Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

CherryOS On Hold

Posted by Zonk on from the ripening-later-this-year dept.

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."

4 of 314 comments (clear)

  1. Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!

  2. In the page source.... by Flaming_cows · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.
  3. Re:Of course its on hold! by iCEBaLM · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  4. Re:Wait for it... by M.C.+Hampster · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

    --
    Forget the whales - save the babies.