots show)?

Re:Off-topic curiosity...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah - I think there is an SDL layer for PearPC..and performance in latest CVS isn't that bad.

Re:Off-topic curiosity...

[springbox]

It's an emulator much like QEMU is. PearPC emulates a PowerPC based machine including the processor and some of the important hardware.

There's no way to boot into another operating system from Linux like you are suggesting unless you play around with the kernel's source. And even so, if you don't want a virtual environment to play in, why not just go for the real thing?

So yes, you're "stuck" with having to run the application in X and emulating it on the host system.

Re:Off-topic curiosity...

[mlk]

You could build a very small linux/X install (from memory the core OS + X is way under 50 Meg, and its boot time would be almost instant on modern hardware. Then have a full screen PearPC as your next line in your X config file.

However, in order to get reasonable spead, expect to pay a small fortune for a machine, thus negating the point of using it.

Re:Off-topic curiosity...

[adiposity]

softpear

why under an APPLE group/heading

[pbjones]

Why is this under a an APPLE heading? It's Window/Linux/Know your rights/GPL.

The issue in NOT with the emulation of a PPC systems that can run LINUX too, it is an issue about theft!

Re:why under an APPLE group/heading

[Anonymous Coward]

welllllllllllll.... PearPC runs on G4/5 Apples too, you know....

Re:why under an APPLE group/heading

[Thijs van As]

Why under an Apple heading?
CherryOS claims to be an OS X emulator for the PC platform.

Re:why under an APPLE group/heading

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you mean copyright infringement?

Re:why under an APPLE group/heading

[pbjones]

No, CherryOS claims to be a G4 PPC emulator, not an OSX emulator.

Potentially pending?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they give a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry?

Isn't it rather obvious?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it just because there are tonns of people who are dying to get OS X running on their PC,

uh no. It gets a ton of press because they are accused of violating the terms of the GPL and so far there have been scarce legal challenges to the GPL. It's a story about OSS and the GPL and how/if these concepts stand up in a court of law (if it gets that far). There are also the obvious ethical implications within the developer community.

Why do we care?

[Jozer99]

Why does everyone still care? It became incredibly obvious about 2 weeks after the first beta came out that it was simply an alternative GUI for PearPC. Knowing that, people should have stopped paying attention to it except for noting that it is another instance of someone abusing open source code and EULAs. You don't think that they would/could ever release a full version of their product, sell it for money, and live up to the performace claims?

Re:Why do we care?

[QuantumG]

An EULA has a different legal standing to a software license. It's a contract between the copyright owner and the user. As well as granting permission to copy the software for specific purposes, an EULA typically forces the user to agree with contractual conditions beyond the scope of copyright (for example, what you may use the software to do, or whether you are permitted to write a unfavourable review of the software). So, although a number of people present the GPL as a click-through-license, it's not really an EULA as it contains only the permission to do something the user would otherwise not be free to do: copy the software.

Re:Why do we care?

[jdavidb]

Well, I care because I think it's funny. The idea that we should ignore them and not give them attention does carry some weight with me, but I'm not concerned that giving them attention is going to do any serious damage. I wouldn't think the attention would result in actual sales of their product, which could be the only damage I could see, but if it did, I'd still blame the purchaser for not doing some research.

It's kind of a "do we feed the trolls for entertainment, or ignore them and hope they go away" sort of question. Valid points on both sides; some of us want them to go away, while some of us want a good laugh.

Re:Why do we care?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some more stupid sites have shown this on their "news" without any criticism of the code stealing. Heck, Leo Laporte told a person on call for help that it may be a good alternative if Pear PC is too slow. He seemed oblivious to the whole scandal.

It's good to get it out there.

Re:Why do we care?

[entrigant]

And what good is the gpl if evertime someone abuses it we ignore them?

Re:Why do we care?

[Anonymous Coward]

sell it for money

They were.

and live up to the performace claims?

You're right -- that would be impossible.

"Cherry" and "pulled out" in same sentence

[KingFatty]

Heheh, you used "cherry" and "pulled out" in the same sentence. You dirty, dirty bird.

Nope!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't get in your "Apple is sooo cool and everybody wants to run OSX" frency just now.

While the coolness of OSX certainly played a part in the very initial coverage about cherry OS (as in, cool, it promises to let me run OSX on my box at acceptable speed), the main reason it gets so much coverage now, is that cherry OS is such a blatant and obvious rip off, of an open source project.
On top of that, this is one of the cases where the ripped off OS coders actually take legal action and strike back, which of course makes it all the more interesting to anyone interested in free software.

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice trick by cherryos. Trying to implant "proof" that they put cherryos on "hold" at an earlier date than it actually happenned.

Can anyone help?

[teamhasnoi]

I'm trying to run the mac port of Doom3 on OS 10.3.8 under CherryOS running on Virtual PC on OS 9.2.1 running on Pear PC using OS X 10.2.4 under Guest PC running BeOS on my G3 Beige Mac.

All I'm getting is a black screen. Is there something wrong, or am I playing the game already?

Re:Can anyone help?

[Anonymous Coward]

on my G3 Beige Mac.
BS! Everyone knows Macs aren't beige!

Re:Can anyone help?

[Anonymous Coward]

Leave a white one in sunlight long enough and it will be.

Re:Can anyone help?

[Touisteur]

you mean you have something similar to this ?

http://www.go-mono.com/images/ikvm-screenshot.png

Oh my ! Perhaps you need to run linux on windows (thanks to cygwin) to launch Java on Mono (Ikvm) and then trying to launch eclipse first.

I don't know. I think it isn't hopeless to try It. But, sure, you won't run Q3. Only the "sort of" uber optimized Q2 Java version. Sorry. And for information, Apple won't ship iQuake.

Re:Can anyone help?

[Glowing Fish]

I think you need to rewrite your dynamic memory modules so they don't get corrupted by the electron oscillation in the cross-channelled capacitors.
The problem is, all these operating systems use different sizes of electrons. You have to use a virtual compiler to reinstate the Java Virtual Machine on an ISA Port, and that will enable your electrons to recalibrate.
As you know, the monitor works with an electron gun. Your different size electrons are probably hitting the monitor at the same time, and the wave function is collapsing on the epsilon-null equation and causing them to cancel out.

Re:Can anyone help?

[northcat]

Nah, it's just Doom 3. The game is really dark.

Re:Can anyone help?

[tb3]

I asked a similar question of the Connectix guys a few years ago? It was something like: "If I ran Ram-Doubler on my Mac, then Virtual PC, then RAM-Doubler for the PC on the Virtual PC, how much RAM would I get?"
Their eyes crossed and they started babbling...

Re:Can anyone help?

[myov]

Doom3 is a classic application. Start classic in 10.3.8.

Re:Can anyone help?

[DennisZeMenace]

All I'm getting is a black screen. Is there something wrong, or am I playing the game already?

A black screen ? You're definitely playing the game already.

Re:Can anyone help?

[dwightk]

sounds like you are getting pretty good fps already...
you just need to get you your flashlight...

Re:Can anyone help?

[rhennigan]

Sounds like it's working to me. You're just getting one frame every 16 and a half years or so and the title screen hasn't loaded yet. Have fun playing!

Re:Can anyone help?

[lifespan]

Congrats. You're in the game! Just keep running and you'll eventually find a torch...

Legitimate question: what's the opposing argument?

[Dejohn]

There are two sides to every story. It's clear that the Slashdot crows believes the publisher of CherryOS should burn in hell, but what is his story/argument? Surely he didn't think that he could get away with a clear violation of the GPL, claim all ownership and intellectual property of CherryOS, sell it, make millions, and not get anyone suspicious. Is he thinking that he's doing an allowable fork and then selling some slightly modified version with support or something?

Thank you thank you thank you

[Lifewish]

I've been trying to get this habit of thought into people's heads for ages - glad to see it's not just me.

Now if only we can convince the **AA

Just wanted to say thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your TV I stole last night really fetched a nice price on ebay today.

Copyright more relevant than the GPL

[PornMaster]

In this instance, I think copyright violation would take precedence over the GPL, and since it's a clear violation of copyright... that the GPL aspect of things wouldn't even come into play in court.

Plagiarism

[tepples]

[Copyright infringement that identifies the author and copyright infringement that does not identify the author are] the same thing ethically speaking.

Not necessarily. There's copyright infringement (violating a government-granted monopoly), and then there's plagiarism (not identifying the author). European "moral rights" make plagiarism an offence per se, while the United States handles plagiarism under the "passing off" provisions of trademark law and under 17 USC 1202 of copyright law.

Cherry OS Press Contact

[Anonymous Coward]

From a former press release: Jim Kartes, 866-661-5699 jim@vx30.com From VX30.com: Maui X-Stream, Inc. 1068 Limahana Pl Suite #5 Lahaina Hi, USA 96761 Phone: 1 (808) 661-5699 Fax: 1 (808) 667-7002

Re:Cherry OS Press Contact

[Propaghandi]

Hmm... I think we have a new location for the Hubble de-orbit! BAM! (or what Emeril says during orgasm)

what it might be...

[rogabean]

1. They realize now they are not going to get away with it.
or
2. They still think they can, but they need more time to hide code. Obviously they didn't do a good enough job. LOL
or
3. Lawyers scared them.

Then again I don't know. I've refocused myself on PearPC and helping with it. I could care less anymore what these monkeys do anymore. Let the lawyers sort this one out.

Wait for it...

[M.C. Hampster]

So goes the latest twist in the CherryOS saga: the most probable end to clear OSS theft and a massive stint of publicity whoring.

Waaa, waaa! It's not theft it's copyright infringement. Waaa, waaa!

Re:Wait for it...

[Paradise Pete]

Waaa, waaa! It's not theft it's copyright infringement. Waaa, waaa!

They are not merely making a copy. They are claiming it as their own creation. Surely you can see the difference.

Re:Wait for it...

[M.C. Hampster]

They are not merely making a copy. They are claiming it as their own creation. Surely you can see the difference.

There is a difference, but it doesn't mean what they are doing is theft, or that it is anymore theft than making copies of content/software you don't own.

When one makes the statement that people who copy movies/music/software aren't "stealing" because they are making a copy of existing code and the original content authors are not out anything (because they still have their original copy), they are making the distinction that it only becomes theft if you remove the original from the hands of the owner. In this case, the PearPC guys still have all of their own original code. They aren't "out" anything except possibly for the credit of their original work. How are they "losing" out on anything by the CherryOS guys copying their code? If you say they are out potential revenues from selling their code, then you are acknowledging that the ??AA has a point, aren't you?

In both cases, people are releasing their intellectual property to the world under certain conditions. In one case, they say you can use the property however you want, you just can't give copies of it to other people. In the other, they say you can use the property however you want, and you can give it to other people, but only if you also do it in it's original form (source code). Both parties have the right to put whatever conditions they wish on redistribution, no?

Re:Wait for it...

[covertbadger]

I see where you're going with this, but it isn't quite the same. CherryOS aren't just redistributing the code, they're packaging it as their own and profiting from it. If you want to use a music analogy, it's like someone downloading a couple of Metallica (to pick an anti-sharing band) albums, burning them to CD, printing out their own sleeve, and selling it as their own work. Make no mistake, I can't stand people that download and distribute thousands of MP3s of tracks they haven't paid for, but this is much more insidious.

Re:Wait for it...

[bnenning]

It's not theft it's copyright infringement.

That's true, although in this case it's also commercial fraud.

Re:Wait for it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow you're an idiot.

His point was that it isn't THEFT. Theft involved deprivation of physical property. This is fraud, it's copyright infringement, it's underhanded and slimey, but it's not theft.

That's his point.

Re:Wait for it...

[AstroDrabb]

I think you are looking at it wrong. If I took a song/movie/album that I had no rights to and sold it as my work _for_ profit, then yes, the RIAA/MPAA would have a very valid case/point. Now if I took a CD I PURCHASED and ripped it to OGG/MP3 for safe keeping, than IMO the MPAA/RIAA have no case/point. However the RIAA/MPAA _are_ trying to prevent me/you from being able to just backup content I/you legally purchased. I have no problem with the MPAA/RIAA trying to prevent people from doing massive uploading. However, the hole MPAA/RIAA argument doesn't even compare to this issue.

PearPC is an OPEN product that you can get for free/libre as well as Free/Speech. I can go get the code from PearPC right now and distribute it, change it, etc. There are very little rules wrt the PearPC code. The main rule is that if you modify any of the PearPC code, that new code also must be under the same license. These CherryOS guys are flippin their middle finger at that.

The only way your MPAA/RIAA argument would be even close would be if the MPAA/RIAA allowed free distribution of _all_ their content and had only the requirement that if someone modified their content, that new content would be covered by the same license. Please, shoot me an email the day the MPAA/RIAA make that policy change!

Re:Wait for it...

[Anonymous Coward]

(Assuming you are complaining about the people pointing out the difference).

It's very simple. Stop twisting words to evoke an emotional response, and you'll stop getting the emotional response. There are two perfectly good, unambiguous, completely correct terms for what these people are doing - copyright infringement and plagiarism. If you use the word theft, you're going to provoke people for no good reason.

Re:Wait for it...

[Krach42]

Us PearPC authors are out of all the changes that they have made to the code, and thus are shorted by the information or possible existance of benefits to our code that they may have made to their code.

By terms of our license, whatever you build upon our code must be released to the public, so that we all may benefit from your better code, and you can't just horde away your own special upgrades, and sell it out.

We *are* deprived of something. It's just not monetary. It's improvements to the code. Which is the only damn thing we were even asking for in the first place, and they didn't want to comply with even that.

I mean, come on, how much of a jerk do you have to be to steal something that's free!?

Re:Wait for it...

[GoRK]

By terms of our license, whatever you build upon our code must be released to the public, so that we all may benefit from your better code, and you can't just horde away your own special upgrades, and sell it out.

Well while the end result -- that they must offer up the source code publiclly -- is probably true, the reason is not. If you write code for PearPC and license it under the GPL, you really ought to understand your license better than this. If you don't like it, you should use a different license.

If indeed CherryOS were to start selling their product, they would be obligated to provide source code to their customers who purchase the product; however, they are required by the GPL to provide source to anyone who receives their product, so if they ever offered up a demo version publiclly, then they'd be obligated to provide the source code to whoever received the demo. Note also that they are even allowed to charge a nominal fee for the transfer of the source copy. Since they have, at one time or another either sold the product or given it away, they are obliged to release the source code on request from the parties who received the software.

This is an interesting sort of 'loophole' in the GPL (v2) that has been discussed here and elsewhere many times. Maui X stream, if they actually had any technical capability, could beef up PearPC to monumental proportions, make it run at 200% host speed, etc. and never have to release any source code at all if they never sold or gave away their product.

So, the end result is that if you gave MXS $50 and got a binary of cherryos, and cherryos is derived from the GPL PearPC, then you are indeed entitled to source. Go get it, then feel free to make it available publiclly; please!

Re:Wait for it...

[Luke-Jr]

Actually, this could easily be considered theft because the original authors are being deprived of the credit they earned by writing the code.

Just because you thought of something and told PersonX about it doesn't give you the right to tell PersonX what they can or cannot do. Everyone has a natural right to modify and redistribute information that is technically impossible to violate no matter how much it is surpressed.

Re:Wait for it...

[Krach42]

I *have* read the license, and everything you say is true. But also be aware that CherryOS came out in *OCTOBER* and we did not do anything until *MARCH* when they released the code to the public.

I, and the other developers are keenly aware of the nature of the GPL, and what our rights and obligations are. But fact is, that if Maui X-Stream is claiming that it's not even PearPC code, then they're not going to be respecting the GPL. (If you're complying with the GPL, then why even claim that you wrote it yourself?)

We're upset, because we've recieved a demo copy of the program, and contacted them and told them to comply with the GPL, and their response is: "CherryOS is not a derivative work of PearPC."

They *are* violating the GPL, and if they weren't, and made serious and honest improvments to the code, I would seriously consider purchasing the binaries, and using that code (which is GPL licensed by necessity) to the benefit of PearPC.

But MXS is denying that CherryOS is even based on PearPC, and that it contains absolutely no code from PearPC. This is *wrong*. But to get back on topic, I *do* know what the GPL stiputlates, and what my and their requirements, and allowances, and rights are. This is why we did not do anything while it was a private demo (internal use, and also limited exposure out to some press sources), because we had no right to claim that they were breaking the GPL... just that they were claiming it was not PearPC, when it obviously was. But still, we had no right at that time to do anything.

Re:Wait for it...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they are taking the code and saying it is theirs. THAT IS theft. You no longer own the code. Copyright infringement is copying and that is all. The work still is owned by the originator and you aren't saying otherwise.

Copyright infringement AND theft.

Re:Wait for it...

[master_p]

However the RIAA/MPAA _are_ trying to prevent me/you from being able to just backup content I/you legally purchased

If we would be honest, we would admit that the backup argument was brought forward during the previous decade as an excuse for copying stuff. That the backup somehow ended in our cousin's hands, and in our cousin friends' hands, was entirely a 'coincidence'...

Re:Wait for it...

[I'm Don Giovanni]

LOL
It's amusing to see some of you twist yourselves in logical knots trying to rationalize the notion that this Cherry OS business involves "theft" while downloading warez does not.

Bust this:
1. Both are copyright infringement.

2. According to the dictionary definition of steal, "To take OR appropriate without right or leave, with intent to keep OR make use of wrongfully", both acts can be categorized as "stealing".

3. Even if they do not fall under the category of "theft", both are wrongs, and fall into at least one of the classic wrongs of lie, cheat, and steal.

4. For those that refuse to categorize downloading illegal warez as "theft", feel free to look upon it as "cheating" instead. Does that make you feel better about your illegal warez?

Re:Wait for it...

[SillyNickName4me]

> If we would be honest, we would admit that the backup argument was brought forward during the previous decade as an excuse for copying stuff. That the backup somehow ended in our cousin's hands, and in our cousin friends' hands, was entirely a 'coincidence'...

Maybe true for you, definitely not true for me.
When I buy a CD (yeah, I am one of those exceptional people who does that every now and then), I make a copy that I use and I store the original in a safe place. I suggest you speak for yourself here and not for others.

Also keep in mind that even in the USA, you pay a levy on recordable CDs to compensate for making a copy. Either that levy goes, or the RIAA explicitly allows backups and stops standing in the way of it, they actually get money because of it!

Re:Wait for it...

[M.C. Hampster]

We *are* deprived of something. It's just not monetary. It's improvements to the code.

As I've said, if you make the argument that "theft" has taken place because you are deprived of something that you normally feel you would have had, then you can make that same argument with people who "steal" music and movies.

But you might say, these people wouldn't have purchased the music or movies anyway! So the recording studios aren't out anything! Well, do you honestly think that these scumbags working on CherryOS would have made any changes/improvements ot the code if they were to abide by the GPL?

Re:Wait for it...

[M.C. Hampster]

Actually, this could easily be considered theft because the original authors are being deprived of the credit they earned by writing the code.

The argument is made consistently on Slashdot that theft is the physical removal of someone elses property. It means they no longer have their original property. If you want to make the argument that they are being "deprived" of something that legally they have the right to (through the GPL), then it is quite easy to say that the record and movie companies are being "deprived" of the revenue they should be receiving for those who copy their content.

Re:Wait for it...

[SillyNickName4me]

> The argument is made consistently on Slashdot that theft is the physical removal of someone elses property. It means they no longer have their original property.

That argument is always part of a discussion where people consistently claim otherwise. Attributing a consistent opinion to a few million people is silly.

Re:Wait for it...

[M.C. Hampster]

That argument is always part of a discussion where people consistently claim otherwise. Attributing a consistent opinion to a few million people is silly.

Making points that have nothing to do with the conversation is much more silly, don't you think? I didn't make the claim that everyone on Slashdot thinks the same thing. I'm making the point that if one is going to say that copying content you don't have the rights to and breaking license agreements is not theft when it comes to music and movies, then it becomes difficult to argue such when it comes to GPL'ed software.

Re:Wait for it...

[SillyNickName4me]

> Making points that have nothing to do with the conversation is much more silly, don't you think? I didn't make the claim that everyone on Slashdot thinks the same thing. I'm making the point that if one is going to say that copying content you don't have the rights to and breaking license agreements is not theft when it comes to music and movies, then it becomes difficult to argue such when it comes to GPL'ed software.

You were claiming that people on slashdot make the argument consistently, and I was pointing out that they as consistently make the opposing argument. That relates directly to your initial claim.

Just in case you dont understand, the people calling this theft now could for all you know be the same people who call downloading music theft.

Re:Wait for it...

[M.C. Hampster]

Just in case you dont understand, the people calling this theft now could for all you know be the same people who call downloading music theft.

Oh please. Take a look at the rest of the conversation where I discuss the issue with people who are trying to make the distinction.

Exactly what are you trying to accomplish here?

Re:Wait for it...

[AstroDrabb]

I think it is time you take "Reading 101". Exactly where in my post did I say it was OK to download warez?

Re:Wait for it...

[AstroDrabb]

That is not the case at all for me, maybe it is for you though. An example, I recently purchased a Disney DVD for my daughter. My daughter got a hold of the DVD when I wasn't looking and there is now a scratch on it the prevents the full movie from playing. So my only choice is to go and buy another DVD. Since then I back up all media I buy and I will continue to do so until the media become more durable.

The other reason I back up is to be able to watch movies on my terms. For example, another Disney DVD I purchased for my daughter _requires_ you to watch stupid commercials. Hitting the menu button just gives you a "sorry chump" message. So when I was backing up the DVD, I removed all the commercials and DRM crap so now when I put in the DVD, I can actually watch the thing without sitting through 5 minutes of commercials.

Re:Wait for it...

[Luke-Jr]

Except that copying information is a natural right. Plagerism isn't.

Re:Wait for it...

[Krach42]

Did I ever personally claim that copying software and music were not wrong and illegal?

I entirely agree that they are wrong and illegal. I do not promote copyright theft, and I do not distribute nor obtain music or movies illegally.

My friends laugh at me because I buy DVDs, why? Because they're not paying for them, and they call me a sucker. I tell them, "Yes, well, I'm not stealing."

Mod up

[Anonymous Coward]

PearPC is a POWERPC emulator, as opposed to a Mac OS (Apple) emulator. This is an important distinction: the Mac OS X license prohibits its installation on non-Apple hardware.

That said, this is akin to putting news about Kazaa under a "piracy" header: everyone knows that's all it's useful for in the real world.

AHHHH... If I Recall Correctly...

[cbreaker]

IIRC, you said IIRC four times in one paragraph. IIRC that's just too much, if IIRC from school. We don't need to know IIRC, because IIRW, someone will correct me, IIRC how Slashdot works.

Re:AHHHH... If I Recall Correctly...

[NetNifty]

IIRC its because I have bad memory. IIRC anyway.

Re:AHHHH... If I Recall Correctly...

[X0563511]

What does IIRC stand for anyways?

Re:AHHHH... If I Recall Correctly...

[cbreaker]

That's a joke, right?

Re:AHHHH... If I Recall Correctly...

[X0563511]

Nope. I've seen it hundreds of times, but never used it because i didn't know what it meant.

Re:AHHHH... If I Recall Correctly...

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the subject of your own post out loud...

Re:AHHHH... If I Recall Correctly...

[alc6379]

IIRC, it stands for "In Internet Relay Chat". It's what old timers tell these new GAIM/AIM/MSN/ICQ lusers about the good old days:

Avatars? Hell, son! IIRC, we used ANSI color codes to color our nicknames! Those were are avatars! Not that it mattered much anyways, when you were logging on with a WYSE dumb terminal-- your "avatar" was green no matter what!

Re:AHHHH... If I Recall Correctly...

[X0563511]

Wow. Holy not thinking Batman!

Now I feel like a moron!

Worst case: GPL 2 loses its copyleft properties

[tepples]

The actual worst case is that a court finds the GPL equivalent to the X11 license, an all-permissive license under copyright. Second worst case is that a court finds the GPL equivalent to the LGPL, a weak-copyleft license. In all other cases, copyleft survives for those programs licensed under "GNU GPL version 2 or later" once FSF finishes GPL 3.

Re:Legitimate question: what's the opposing argume

[Eternally optimistic]

Surely he didn't think that he could get away with a clear violation of the GPL, claim all ownership and intellectual property of CherryOS, sell it, make millions, and not get anyone suspicious. Why would he not be thinking that? If it's a legitimate fork, he would not be claiming that he wrote it.
Why do authors plagiarize literature, or painters copy Van Gogh? Because they think they will find customers who don't know the difference, or who don't care.

VX30

[eventhorizon5]

You also have to remember that this company's primary product, the VX30 video codec system, has been suspected (and somewhat proved) to have taken code from other open source projects too - they admitted to taking code from JOrbis (and they're still in violation of the LGPL with that), and it's suspected that they also used XVid and maybe LAME.

My whole info archive (with demo releases of CherryOS, VX30, etc) are all at
http://www.tliquest.net/ryan/cherryos

-eventhorizon

Re:VX30

[eventhorizon5]

Also a third product they have called PdfConv (hosted on their one-product "store" at http://www.mbloom.com/) was entirely taken from VeryPDF's PDF2HTML code, and some effort by PearPC developers was required to make MXS release the source for that. The problem though was that the source they released was entirely stripped of all VeryPDF's copyrights and authorship acknowledgements, and only contained one small reference to them on the webpage (just referencing "VeryPDF" - no links or anything). So even their source is in violation with the GPL (since all previous copyrights must remain intact) - I think they also stripped the XPdf copyrights (VeryPDF's PDF2HTML was based on XPdf).

I found only one reference in the code to verypdf:

---
ryan@europa:/data/home/ryan/xpdf$ grep -ir verypdf pdfconv
pdfconv/src/MyReg.cpp: "Dear verypdf.com Inc:%0a"
---

Here's the diff file I made between VeryPDF's PDF2HTML code and Arben's PdfConv source:
http://www.tliquest.net/ryan/cherryos/other/pdfcon v.patch
That diff is proof enough. So with the way they treat the GPL, it seems as if everything they make is dirty.

-eventhorizon

Re:VX30

[eventhorizon5]

VX30 has XVid code in it. I'm analyzing a memory dump of VX30's encoder demo app (the program's been packed using Petite. I'm about to upload screenshots of it, and also the memory dump itself (I'll analyze the second app too fairly soon) - the dump is 90mb and I'll try to compress it as much as I can.
The new stuff will be in http://www.tliquest.net/ryan/cherryos/vx30/ in a few minutes.

-eventhorizon

Re:VX30

[eventhorizon5]

Just found Mplayer code and text references to Mplayer's CVS pages in the VX30 Live app...
This is making me sick.
http://www.tliquest.net/ryan/cherryos/vx30/analysi s/vx30_live/

-eventhorizon

Re:VX30

[eventhorizon5]

Correction to that last post - It's MplayerC code, not Mplayer (MplayerC is an open-source Windows media player)

-eventhorizon

Sorry Sir

[pinchhazard]

I make a funny joke about popping a cherry, and it gets modded down as flamebait. Such is life.

Your joke was hell of weak. It's just that there's no (-1, Lame) mod. Yes, I'm afraid this means you'll have to re-examine your self image.

Re:Sorry Sir

[Anonymous Coward]

Your joke was hell of weak. It's just that there's no (-1, Lame) mod. Yes, I'm afraid this means you'll have to re-examine your self image.

Besides, i've never met a virgin at a Star Trek convention.

Hey bonch!

[Anonymous Coward]

We need your insightful wit and wisdom over here! Where the hell are ya? This thread is right up your...uh...alley...yeah, that's it.

"Theft" hypocrisy on /.

[Anonymous Coward]

Witness the classic /. double-standard. Piracy isn't theft, but CherryOS "stole" PearPC's source code. Pick a mindset and stick with it. Don't look selfish by sticking up for piracy as a non-theft but calling GPL code theft "stealing."

Re:"Theft" hypocrisy on /.

[Anonymous Coward]

the extent of fair use rights when copyoing music for friends vs strangers is indeed a valid dipute, on the other hand taking someone elses source (or song, or book), claiming that you wrote it, and SELLING IT is clearly theft. no confusion here

Re:"Theft" hypocrisy on /.

[Saeger]

Blatant plagiarism is a far worse offense than simple copyright infringement, you ass. Almost every(1) creator would agree on that.

1)Only the greediest of the greedy care less about their work being falsly credited to someone else than they do about potential DRM dollars from copyright artificial scarcity.

Small article grip

[Omnifarious]

Open Source is not opposed to commercial. Open Source is opposed to secret source, not commercial. There are definitely companies who's sole purpose is to make a profit on Open Source software. If that's not commercial, I don't know what is.

Copyright question

[wrast]

Ok, so if I decide to steal CherryOS and market it as GrapeOS, can CherryOS sue me? I can change some of the code to not look like theirs...

Re:Copyright question

[nsayer]

Ok, so if I decide to steal CherryOS and market it as GrapeOS, can CherryOS sue me?

They sure can. Just because they stole section A from someone else does not negate their rights over section B they wrote themselves.

The author (or copyright holder) of section A can sue them, but that's not saying the same thing.

The GPL says that in order to distribute section A they must distribute the source code for section B for free, but if they choose not to do that, it doesn't give you the right to distribute section B.

Of course, if the copyright holder of section A distributed section B under the terms of the GPL and then said "So sue me" to the author of section B and indemnified anyone they gave the code to, that would put the screws to the section B author - sort of "put up or shut up," as it were.

The hard part is getting the source code for section B without committing a felony.

You may have been joking when you replied, but it wasn't modded 'funny', so how might I have known? :-)

Of course, even if I were a lawyer, I wouldn't be your lawyer, so none of the above should be construed as legal advice.

Re:I have to laugh ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe you mean "SCO."

MOD UP

[WillerZ]

Parent appears to know what he's talking about. I know that's against the site rules, but I won't grass him up if you don't.

IT'S NOT ABOUT THEFT!

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's examine the Slashdot source code on piracy.

if(piracy)
{
if(gplCode)
printf("It's theft! Sue them!\n");
else
printf("It's a freedom movement against intellectual property.\n");
}

Source Date

[UrlFlynn]

Interesting that the date on the page source is from 11/25/04... Have they been contemplating this for 4 months?

Re:Source Date

[JoeGee]

I noticed that myself. I opened up the GIFs used on the site, couldn't find anything embedded in them. One does have to wonder how long they have had this page prepared?

Who is pissed off at the PearPC project?

-Joe G.

CherryOS is copyright infringement AND stealing

[WebCowboy]

Splitting hairs I guess, but this is my interpretation...

Distributing CherryOS against the terms set forth by the copyright holder is copyright infringement, not theft, because the copyright holder is still in posession of the original code. Therefore CherryOS code is NOT "stolen".

What IS stolen are the rights granted by the copyright holder. When you pirate closed software you "steal comparatively little because the copyright holder grante very few rights (it is still wrong nonetheless). When you pirate free software you steal away a lot more valuable rights.

Can you be "pirating free software"? Of course it can, although you do it is different. Both involve violating a license agreement though, and IMHO I think the law should treat piracy of any software equally, free or not.

CherryOS could be a knock-off of PearPC and could still be packaged and sold as is and it wouldn't be piracy because this wouldn't violate the licence of free software. However when you buy CherryOS as they planned to sell it you do not get everything you should. There is no source code on the disc, or on the website for download, or in printed form or anything--only binaries. Furthermore, even if you obtained the source your rights to modify and redistribute it are also being denied. Thus, the license is violated, your rights have been taken away--STOLEN--and all copies of CherryOS are pirated software just like all those copies of Photoshop people get using their favourite P2P app.

Who the hell cares

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL is invalid, its an illegal and immoral license and is non-enforcable. That is why I will never use Linux or any GPL software EVER. I would only use Solaris for any UNIX development I had to do.

Re:Who the hell cares

[NaruVonWilkins]

*laughing* It's immoral to give software away? Is it immoral to feed the poor, too?

Re:Who the hell cares

[Anonymous Coward]

This case has nothing to do really with the GPL. But rather copyright law with the PearPC code. They own the copyrights, regardless of the GPL.

I wish they would stop touting the GPL so much when talking about this case. Its a simple copyright infringment on PearPC's copyright of their code.

Re:Who the hell cares

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes

Re:Who the hell cares

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the insight, Scott. BTW, how's that deal with Bill going?

You got it wrong

[commodoresloat]

It's Netcraft that confirms things around here, not Netsniper.

Re:You got it wrong

[Jesus_666]

Oh come on, Netcraft is dead. Netsniper confirms it.

Oh Please.

[spiderworm]

If SCO can get the kind of funding they did for their campaign-o-crap, don't you think certain companies might step up and chip in a couple mil to help the GPL stand up in court?

Re:Oh Please.

[rve]

Money to pay lawyers is not what I mean. It could be argued that something released under GPL is actually in the public domain, and represents no (monetary) value, because no attempt is made to stop people obtaining, copying or using the source, and the author is not selling the product.

The only problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

is that BeOS doesn't run on a G3.

I got it

[inchhigh]

are we sure at this point that Jack Campbell doesn't run CherryOS?

SCO is getting involved, too.

[rice_burners_suck]

Hmmm... This was in yesterday's newspaper:

For immediate release:

SCO (NASDAQ: SCOX) today announced the aquisition of the rights to CherryOS, a proprietary software program that allows Wintel computers to execute Apple codes. This software permits users of Microsoft Windows XP and Microsoft Windows Server 2003 to run applications made for Apple Mac OS X.

And then this was in the paper today:

For immediate release:

SCO (NASDAQ: SCOX) today announced that it is filing a lawsuit against computer hackers involved in a project known as PearPC. The lawsuit names specific individuals whom SCO alleges stole proprietary SCO codes from SCO's CherryOS and illegally placed them into PearPC. SCO is seeking special remedies for what it calls "unrecoverable damages" caused by PearPC's theft of SCO's valuable proprietary intellectual property.

I wonder what will happen next... I guess this means no more running OSX on my Dell... Oh well. Lost another one to Darl.

Re:SCO is getting involved, too.

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh huh, any sources on this one? I'm sure a ton of press releases use terms like Wintel and proprietary SCO codes.

Re:SCO is getting involved, too.

[jack_csk]

Last time I check, SCOX is known as SCOXE

Re:SCO is getting involved, too.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The SCO Group, Inc. Completes Restatement of Financial Statements and Files Form 10-K
PR Newswire (Fri, Apr 1)"

I bet they've chosen the date on purpose. You've got to be the April's fool to actually believe these records.

Re:Legitimate question: what's the opposing argume

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that's pretty much exactly what they *did* do.

It's kind of like SCO claiming that Linus isn't the father of Linux. It's just so unbelivably ridiculous that you're amazed.

The best bet is that they figured that (a) in the real world, closed source people infringe copyright and write infringing code all the time and (b) the GPL-using PearPC people didn't have any money, so they couldn't sue them.

Well, surprise, surprise.

Mod parent up

[Ohreally_factor]

Clarity and precision of language are very important, especially when discussing anything having to do with law.

Splitting words [Was: Re:Deserve]

[Lillesvin]

I'll just reply with a link to a post I did earlier on in this thread...

Here we go again

[M.C. Hampster]

My point is that neither action is theft, not that the actions are the same.

Re:Here we go again

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, limiting yourself to one sentence per post is a good idea if these morons are to understand.

Re:Legitimate question: what's the opposing argume

[Krach42]

Near as I can tell, he just thought he could get away with it.

That or he would be stupid.

Yes, BeOS on a G3

[BancBoy]

Designed to run on a G3, no. Doesn't run? Not true. Plenty of people with G3 upgrade cards in their machines still running BeOS to this day... http://www.lowendmac.com/backnforth/010430.html

Um... he didn't make it up

[JavaRob]

Check a dictionary. To steal is to take someone's property. All of the definitions are about taking and removing something, or something like "to commit theft". Theft is defined as "the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it."

You can steal a car, or steal something more abstract like liberty, or an election -- but in all cases, the victim is deprived of the item stolen. Even when you steal a base in baseball, the opposing team "gave up a base", right?

There's no definition of "steal" that says anything about duplicating and redistributing someone's property.

Don't muddy the issue of copyright violations with misused, inappropriate words.

Re:Um... he didn't make it up

[zalas]

I just checked the OED (well, the online version):

steal, v.

I. To take dishonestly or secretly.

e. esp. To plagiarize; to pass off (another's work) as one's own; to 'borrow' improperly (words, expressions). Also absol.

Re:Um... he didn't make it up

[JavaRob]

I just checked the OED (well, the online version):

steal, v.

I. To take dishonestly or secretly.

e. esp. To plagiarize; to pass off (another's work) as one's own; to 'borrow' improperly (words, expressions). Also absol.

The OED is great for learning about how a word has ever been used, but if you're interested in communicating with people, most of the definitions in the OED aren't much use.

Notice how the first definition (I think that's what you have there) is to *take* dishonestly or secretly. That's a far cry from "to take honestly and legally, and to give to others without the appropriate permission of the original giver".

I agree it can be debated, but I still think it's a big stretch of the word steal... especially when we have other perfectly good words (and less misleading) words that clearly describe the issue.

It's like using the word "cleave" in the sense of stick two things together, instead of the more familiar sense of to split something apart. Why do it? You're just confusing people. In the case of "steal", people want to use the word because of the instant negative connotation... in spite of the poor fit. That's disingenuous; just talk about the actual problem, instead of relying on gut reactions to sway them. That's the kind of %@&# politicians pull all the time.

Numbsckull

[Anonymous Coward]

It is theft in that not only is the right to copy infringed (infringement and NOT theft), but also CherryOS is saying "It is our code". If they are successful in making the code theirs, they will be able to sue PearPC for using their code.

See the difference?

I take a Metallica track and say I did it. I then get money and a lucrative contract to produce more work. When it turns out I lied, i now say "Metallica ripped me off". I HAVE stolen their work. Theft would be a lot easier if when asked you said "Yup, nicked that", but no, they say "I bought that". They claim ownership. THAT IS theft.

The money made is also possible considered fraud, though you'd need to persue that yourself unless you're important or wealthy (the police won't help if they can help it).

Re:Numbsckull

[Anonymous Coward]

If they are successful in making the code theirs, they will be able to sue PearPC for using their code.

IF that happened, then I would agree that it's theft. But a) that hasn't happened, and b) there's simply no mechanism for this happening under the law. What, you think that copyrights are transferred if somebody starts claiming it as their own? Great! I think I'll start claiming that I wrote Beatles' songs and get the copyrights transferred to me!

Turn about is fair play

[Anonymous Coward]

Copy the CherryOS CD, pack in a plani box and sell it as "CherryClone". They will have to prove that the code is theirs and their alone.

Abuse of copyrights can and will cause the loss of those rights.

How can it?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would require eminent domain to take away the copyrights by the court. It may be that the GPL will be unenforceable as a copyright conveyance and have clauses that fail legality, but then an EULA does exactly the same and that has been ruled as binding even if you didn't really agree. So the GPL wil lthen get the same enforceability as an EULA.

CherryOS still have no right to call the code their own.

Aint necessarily so

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Most of the code is not theirs, so they have no standing to sue
2) Abuse of copyrights can lose you the copyrights
3) You can stall it indefinitely by saying "this code is not theirs". They then have to prove it

I'm certainly willing to do this, but it is a US company. Flying over to the US is a bit expensive to shaft a wanker like this.

Re:Legitimate question: what's the opposing argume

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually people who think they can get away with such things are fairly common.

It's a similar mindset that spammers and other fraudsters have. "Make money any way you can get away with."

Re:Legitimate question: what's the opposing argume

[The Grassy Knoll]

>It's clear that the Slashdot crows believes...

Arrrk!