Slashdot Mirror
CherryOS Goes Open Source
netsniper writes "The CherryOS website now acknowledges a forthcoming alliance with Open Source Software! After going 'on hold' recently, a re-release of CherryOS is purported to be coming in May according to the site. This is great news on the surface, but let's see how it pans out. This move is probably a result of the many reviews of their product that set out to prove it was bogus."
..that they are popping their Cherry?
Heh, first time I tried to load this story I got "Nothing for you to see here. Please move along." I can't help but wonder if the CherryOS people might make a similar statement in May when they're supposed to open the source.
"You're older than you've ever been, and now you're even older."
Oh please. Can this whole shenanigan just end already? By now, it's already been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that CherryOS is a repackaged version of PearPC (google for "spiro multimax 3000"). Arben and MXS are using absolutely any tactic to get attention. He must have a serious ego problem.
Take off every sig. For great justice.
It's easy. All they had to do in order to avoid all the bad press is to start out with it being Open Source. The GPL states that you can charge for a product, or do whatever you like with it, just as long as your provide the source code. And if you use source code from another project (PearPC), then you have to acknowledge it.
It was so simple and easy, I don't know why they didn't Open Source Cherry OS from the begining.
Due to Overwhelming Demand
Cherry Open Source Project
Launches 5.1.2005
If your friend lies to you, and then comes clean... you maybe forgive them, but you never really respect them all that much, because you know they can lie to your face.
CherryOS will never look that cool to any of us, because they only came clean because of being caught in a lie.
s/demand/threats of legal action/
It would be funny if the OSS release proved that it wasn't a rip-off of PearPC. Unlikely, but funny.
We stole your car! But don't worry, we'll only give it away, not sell it. I guess they read the GPL a little better and realized you lose rights by selling this.
I don't get it.
It seems like this is all just a delay tactic for CherryOS to get it's code in line. I'm surprised that they didn't stay on hold for a while longer to gain more time. As far as the "Due to Overwhelming Demand," that's ridiculous. The entire OSS community has been up in arms about their crap. This is just them trying not to get sued, although it would be hilarious if they were actually legit... no comments there
Due to financial difficulties, the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off.
I'm confused, PearPC is already open source...
*scratches head*
Oh well, I guess they finally realized, if you can't beat them, join them.
This whole CherryOS thing has been completely stupid. Why do people think they can slap a different name on something and sell it, when it's already free?
Ubuntu, the way linux should be.
Try Ubuntu FREE! --
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
Does this mean that CherryOS has already lost their license to use the source code from PearPC?
The developer of the Altivec emulation (the one who was collecting money for a lawsuit) has already revoked their rights to his code. Even if they try to open source they still have problems as they are now dealing with copyrighted code.
I for one wish to thank CherryOS developers for being so generous to give the fruits of their so hard work to the community.
Assume for a second that this was originally an ill-intentioned move to make money off the hard work of others. They shiny up OSS code and release it as their own, they try and sell it and are caught red-handed. They then try and go open-source but since the money won't be rolling in, they'll eventually just abandon the code. At least they'll have contributed some nice shininess to the OSS software project they stole from.
This move is probably a result of the many reviews of their product that set out to prove it was bogus.
1. Say Windows XP/Longhorn is bogus
2. Wait for them to release it as Open Source
3. ???
4. Profit!!!
This sig does not contain any SCO code.
They're only admitting it now.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Can they just open source their "project" now? Is it not too late? Hasn't several developers permanantly revoked the GPL license from CherryOS so they can never use their code?
In today's other top stories, Fox News just went liberal, and hired Al Gore as their director of programming. Michael Moore also decided to become a warblogger, and said he was wrong about everything he said about the Bush administration.
... and then they built the supercollider.
YES!
I can finally breathe again!
Never play chicken with a passive aggressive.
Lets hope the PearPC guy sue them and show them you don't mess with the GPL and get away with it!
Hope this goes better than Cherry Coke.
Underholdning.info
From cherryos.com:
Due to Overwhelming Demand
Cherry Open Source Project
Launches 5.1.2005
Still as shady and two-faced as ever! They announce it like they are such wonderful people and doing the world a favor by imparting great technology on the open-source world. I know of at least one software giant that would love these PR evangelists to work for them. If you ask me, they would gain immensely by quitting their current theatre bit and getting hired at a different company.
It smells more like a half-assed effort to calm down legal threats than anything.
The moment you see their words "popular demand" you know they're STILL trying to lie and get away with something.
If it's GPL this is actually legitimate. They're saying it's a code fork I guess...
Wow.
Months of FUD and a version of PearPC with a few superficial modifications! What a contribution to open source!
Somehow I doubt this will be a very successful fork, as the PearPC developers are probably not opposed to incorporating any real change.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
I bet you that their Open Source project will just be a part of CherryOS and not the whole application.
Ìt will ressemvle at a simple SDK so that software developers could somehow use some part of CherryOS.
If CherryOS was really programmed by XMS (Which I REALLY doubt), then a company would never just abandon a project like that. You don't abandon a program that you've used a lot of time and money to program.
Time will tell...
Time will tell...
The hip way to get your IP. No ads, ever.
They re-write the code that was borrowed from PearPC before it goes Open? Not only could they atleast still have a "business" to work with, but they're denying any proof that they did, infact copy PearPC and break the terms of the GPL.
Wouldn't this also allow them to get off scott-free in any court case? Or atleast have the court case dropped?
What is the Cherry OS?
Has that guy never heard of the strings command?
You're too late. April 1st was ages ago.....
Philip
Signatures are broken
Won't the Electronic Freedom Foundation help here? It's either them, or there's another group that fights for the coders of open source software when someone steals it and then sells it -- but I'm not sure if it's EFF or some other group.
Does it really matter to the common user that wants to run OSX on their windows box? I'm sure they're still going to charge for it. Most people don't know the difference between open and closed source software.
They tried to pull a fast one, the OS community caught them, and now, what are the consequences?
There are 01 types of people in this world. Those that understand binary, and me.
join them...
The following statement is true
The preceding statement is false
Looking into my crystal ball I see....... GPL v1.1
Thats one crappy crystal ball you've got there, Mystic Meg. The GPL is already at v2 and drafts of v3 are available.
The GPL is already at version 2, with 3 in the works.
What you ment to say was: "Cherry OS admits to using open source in their software and will comply with the terms of the GPL."
I think it would be great if someone buys "OFFICIALCHERRYOS.COM" (available) and forks their code and calls the new project "The Official CherryOS".
Their being a relative term.
Get your Unix fortune now!
Notice how they can abbreviate that to
Cherry O. S. Project
and thence to
Cherry OS Project
and thence to
CherryOS Project
and finally
CherryOS.
I gotta respect them -- they're not just a _bit_ slimy, they are slimier than Fungus the Bogeyman in a barrel of natto!
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
"Overwhelming Demand" Not being anal, but I don't think they were ever popular.
I think the correct date would be: 4.1.2005
No, I'm New Here
How can you steal it. They only copied and modified the source, no theft here.
Move along, the parent is nothing but a TROLL!
Can Cherry OS put that on their website? Because they've alledgedly packaged up GPL software and sold it as their own closed source software, would the FSF allow them to use one of their trademarks?
I am surprised by this behavior and chalk it up to what appears to me to be blatant disregard for GPL and the law.
...properly note dates cause 5.1.2005 is all wrong but I guess americans that cannot measure anything correctly cannot even write dates properly. Would be okay to write 5/1/2005 as anybody knows then it's the retarded american way, but this way it must be noted as dd.mm.yyyy like in any other civilized country.
They look stupid, is the consequence.
It's ok, hopefully they make money now and PearPC will improve from code improvements they provide.
That's all anybody wants in OSS.
Using a GNU logo does not says nothing. I will like to see a download source link. Otherwise they will add more ilegal activities for using the logo for non-free software.
Given that the current GPL version is 2, I think your crystal ball has serious math problems ... ;-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Goatse link, be careful
Ask 8 slackers a question, get 10 awnsers (a citation, but I can't remember from who)
It's going open source because it's always been open source. They finally hired a lawer and realized they arn;t going to be able to bullshit their way though it.
The first release will take many months after which they finally realease the code after they have cinluded many open source projects into their own code base.
Read, they never had their own code base and now they are co-opting what's alreadu out there and claiming they integrated it into their product.
It's the bastard child of lawyers and slimeballs.
Hasn't several developers permanantly revoked the GPL license from CherryOS so they can never use their code?
You can't simply revoke their license, the GPL has no provision for that (and thank God for that). They must be sued for violating the license terms (civil court), convicted and then their license is revoked. For everyone else it might be crystal clear but it is not legally settled before that. And then only for that work (not all GPL software), in that jurisdiction. Of course, if they keep going you can keep suing for more money.
As far as opening the code, "too late" for what? It does not in any way exempt you from being sued for damages and revocation of the license. It is a common settlement offer "open your code, and we'll call it settled", but is has no legal consequences by itself. No conviction would force them to open the code, just pay damages.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
OK, but can I get the source for Pear, call it BananaOS, rerelease it, and let Cherry use Banana instead? Seems like an endaround to me. Anything to prevent that?
What original source code would there be? A link to the PearPC site would accomplish exactly the same thing.
Legally, you're right, but to block distribution would go against the intent of the GPL which is to ensure that derivative works are themselves free software. As CherryOS have capitulated, it clearly serves that intent better to give them permission. This is, after all, a success for the GPL.
Wikileaks, no DNS
RTFL:
"4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License."
I guess the threat of legal action can be pretty "overwhelming."
Of course, they've already lost their rights to distribute under the GPL (once you've violated the GPL, you lose all distibution rights, even if you come clean), so the PearPC folks could still legally enjoin them from distributing even in open source form.
Assume the project starts up and hires some fly-by-night guy to design and build this system. He promises he can do it in four months for X amount of money.
This guy tries like hell to build the project, but gets stymied by some stuff. So he downloads PearPC and tries to figure out what he's doing wrong.
Eventually, he figures out that what he did wrong was promise something that nobody could deliver, so he panics and starts mucking around in PearPC to conceal its origin.
When the deadline hits, he sends them his "obfuscated" version of PearPC and collects his check. He runs off into the night hoping nobody ever finds out.
Meanwhile, the completely innocent company puts this project up for sale. The open source community raises hell. The company goes "OMG! WTF?" and yanks it off the market.
After some examination, the company decides that the only possible way to recover from this (according to their lawyers) is to GPL the project. Since it qualifies as a work made for hire, they own all the rights to the non-PearPC code, so they can license *that* however they like.
Just playing devil's advocate. Maybe the big bad company isn't the villain here; maybe it's just one crappy little ass-hat developer.
Microsoft cheerleader, blue flag waving, you got a problem with that?
AFAIK, this thing builds on beos, which was single-user only?
If there's no multi-user support, I'll just wait for Hurd instead.
It's merely a question of enforcement. Your license to the software under the GPL is terminated when you violate this term, so any further use that would require a license is now copyright infringement instead of licensed use. The question is whether you are going to get sued for the copyright infringement.
I tried PearPC when it first started making headlines. Or at least when I first started reading headlines about it. Anyway, it's setup was somewhat cumbersome and I abondoned the attempt before finishing. From what I've heard from those that have reviewed CherryOS to prove that it was really PearPC is that the only original code seems to be the installer. That CherryOS made the installation of PearPC incredibly easier. My opinion is that they should release that (the installer).
Goatse link, be careful
Now I like a good troll as much as the next man, but the grandparent has to be the most pathetic, imcompetent attempt at a troll that I have ever had the misfortune to witness.
I mean for fucks sake didn't you notice that Slashdot puts the actual domain in square brackets after the URL? I suppose it's an easy mistake to make - after all it's only been happening for about the last 3 fucking years.
I can only assume that excessive voluntary exposure to Goatse has permanently affected the poor little troll's eyesight.
The creators of PearPC have withdrawn MXS' right to use their code (The GPL allows for this, apparently), due to prior illegal use thereof..
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
RTFL
I have. But have you heard of a small legal principle called 'due process'? Once you've legally established that 4 has been violated, the license is revoked. It said so in the next sentence. Your claim that the license has been violated is not a conviction.
Otherwise IBM would have had to stop shipping AIX long ago based on SCOs claim that the license is revoked. See the difference? If you want to terminate their license, you must prove (a preponderance of evidence) that there are grounds for termination.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The company site has removed CherryOS from their product listings.
http://www.mxsinc.com/
It's only an insult if it's not true.
If we got something along the lines of "Since deciding to open-source our project, we have embraced that opportunity this gives us to include source code from other projects to enhance our own." or "We put this Pear PC stuff in here only after we decided to open the source." in non-PHB speak.
I hate grammar Nazi's.
I'm a technical editor for EDN Magazine, and am scheduled to be in Maui on vacation in early May. While I'm there, I've scheduled (several weeks ago) an onsite interview with Maui X-Stream, the promoters of CherryOS. Yesterday morning I got an email from company president Jim Kartes clarifying Slashdot's earlier heads-up that the software had been pulled, and yesterday's CherryOS website revision; "Due to Overwhelming Demand, Cherry Open Source Project Launches 5.1.2005".
Here's what Jim says: "Brian. Here's the deal. We have decided to change CherryOS to an "open source code" product. We will do so May 1st because we need a few weeks to prepare for this. We will be charging only $14.95 for this to cover our cost of development, plus ongoing development as well as marketing costs. We are doing this because we want all to see that we have not lifted source code from other sources."
I suspect that the PearPC development team, and many of the rest of you, have lots of questions for the folks at Maui X-Stream. Please visit my blog posting at EDN's website and suggest general topics for discussion during my interview, along with specific questions that you want me to ask Jim and other company representatives I meet with. I'll report back to Slashdot after the meeting, both here and on my blog.
Yeah, maybe Red Hat should have cattered to geeks and not enterprises. Right? because that's where the money is... We know geeks would pay top dollar for support of something they already take care of themselves and they always buy something they can get for free...
Obviously.
Would be if PearPC was actually secretly developed by ...dun dun dun... SCO!
:-)
That would make a lot of brains to explode here.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
I have seen examples where this was true even when the source code was supplied...
I noticed, the point is that not everyone has show domain in brackets activated (and to be honest, I can't remember if the feature is there if you're not loged in), so I decided to be on the safe side.
But you're right: it's a pathetic troll.
Ask 8 slackers a question, get 10 awnsers (a citation, but I can't remember from who)
Can't we save space for stories of partying college students who swear they can power a car by drinking beer and pissing in the gas tank?
They'll annouce, they're partnering with Microsoft and going closed source.
In America, you spam computers In Soviet Russia, computers spam you!
I'm thinking CherryOS is loving this attention. I mean over the past copule of weeks, it was CherryOS this or CherryOS that.
In America, you spam computers In Soviet Russia, computers spam you!
If they'll merge with PearPC, of course then again, it's a rip so it won't really do much.
In America, you spam computers In Soviet Russia, computers spam you!
What's with the fruits?
WARNING: DO NOT LET DR. MARIO TOUCH YOUR GENITALS. HE IS NOT A REAL DOCTOR!
This dude should have kept a low profile from the start. He has been ripping of OSS Projects for years. CherryOS is only his latest victim. MXS has already pulled PDF Creator after it was shown to be a total ripoff of opensource, and their "flagship product" the VX30 java/web/video/whatever thing rips code from the following projects according to an analasys by 'eventhorizon' on the pearpc.net boards. These packages were all found by examining text strings, so there likely could be many more libraries, etc. that the strings have been stripped from.
:)
XviD
MplayerC (windows gui frontend)
FileDropListCtrl (no credit was given)
DEFLATE code
Inflate code
JOrbis
LAME
Arben et al are lately trying to hide the stolen code by packing the executables via UPX or some similar or slightly modified PE compressor, so the analasys is being done on memory dumps of the binaries after decompression.
Their VX30 products are priced from $1,000 up. Oddly enough, the VX30 product actually seems to work pretty well. At least in this particular case, it's a shame that with little more effort and perhaps the choice of a couple different libraries and methods of writing their application that could have legally produced and sold this product... at least until people find more stolen code in it
Who exactly are they supposed to have reached an alliance with?!
If they have an alliance with the Free Software Foundation then why the reference to Open Source?
If they have an alliance with the Open Source Initiative then why the Gnu logo instead of the OSI logo?
This company self proclaimed copyright on copyleft code, how much you want to bet that this "alliance" is self proclaimed as well? Usually it take *TWO* parties to make up a true alliance. Based on the logo choosen and reference to "open source" it seems clear that these guys don't know who they are *pretending* to be in an alliance with.
that lawsuits from the FSF would pop their Cherry (ouch that hurt)
I for one welcome our fruity new overlords. Hail Pea...Cherr...fruits.
If you mod me down, I shall become less powerful than you could possibly imagine.
What about the EULA restrictions that are not legal but if you've agreed by implication/inference (i.e. you have used the software), they are still appliccable.
Note: This is what happened with the bnet.d case, in the US. so why not here too?
If you contribute code to Project Foo, which is owned by somebody else, do you have legal standing to deny a third party the use of your code without Foo's maintainer doing the same?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
great, lets set out to prove windows is bogus next,
then MS will be FORCED to release source code.
riiiight?
hehehe...
That is too funny.. My bad.
Brad
The problem is that MXS has already violated the GPL, and so their license was terminated - as far as I know, nothing they can do will every make CherryOS fully legal:
s ion
from the GPL v2:
"4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance."
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it."
Also, about a half hour ago older binaries of MXS's main product, VX30 were contributed to me for use on the PearPC discussion forum. They can be found here, complete with analysis pics:
http://www.tliquest.net/ryan/cherryos/vx30/oldver
VX30 contains large amounts of XviD code (if not all of it), large amount of LAME code, and more. I was in contact with one of the XviD developers about that issue, and they are considering legal action against MXS in this matter, and want to possibly join PearPC's legal efforts.
From the VX30 Live (aka VX30 B-Cast) manual:
"The VX30 codec is one of the most powerful in the world with an unmatched compression ratio of over 100 to 1"
Wow - the most powerful video codec in the world, with unmatched compression. Impressive. Sounds like XviD.
MXS also must release the code ASAP (all products), and not in June. Their delay tactics show that they are trying to do anything they can to "clean up" their code. It's possible that CherryOS would be legally owned by the PearPC group and affiliated parties from this situation, but I'm not totally sure on that.
-eventhorizon
#Secret Windows Source Code, in MS C% - if (uptime >= "24 hours") then bsod() else print "Windows License Violation!"
For those that don't remember (from Nmap 3.50 Press Release - 2004-02-20):
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
Ok, I've gotta know: what the hell is this "goatse" that keeps coming up in slahsdot? No, I won't just follow the link and find out!
Wait a minute. I thought it had already been determined that CherryOS was really just PearPC and that all its fantastic feature and performance claims were bogus. Why is this "great news?"
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
Due to Overwhelming Demand
Cherry Open Source Project
Launches 5.1.2005
Woulld that be overwhelming demand, or threat of lawsuit. : )
I noticed the $1,000 price tag for some of the VX30 products; on the homepage you'll notice they even have testimonials from happy users
the GPL projects involved should sue these clowns (hopefully on some "no win, no fee" basis) and come away with some developer cash/rewards; they certainly deserve it, and I was under the impression the government stipulates stiff penalties for trampling on its "limited monopolies", especially if the violation is proven willfull!
haven't these developers even got a moral obligation to exercise their rights and run these clowns in to bankruptcy, as they're causing actual harm to the users/victims of the "pirated" software, as well as to the true developers? these clowns need to be taught an expensive lesson
GrimRC
Actually pirate really is the wrong word plagiarism would be more appropriate. Whatever your beliefs about music - most people who copy CD's or download MP3's from the net dont swan around pretending to have written the music, passing it off as your own work.
You cannot "Pirate" GPL'd source by its very nature its freely available. You can even sell GPL'd software, but the moment you break the license agreement by not distributing the source, or removing copyright notices, attempting to pass the work off as ones own, is the very thing the GPL is there to protect.
The only "due process" that exists is before a jury, and that is after they've been hauled into court for copyright violation. The first time the GPL goes into action is before the judge, and it goes like this (courtesy of Eben Moglen):
EM: Your Honor, these people are distributing our copyrighted software. Please make them stop.
GPLViolator: We invoke the GPL as a defense.
EM: Your Honor, according to clause 4, when they violated the GPL here here and here, it was revoked and void, therefore they cannot use the GPL as a defense.
GV: (I'm screwed...) Let's settle.
To date, no one has gone beyond the "let's settle" stage. The only way they could do that would be to deny they violated the GPL and request a jury to make a decision. Good luck convincing a judge of that.
-Hope
1) I can't believe these guys had the gall to use the GNU head graphic. I can believe there are some suits out there that will be dumb enough to fall for it ("oh! they're one of those free software guys, oh cool!"). Somewhere in Boston, RMS is tearing his hobbit beard out in a fit of rage. 2) Do you think the 5 or so people that actually paid the $50 up front for the ill-fated release will get a refund? After all, now it's free! Oh, wait, it's not, there's a $14.95 S&H charge... 3) "Overwhelming Demand"!? Who the f*ck are they kidding? If you have overwhelming demand for a product, you *charge* for it. or *charge more* for it. I think this happened: CherryOS web admin: "hey, the web hits are going through the roof!" CherryOS marketing: "wow! we'll call that 'overwhelming demand'" CherryOS web admin: "uh, I don't think all of these hits are friendly ... they're saying a bunch of stuff about us that's actually true .. I think they're on to something ..."
CherryOS marketing: (firmly) "I said 'overwhelming demand', and that's going to be our story - we're going to corner the Vapor Market!"
the rest of us: "no, it's overwhelming disbelief, you wankers!"
[oh, now I'm the wanker.. sorry that was all run together.. here's the proper version... - dls]
... they're saying a bunch of stuff about us that's actually true .. I think they're on to something ..."
1) I can't believe these guys had the gall to use the GNU head graphic. I can believe there are some suits out there that will be dumb enough to fall for it ("oh! they're one of those free software guys, oh cool!"). Somewhere in Boston, RMS is tearing his hobbit beard out in a fit of rage.
2) Do you think the 5 or so people that actually paid the $50 up front for the ill-fated release will get a refund? After all, now it's free! Oh, wait, it's not, there's a $14.95 S&H charge...
3) "Overwhelming Demand"!? Who the f*ck are they kidding? If you have overwhelming demand for a product, you *charge* for it. or *charge more* for it. I think this happened:
CherryOS web admin: "hey, the web hits are going through the roof!"
CherryOS marketing: "wow! we'll call that 'overwhelming demand'"
CherryOS web admin: "uh, I don't think all of these hits are friendly
CherryOS marketing: (firmly) "I said 'overwhelming demand', and that's going to be our story - we're going to corner the Vapor Market!"
the rest of us: "no, it's overwhelming disbelief, you wankers!"
" If you're reading this, anyone at MXS, I have been far more than fair. I have so far only ever asked you to comply with the GPL, and release your source code. But now you've pissed me off. Being that I need now contact a lawyer, I will not stop simply there. Being that I'm full copyright owner of my code, and can do as I please, including providing overriding licenses to those openly available.
Since I view Maui X-Stream as in breach of the GPL under which my code is distributed, let this serve as public notice, that my code is no longer legally available for any reason to Maui X-Stream. Since they refuse to co-operate with the very lenient guidelines of the GPL, and refuse at all ends to comply with it. They can no longer claim any rights under the GPL license concerning my code. As such, my original rights of copyright apply, and I refuse any legal access to Maui X-Stream to my code (my code being specifically the G4/AltiVec emulation in generic, and in specific to x86 scalar, and SSE as implemented as a modification to the PearPC project)"
Text copied from here
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
The hat icon is redhat-main-menu.png, and belongs to the redhat-artwork RPM ... License: GPL
GNU General Public License is a license under copyright law. It is not a license under trademark law. Red Hat claims exclusive rights in the "shadow man" logo under trademark law, not copyright law.
I realize it's pretty late by slashdot standards to be commenting now, but, but, a GNU on top, and the large Open Source words at the bottom just makes me cringe ! I had to take this small snapshot of the cherryos website.
we're too chickenshit to admit we stole the code
Your post isn't insightful if you can't spell properly.
My other first post is car post.
When has SCO ever developed anything?
as for the content industy
The entertainment media are not content with what threatens to destroy the centralized stranglehold on dissemination of works of authorship. (I'll assume that by "content" you mean what the law calls "works other than computer programs". When discussing law, it's most precise to use the language of the law.)
it is their got given right to make as much money as possible on their content. When they try to make money on my content there is a problem but so far that hasn't happened.
Yes it has. Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music, 420 F. Supp. 177 (SDNY 1976).
Vanilla Ice has announced that he is dedicating his 1990s hit song, "Ice Ice Baby" to David Bowie and Queen.
Infringement of federal copyright is not theft, but a lot of people would consider copyright infringement plus plagiarism (not crediting the actual author) as bad as theft.
Yes, the GPL allows charging fees for distribution but it seems like they are just continuing the scam. Charging $15 instead of $50 or $100 for a product you didn't write is still fraud.
Charging $15, $50, or even $100 for a copy of a GNU GPL covered computer program is not fraud if all applicable copyright notices are preserved.
How did the parent get modded insightful? It's an obvious troll
2) Do you think the 5 or so people that actually paid the $50 up front for the ill-fated release will get a refund?
Either that, or they'll get a "deluxe edition". It's perfectly fine to distribute a basic version of a GPL covered program with source code and charge $15. It's perfectly fine to distribute a deluxe version of a GPL covered program with source code and charge $50. Often, a deluxe distribution will contain non-free extras "merely aggregated" on the same distribution medium, and this can still be OK under the License.
Here at MotorCoachInd, we use 07AP05 format. It does't sort, but you know what it means for sure.
7 April 2005? 2007 April 5? 7 April 1905?
Die you pedophiles!
Though it wasn't what you thought you got...
"Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks."
Bingo. By taking the code and asserting it as THEIR code (hence THEY now have copyright exclusively over the code), they have taken the copyright from the original owner.
If I rip a CD of Echo and the Bunnymen, the copyright owner still have the copyrights to it. I have, however, infringed on that. Damage done: nil. If I sold the copy, damage: whatever I got for the sold goods. If I assert it is mine, damage: copyrights now in doubt (see SCO try to stop Autozone using Linux because it infringed on their copyrights - with no basis to prove it).
So I guess CherryOS stands for "Cherry Open Source" now?
Then I would have at least got a laugh out of it...
Why is this on linux.slashdot.org? Last time I checked, this involved OS X (technically, PPC, but OS X as far as this company is concerned) and Windows/x86.
(Unless it ran under Linux, but I don't remember it doing so ... and, of course, I can't check now because the rest of their website is no longer there.)
R.Mo
Or they could argue that they did violate the GPL on the older version of PearPC they got 6 months ago but got a new license today from PearPC (by downloading the software under the terms of the GPL) and they haven't violated that one.
That is the betas were illegally distributed but the commercial work they start selling is May is perfectly legal. I think that defense works. Brand new copy brand new license. I think they might settle for token damages with respect to the betas but if PearPC goes for the whole ball of wax IMHO they lose.
"Because of overwhelming evidence..." instead of "by popular demand." :)
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
They are just trying to buy time with the confusion so they can modify the source to be more difficult to recognize. If they open source it, it'll probably be under a restrictive license for looking only.
I guess this means CherryOS is no longer a virgin after May 1st.
Wrong, they win. There is a mountain of evidence that says so. PearPC developers can decide to settle out of court if it is their wish but then it makes it that much harder the next time.
I suspect they will go forward with the case unless they receive a substansial financial settlement. Otherwise it's costing them in time and money just to let it go by the wayside.
Quoted Daniel Foesch to pearpc-devel
----
I have information that they're not intending on using an existing
license. Which means they will still be violating the GPL.
I knew this was not the end of it. And apparently, this move is to
"prove to the world, we have not lifted code."
Just an FYI. Do not respond.
---
This ain't over yet.
There's no need to acknowledge the original project (though it's considered polite).
Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
Or they could argue that they did violate the GPL on the older version of PearPC they got 6 months ago but got a new license today from PearPC (by downloading the software under the terms of the GPL) and they haven't violated that one.
They could argue that, but it's not really accurate to say that there's no provision for revocation in the GPL, is it?
FWIW, this came up before with KDE, and Stallman's position was that the revocation of rights was permanent, and KDE's position was that they could do as you said and simply obtain a new license.
Actually KDE's position at the time was that there had never been a violation of the GPL by them at all. I don't remember the KDE group arguing one way or the other regarding revocation. In any case the courts with respect to commercial licenses have indicated that:
-- generally been hostile to any sort of automatic revocation of rights and have generally made those clauses unenforcable
-- have consistently ruled that a new sale constitutes a new license
Moderators ... that wasn't flamebait, it was a serious question.
R.Mo
Althought there are per-copy licenses out there, the GPL in particular is not, even if you would like it to be so. Moreover, subsequent revisions of the same product will be covered by the same license, so obtaining a later version will not provide you with a new license, merely another copy of the old license which was violated.
No license is per-copy unless it explicitly says so.
-Hope