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."
It seems unlikely that they're doing it voluntarily. Maybe they came to an agreement with the people behind PearPC in order to keep the whole thing out of court?
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.
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?
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?
But if a company lies to you, and then comes clean...they get loads of publicity, which may be way more valuable than trust.
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.
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.
Has that guy never heard of the strings command?
If this is true, then the agreement sucks.
At the very least, it must include an admission of guilt and a formal apology, or some form of other punitive measures.
It seems they can *totally* get away with it now, and nobody will even know they did something wrong.
Don't let it happen.
How can you steal it. They only copied and modified the source, no theft here.
Move along, the parent is nothing but a TROLL!
...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.
(Assuming these allegations are true) you have a point; however, the alternative was probably to have a big fight were all the money goes to the lawyers. Most people would prefer criminals remedied their unlawful behaviour as opposed to running them (and possibly those fighting them) into the ground.
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
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?
That brings up an interesting point, actually. The website talks about it being an open source project, and they use the GNU logo on the page. From this, people can reasonably assume that it'd be GPL. But I don't think it actually says anywhere that it'd actually be GPL. They could have another trick up their sleeve
Obviously, as PearPC is GPL, legally CherryOS would have to be GPL, so I could be on an entirely wrong track here, but is there a form of open source license that prohibits forking?
but is there a form of open source license that prohibits forking?
Prohibiting forking is against the spirit of the GPL. Part of the beauty of open source is that you CAN fork a project to give it your unique features... but you have to allow access to your changes to GPL code to the original author, so they can incoroporate them if they like them. Sometimes what begins as a fork overtakes the original project. This is what makes open source projects greater than the individual that started them. I for one, would not contribute to an "open source" project that prohibited forking. The owner/maintainer could just stop development and the project would be dead, nullifying your contributions.