Slashdot Mirror
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."
Maybe holding the release because a sold copy of CherryOS would give PearPC's lawyers ammo for bigger damages?
Which reminds me, if your really want Mac OS, then just get the real thing.
Reminder: Apple owns 1/255th of the internet.
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.
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
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?
While i think it is wrong, it must say:
It is not stealing/piracy/buzzword of the week. It is copyright infrigment.
Freedom or George Bush
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.
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!
There was an unknown error in the submission.
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?
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.
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.
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.
ShortFormBlog: Writing a little. Saying a lot.
[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.
Waaa, waaa! It's not theft it's copyright infringement. Waaa, waaa!
Forget the whales - save the babies.
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.
What keeps me going is my inertia.
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?
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.
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?
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.
Clarity and precision of language are very important, especially when discussing anything having to do with law.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.