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."

Comments

So I guess this means..

[Anonymous Coward]

..that they are popping their Cherry?

Nothing to see.

[RangerRick98]

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.

Re:Nothing to see.

[rpozz]

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?

Re:Nothing to see.

[CypherXero]

You must be new here.

Re:Nothing to see.

[RangerRick98]

Actually, now that I've looked at the site, I can't help but wonder if they're announcing something else entirely. Maybe they mean that the "CherryOS" product is gone, and the cherryos domain is now for some phantom open source project that they plan to create under the name "Cherry" to try to regain some semblance of legitimacy.

Re:Nothing to see.

[Wolfier]

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.

Re:Nothing to see.

[ravee]

I wonder why people are making a big deal about a project that has no significance. I mean if it is a linux clone , I am sure there are other better options and distros to run on PowerPC archetecture.
--
http://linuxhelp.blogspot.com/

Re:Nothing to see.

[Short Circuit]

It's not a Linux clone. It's widely believed it's a ripoff of the PPC architecture emulator PearPC.

Re:Nothing to see.

[sepluv]

(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.

Re:Nothing to see.

[ajs318]

No: it's not a Linux-like OS that runs on a PPC platform, but rather a PPC emulator that runs on an AMD/Intel platform. Very, very, v e r y s l o w l y.

You're right, though; you can run Linux on a PPC. Linus does. You can also run FreeBSD on a PPC ..... Apple do .....

Re:Nothing to see.

[kfg]

Whatever. All I know is that I can't wait to see if I can get it to run on my Phantom gaming console.

Shit, if that works out I figure I'll go whole hog and create the worlds first vapor super cluster.

It certainly won't take up much space.

KFG

Re:Nothing to see.

[biglig2]

At least you can enjoy Duke Nukem Forever on your console while you wait....

Re:Nothing to see.

[b1t r0t]

Heh, first time I tried to load this story I got "Nothing for you to see here. Please move along."

I've been seeing this happen every now and then lately. I think either something is wrong with Slashdot or maybe you have a dodgy transparent web cache in-line at your ISP. (I have a known dodgy cache here.)

Re:Nothing to see.

[micolous]

This isn't the first time that Arben has gone open. mbloom.com, one of his other companies, has a product called PdfConv. It's a blatant ripoff of VeryPDF, and it was evident in the diffs for the program. Probably the only differences in Arben's PdfConv were his UI changes and an old version of VeryPDF, looking at a diff of the code. Unfortunately the site is rather convieniently down, and the Wayback Machine seems to be missing some data...

I get the feeling the month of delay is so they can change as much as they can. Or just use it as advertising, then suddenly go back to cashing in.

Re:Nothing to see.

[koko775]

There's been no (official) talk of this on the mailing list or (as far as I know) the forums. To GP: Please research before making such baseless speculation.

Re:Nothing to see.

[gilesjuk]

It's bound to be slow to emulate a fairly RISC like CPU on a CISC CPU. Not to mention every numeric value will have to have the byte ordering flipped.

PowerPC chips have been able to alter byte ordering in hardware for years, hence RISC emulating CISC is much faster. There's also a genuine need for a niche market product (Mac) to gain access to software of the dominant desktop platform (x86/Win).

oh please

[eobanb]

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.

Re:oh please

[nenolod]

Come on now, it's a repackaged version with pretty graphics!

Re:oh please

[OSXexpert]

The guy has an uncanny ability to get people to listen and write about him. Such if I were in business (at least some slim/e shady business) for say direct marketing, selling insurance plans to almost/dead people or raising money for a national bid at the US presidency, I would hire this guy in a New York minute.

Re:oh please

[tomhudson]

Yep - I'd almost rather read GNAA and Frost Pist trolls than any more product ripoff^Wannouncements from these thieves.

Come to think of it, CherryOS announcements ARE trolls.

Re:oh please

[Otter]

Such if I were in business (at least some slim/e shady business) for say direct marketing, selling insurance plans to almost/dead people or raising money for a national bid at the US presidency, I would hire this guy in a New York minute.

If your business plan involves selling insurance to dying people, you may want to start by hiring a new actuary...

Re:oh please

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing wrong with repackaging and even sell PearPC, as long as they provide the source. It's up to the customers to decide whether they wish to use PearPC or purchase CherryOS with a tidy package and a GUI.

Ego problem? His intention is to get attention to sell his product, and it's working perfectly so far. I just wish he would've provided the source from the start.

Re:oh please

[danheskett]

It's actually a common scam:

1. Advertise low-cost insurance with "no health-check up" and no maximum age, except maybe, 110 or some such silly age...

2. In fine print, require the holder pay 3 years of premiums before a payout will occur at death.

3. When insured kicks it, you pay nothing, and get whatever premiums they did pay first.

Basically, it's a race against the clock. Will the person you sign up die before they are eligble for benefits? Your goal is to find the sickest people possible, and get them buy your insurance, and then hope they manage to hold on for about 1 month less than when you have to pay out.

Re:oh please

[JVert]

gives me time to sharpen mine.

Re:oh please

[Omnifarious]

I say if they are willing to be nice, then let bygones be bygones. Yeah, they tried hard to be sleazy, realized it wouldn't work and now seem interested in doing the right thing.

Re:oh please

[mzieg]

I don't think the guy has a special ability; rather, he has honed in on something that a lot of people really, really want.

They keep coming back to check subsequent announcements in hope that just maybe, finally, someone has created a tool that would allow us to run Apple's operating system on cheap 'n fast x86 hardware. People have been dreaming of that for at least 15 years. However much we know it to be unlikely, you never quite give up hoping.

-Inveterate Sucker

It's Easy

[CypherXero]

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.

Re:It's Easy

[mikepaktinat]

And if you use source code from another project (PearPC), then you have to acknowledge it.

The problem being that the developer has sworn up and down that he used none of the PearPC code.

Re:It's Easy

[catch23]

Yeah, but where's the source? I bet they'll "announce" being open source, but they won't release any of the incriminating evidence!

Re:It's Easy

[TheKarateMaster]

...there's no such thing as bad publicity...

Re:It's Easy

[Chris Kamel]

Probably because they thought they'd get away with it. Developers tend to think that noone will understand a thing in the inner workings of their applications as long as they protect the sourcecode.

Re:It's Easy

[a16]

And of course the first 'customer' has full rights to distribute the product for free as they wish. Hence why 'selling' a 100% GPL product is never going to be a wise business move.

Re:It's Easy

[jb.hl.com]

Hence why 'selling' a 100% GPL product is never going to be a wise business move.

Which is why Red Hat crashed and burned all those years ago.

Obviously.

Re:It's Easy

[PurpleXanathar]

Differences :

1) Commercial RH linux is NOT a 100% GPL product afaik: some portions are not GPL and if you want to redistribute RH linux you have to remove them. Also this portions are usually what makes a difference between a linux distro and another.
2) With linux you can sell a reasonable support and update service, and they are appetible services because it's quite a complex product. This kind of business is nonsense if your product is simple enough.

Re:It's Easy

[Narchie Troll]

Actually, I'm pretty sure that Red Hat is 100% free software. What you're paying for is support and packaging.

Note that CentOS and White Box provide repackagings of RHEL for free. As far as I know, Red Hat hasn't complained.

Re:It's Easy

[elgatozorbas]

It was so simple and easy, I don't know why they didn't Open Source Cherry OS from the begining.

Because someone would copy it and call it Banana OS?

Re:It's Easy

[FooBarWidget]

- Anaconda installer - open source
- Kickstart - open source
- GUI configuration tools - open source
So which parts are not open source?

Re:It's Easy

[Ma�djeurtam]

From http://www.centos.org: Prominent North American Enterprise Linux Vendor's Legal Department Targets www.centos.org Website Content

Read the full release

Re:It's Easy

[Drakonian]

Red Hat isn't selling a GPL product, they are selling a service. I think the OP's comment still applies - selling a GPL product isn't a wise business move.

Re:It's Easy

[Trepalium]

Yeah, and if you read it, it's about misuse of Red Hat's trademarks. Those lawyers need to settle down a bit, though. They claim that Red Hat prohibits linking to their website, and that linking to their website implies that Red Hat endorses your website. There are a few other ridiculous claims in the letter as well.

Re:It's Easy

[_Sprocket_]

From the linked article:

The CentOS Team has been contacted by representatives of a Prominent North American Enterprise Linux Vendor's hired legal team regarding the use of said Prominent North American Enterprise Linux Vendor's Trademarks on www.centos.org. (Full Email follows.) While the CentOS team feels we are using the Prominent North American Enterprise Linux Vendor's marks in a fair and legal manner, we have no choice but to eliminate the majority of the Prominent North American Enterprise Linux Vendor's marks that are being used on www.centos.org.

This is about trademark - not copyright. From Redhat's email to CentOS:

As you are aware, our client is the owner of rights for numerous trademarks, including but not limited to its famous RED HAT mark and RHEL (collectively, the "RED HAT marks"). ...
While Red Hat permits others to redistribute the software that constitutes Red Hat Linux, Red Hat does not authorize any person to use the RED HAT marks in association with such redistribution in any fashion, except by express agreement. In this regard, our client is concerned that your use of the RED HAT marks on your web site in this manner is likely to create confusion, mistake and/or deception among consumers with respect to the source, origin, sponsorship or approval of the products sold under your company name.

This has nothing to do with the software that makes up Redhat which is (last time I looked) entirely GPLed. And CentOS continues today - sans Redhat trademarks.

Re:It's Easy

[hey!]

True, if you want to be nitpicky I suppose.

But nobody is going to expect to make a bundle money from reproduction fees on GPL products unless there are services bundled in.

In a sense, Red Hat's business model is a kind of de-education. People once naively expected to be able to do anything they want with a product they bought, and to have the manufacturer support them. It's only after decades of "education" that people don't expect it to work that way.

Re:It's Easy

[Steven Gray (Pulse U]

The only way Redhat makes money is by porting other peoples bugfixes and explaining how to use their shoddy tools. Lindows is the other end of the spectrum, with a Windows UI (Hence harder to sell support) they can charge up front.

Re:It's Easy

[LilMikey]

The hat icon...

Re:It's Easy

[evil-osm]

Because someone would copy it and call it Banana OS?

No no no, Bananna OS would never work, you have to stick to non peeled roundish fruits, the next would be Mango OS.

Re:It's Easy

[FooBarWidget]

Nope, you're wrong on even that one. The hat icon is redhat-main-menu.png, and belongs to the redhat-artwork RPM.

$ rpm -qi redhat-artwork-0.88-1 | grep -i license
License: GPL

Re:It's Easy

[gnarlin]

CherryOS vs. PearPC in regards to an Apple emulator?
I don't know about you but this whole thing looks like big fruit salad to me.

Re:It's Easy

[raynet]

It all depends on who you sell the GPL product to and for what price. If the customer is a individual and price is 25euro, your source code will probably 'leak' to the world. But if you sell it to some company with price tag of 10.000euro, the company probably won't share the source code with anyone because they don't want their competitors get the software they paid for.

Re:It's Easy

[passion]

You're right - it did crash and burn several years ago. At least, the stock price did...

Re:It's Easy

[poot_rootbeer]

Which is why Red Hat crashed and burned all those years ago.

Yes, but Red Hat repositioned itself to be primarily an enterprise solution provider, meaning that their product is now the Red Hat Linux software (open source) and support services (not open source).

Re:It's Easy

[tim256]

The GPL says:
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
So you don't charge for the software, you charge for distributing the software. I think that someone else is allowed to distribute another persons GPL software for free. So, they could charge for their product, but someone else could be giving it away for free if they released under the GPL to begin with.

Re:It's Easy

[mrwiggly]

And if you use source code from another project (PearPC), then you have to acknowledge it.

Actually, this is not a requirement. Remember that a similar attribution clause (the so-called "advertisement clause") in the BSD license made it incompatible with the GPL.

Re:It's Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Usually only inexperienced developers think that. But even more importantly, non-developers (managers etc.) tend to think that all source code contains valuable "magic" stuff that must be protected at all costs.

Re:It's Easy

[Minna Kirai]

the company probably won't share the source code with anyone because they don't want their competitors get the software they paid for.

It'll be quite useless if the company can only allow 1 (one) of their employees to have the software. And, if they allow anyone else to have a copy, they also MUST give that employee permission to send it out to all his friends.

(There is NO "internal-use exception" to the GPL)

Re:It's Easy

[jbolden]

Using your source for financial data we have a company with:

$29m in "earnings before bad stuff" (EBITDA), on
$369m in assets, worth
$2.05b
I wouldn't mind crashing like that.

Re:It's Easy

[boingyzain]

Redhat is NOT a GPL product. Red Hat is licensed under its own open-source license.

Re:It's Easy

[_Sprocket_]

How do you "open source" support services? Didn't Redhat offer support services before it "repositioned itself"? Didn't Redhat offer enterprise solutions before even that?

Re:It's Easy

[_Sprocket_]

Got a link to Redhat's "own open-source license"?

Re:It's Easy

[raynet]

And from GPL FAQ:

Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company "distribution"?

No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders.
However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution.

Re:It's Easy

[skwirlmaster]

No there isn't, however companies can make policies. One policy may be that owner ship of the licensce belongs to the company. Copies may only be checked out with permission of a manager.

My rational is that the company is the one who acquired the license, and they have the right use thier rights or not. They don't have to give personal copies to the user.

Running a GPL'd Program is not covered by the GPL. Only Distribution, Modification, and Copying. Someone who is given permission to run a program by a Licensee is not automatically a licensee. That is my interpretation of Section 0 of the GPL.

Re:It's Easy

[Suddenly_Dead]

Not that quote/cliche again.

They apparently have sold very few or no copies of CherryOS. However, when this first got announced, I saw it on several "tech news" (quotation marks for effect) websites, with people saying how great it could be and yadda yadda. If not for people actually spreading the truth and showing the lie that this is, they might have actually sold a copy by now.

You're not in politics either, are you?

Re:It's Easy

[remahl]

It is a requirement under the GPL. Right there in the first section:

You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.

However, the advertisement clause specified _where_ the attribution should be (in all advertising and on the front of the documentation or something like that), making it incompatible with the GPL.

how lies work...

[jhealy]

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.

Re:how lies work...

[Anonymous Coward]

But if a company lies to you, and then comes clean...they get loads of publicity, which may be way more valuable than trust.

Re:how lies work...

[RdsArts]

Yet 9/10ths of people who will buy it, and they will, won't have known. In fact, "hey, those nice guys, they even help out those open source people. What nice guys. I get a warm fuzzy feeling sending my money to them. I bet they send money to those OSS guys too. Live's great, let's go buy a puppy."

Isn't business wonderful?

Re:how lies work...

[poopdeville]

Yeah, let's get a puppy. I'm hungry.

"Due to overwhelming demand"

[BabyDave]

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.

How nice of them

[rob_squared]

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.

Re:How nice of them

[tsalem]

A car is tangible, it would suck a lot more if tangible property was at stake here.

Re:How nice of them

[Anonymous Coward]

You do not lose any rights by selling this...this is allowed, you lose rights by not making the source to GPL software available.

Re:How nice of them

[maxwell demon]

They didn't steal it. They acquired it legally, they even modified it legally. Just the distribution was illegal. Not because they distributed it, but because that distribution was not under the terms of the GPL.

Re:How nice of them

[SirTalon42]

To 'fix' this all they have to do is release the source to anyone that requests it that it was distributed to, and admit that its based off of PearPC (maybe be like 'oh, THAT PearPC... we thought you meant the other one......... yeah...... its based off of their code......'

Re:How nice of them

[stiggle]

There is NOTHING in the GPL to say you can't sell the packages - this is how RedHat are able to sell copies of GNU/Linux packed with all the GNU utils and other FOSS packages.

The only thing the GPL states is that any modifications have to be given back to the community and any customers are entitled to the source as used in the product.

I am perfectly entitled according the the GPL to take a copy of PearPC - maybe fork the code and call it CoxsOrangePippinOS(*) and then release a package for sale. All you would have to do is credit accordingly, allow access to the code and profit.

* Cox's Orange Pippin is a very delicious variety of desert Apple.

Delay Tactic

[crypto55]

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

Ummm...

[DoubleDangerClub]

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?

Re:Ummm...

[rpozz]

There were some absolute bastards who registered azureus.org a while ago (seems to have changed now), and offered a version of Azureus which came bundled with spyware. Hopefully this sort of practice of exploiting free/open software doesn't become too popular.

Re:Ummm...

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to be a popular tactic, especially in the P2P world.

Shareaza suffers from this a lot: this free, open source application has been rebranded under a lot of different names (Etomi, bt86, etc.). Some sell the application (they actually sell 'support', if you read the fine print, with the 'support' being a copy of the Shareaza wiki), some bundle spyware with it, most do both.

Limewire suffers from that too, and eMule probably too.

They get users by paying for google ads that come up when you search for 'mp3 downloading' or similar. I guess it's true that a lot of people can't tell the difference between a genuine search result and an ad.

Re:Ummm...

[moderators_are_w*nke]

Why not? There's nothing in the GPL against charging for it. All they would be doing is complying with the GPL by making the source available. They can still charge for the binary version with the manual and the box and the logo. There are plenty if non technical windows users who want to try out MacOS X who would pay.

Re:Ummm...

[Jugalator]

I'm confused, PearPC is already open source... ... which is why CherryOS has to be that as well, according to the GPL.

Why do people think they can slap a different name on something and sell it, when it's already free?

Because it's in a nice package with a better GUI?

Instantly more appealing to regular users interested in OS X on PC's, and not just geeks browsing open source sites and manually downloading things.

Still violating GPL?

[The New Andy]

From the GPL:

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?

Re:Still violating GPL?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.

Re:Still violating GPL?

[Drantin]

Yes, actually. Remember nmap vs SCO?

Re:Still violating GPL?

[91degrees]

Hard to say. Ask a lawyer.

But I'd guess since the licence is granted implicetely with code rather explicitely handed out by someone, renewing the licence is simply a matter of downloading the software again.

This probably doesn't absolve them of guilt for past transgressions, but I suspect the copyright owners are willing to let that slide since they can't get anything from it.

Re:Still violating GPL?

[QuantumG]

When the KDE debate was alive and well someone did ask a lawyer. RMS asked Eben Moglen who said "duh! that's the whole point of that clause." So no, "coming clean" after you've violated the license on GPL software is not enough, you have to ask for forgiveness too.

Re:Still violating GPL?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean that CherryOS has already lost their license to use the source code from PearPC?

No, of course not.

They haven't signed the GPL, so, as the GPL itself says, they are not bound by its terms. Therefore, that term does not apply to them if they do not accept it, and they are free to subsequently accept the terms of the GPL and make use of PearPC under it.

They still aren't off the hook, though - the PearPC developers can still sue them for the copyright violations they have committed in the past.

Re:Still violating GPL?

[91degrees]

That may be the point of the clause, but whether its a valid clause is a matter of legal opinion. I don't think Eben Moglen is going to be totally objective in this case.

Re:Still violating GPL?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am going to play devils advocate for a moment.

Have they actually commited any copyright violations yet? Have they actually violated the GPL yet?

I only know what I have read on /. (hense my poor spelling abilities...) but I don't remember reading anything about it actually being distributed yet.

If they have not actually distributed CherryOS yet, how can they be in violation of the GPL?

(and yes, if they have been distributing it, then this is moot)

Re:Still violating GPL?

[SirTalon42]

They distributed beta copies. Thats how people were able to compare the strings.

Re:Still violating GPL?

[marcosdumay]

They didn't loose the right to use, but to distribute. I guess you men that, but your statement is confusing.

Re:Still violating GPL?

[m50d]

Even if they have, they can get another one straight away off the PearPC mirrors, unless I'm missing something.

Re:Still violating GPL?

[eventhorizon5]

>Does this mean that CherryOS has already lost their license to use the source code from PearPC?

Not just that, but they've also lost their own license to CherryOS (since CherryOS is a derivative work of PearPC, CherryOS is void since their PearPC license is void).

-eventhorizon

Re:Still violating GPL?

[Minna Kirai]

who said "duh! that's the whole point of that clause."

No, he did not. But feel free to link, if you can.

you have to ask for forgiveness too.

If, theoretically, the clause had the effect you claim, then asking forgiveness would be futile, as the original author would have no ability to re-authorize your distribution (except by releasing the software to you under non-GPL license terms)

Re:Still violating GPL?

[QuantumG]

Will you please STFU. You really don't know what you are talking about.

Re:Still violating GPL?

[eraserewind]

Well, perhaps not, but as a lawyer he is paid to be totally objective is his advice to his client (and totally subjective in his arguing of his clients case).

Re:Still violating GPL?

[91degrees]

True. But my point is really that this is just an opinion. A judge may disagree with him.

Re:Still violating GPL?

[wsapplegate]

> "coming clean" after you've violated the license on GPL software is not enough, you have to ask for forgiveness too.

Funny, that's not the opinion of the only court to have decided a GPL violation case. Instead, they said this :

"Furthermore is to be considered that the effective offer does not expire upon a violation, but the violator can reacquire the rights at any time by acceptance of and compliance with the conditions. Thus, the automatic termination is not particularly severe for the violator"

So, whatever Moglen may have "intended", the judges' opinion shows it can very well be interpreted differently.

Its too late for this

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Its too late for this

[Anonymous Coward]

not true. The GPL license has terms (specifically section 4)

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.

once they have terminated their rights under the license, it falls back to a straight copyright.

Re:Its too late for this

[sqlrob]

It's already been revoked under terms of the GPL, simply by distributing it without source. Try reading the whole GPL sometime.

Re:Its too late for this

[XMyth]

Strange....isn't this why people said the move to BitKeeper was stupid? Because they could (and did) "take their ball and go home" ?

But, you can do that with GPL'ed code too apparently.

Less likely, sure, but still possible.

Re:Its too late for this

[arodland]

No, you can't; the grandparent post actually makes no sense. A random developer can't say "you don't have the right to use my code anymore" and take away any rights that the GPL already granted you. That developer could release all of his further changes under the "GPL except CherryOS can't use this code" license, but said license is clearly GPL-incompatible :)

What does affect CherryOS is section 4 of the GPL itself, which essentially states that any attempt to violate the GPL terminates any rights that the GPL might have granted you. Combined with section 5, that should mean that CherryOS has no right to distribute PearPC code.

Now, for some unrelated speculation. Maybe they're planning on releasing some "bleached" source, and then say "look, guys, we opened the source just to make you happy, and prove to you that we never used PearPC code" ?

Re:Its too late for this

[_Sprocket_]

Even if they try to open source they still have problems as they are now dealing with copyrighted code.

Just to be picky - they've always been dealing with copyrighted code. GPL is a license, not abandonment of copyright. The only way copyright wouldn't be involved is if the code in question was placed in to the public domain by the copyright holder. And again, this is not what the GPL does.

Re:Its too late for this

[XMyth]

I gotcha now. Thanks for the clarification.

Thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one wish to thank CherryOS developers for being so generous to give the fruits of their so hard work to the community.

Ah, the master plan to open source Windows!

[ardor]

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!!!

Re:Ah, the master plan to open source Windows!

[Kidbro]

1. Say Windows XP/Longhorn is bogus
2. Wait for them to release it as Open Source
3. ???
4. Profit!!!

Point 3 is indeed a mystery. Who'd pay any money for it? :)

It's always been open source

[Anita Coney]

They're only admitting it now.

Can they do this?

[strider44]

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?

Re:Can they do this?

[catch23]

If it's on an older code base with a licence that wasn't restricted to them, I don't see why not. I'm guessing their source code is at least 5-6 months old and they've done a good bit of string replacement in the code.

Re:Can they do this?

[benjcurry]

I think it is too late, but once they come out with the source code, it can be clearly demonstrated that they used PearPC code, then they'll be fscked.

Re:Can they do this?

[gl4ss]

well, the cherryos guy lives in alternate universe it seems anyways so finding any logic kinda hard.

Re:Can they do this?

[maxwell demon]

Well, but everyone has the right to sublicense the code to everyone else, as long as it's done under the GPL again. So it suffices if they find one third party who has a valid license and gives them the code again under the GPL. Or did I miss something?

Re:Can they do this?

[strider44]

Quite obviously you did:

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. (copy-pasted from another post)

They have violated the GPL, and thus their rights under the GPL are viod - they can't distribute the program no matter what. That is my interpretation at least.

Re:Can they do this?

[Short Circuit]

That's not how I read it.

Clearly, their license, as given to them from whoever made the source available, is terminated. That doesn't mean someone else couldn't re-license it to them under the GPL. In an ironic twist, due to the enmity they've caused, they might have to pay to get someone to do that. :)

Re:Can they do this?

[maxwell demon]

I'm not sure you understodd me correctly.

They got the code from person A under the GPL (license 1). This license has been terminated due to their actions.

Now there's person B, who has a valid license. They now get it from person B under the GPL, so they get a fresh license (which again is GPL, of course). This license they got from person B is AFAIU a completely different license from license 1, except that it happens to be under the exact same terms.

IANAL however, so of course I may as well be completely wrong here.

Re:Can they do this?

[spitzak]

Technically they are guilty of copyright violation. It does not matter whether they release any source code or not, it does not change the existence of the previous copyright violation.

However the copyright violation does not matter if nobody tries to sue them for it. It is highly likely that releasing their source code will discourage any such lawsuits.

Re:Can they do this?

[temojen]

As their project was a GUI wrapper for PearPC, they can open source the wrapper, but they can't distribute PearPC with it because their license has been revoked.

Re:Can they do this?

[jbolden]

Which is a nice theory. Problem is the courts have ruled exactly the opposite way with regard to commercial licenses.

Lets say Carol has the right to distribute X copies under a license from Alfred and Bob (and in the case of the GPL X=infinity). Alfred and Bob have refused to sell to Doug, but their license to Carol doesn't say anything about Doug. Doug buys from Carol. He has full rights to one copy of the work. Doug can even turn around and resell this one copy. Alfred and Bob lose when they sue Doug.

The only way I see clause 4 becoming meaninful in the way the FSF wants it to be is if the courts rule that GPLed software because it is freely distributable isn't under the same kinds of rules.

Re:Can they do this?

[strider44]

hmm, I've been explained that that's wrong, though I'm not totally sure if the explainer is wrong or not.

Anyway, you can't get a new license just by downloading a new version, because you agree to the license by distributing it, so you can only ever get one "copy" of the license for that code. If your rights under that license is terminated then unless that specific developer explicitly gives you a new license or renews the terms of that license you can never distribute that code again.

But anyway it's a null argument because they have already broken the law by selling the code without any valid license for this.

Yeah, right.

[dangitman]

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.

Re:Yeah, right.

[maxwell demon]

You forgot: Microsoft releases Windows XP under the GPL. The RIAA officialy declares that DRM was the wrong thing and stops sueing file downloaders, who reply instantaneously by paying for all songs they downloaded via P2P. SCO redraws their lawsuite against IBM. And the congress passes a law which voids all software patents.

Ah, and before I forget it: Did you hear that the temperature in hell has fallen lately? Climate scientists predict it to freeze over in a few years.

My life is complete now.

[Rixel]

YES!

I can finally breathe again!

Too late!

[plott]

Lets hope the PearPC guy sue them and show them you don't mess with the GPL and get away with it!

Re:Too late!

[GreatBunzinni]

But, if they release CherryOS via GPL, wouldn't it invalidate the hipotetical PearPC lawsuit? If it is released under the GPL, then PearPC can be accounted as a fork of the projects which were ripped off.

Re:Too late!

[plott]

They can't realese it under GPL because when they first violated it they lost all their rights to use it. See paragraph 4 of the GNU GPL.

Re:Too late!

[SammyTheSnake]

I doubt anyone'll read this as it's an oldish story, but as far as I can see (and IANAL) you're both wrong. 1. The GPL explicitly requires that you can't restrict the rights of anyone you provide the source to, so if the CherryOS people manage to legally get hold of a copy of the source code (it's easily available via FTP) then whoever they get it from gives it to them under the GPL, along with all the rights that licenses to them. 2. They have, however, violated the copyright inherent in the code by distributing derivative versions without a license (their rights under the GPL only cover distribution that fulfills the requirements of that license) HTH Cheers & God bless Sam "SammyTheSnake" Penny

Good luck

[Underholdning]

Hope this goes better than Cherry Coke.

Re:Good luck

[afd8856]

I love Cherry Coke! Too bad they don't make that in my country.

Re:Good luck

[penguinoid]

Hey! I happen to like Cherry Coke.

Re:Good luck

[Duck1123]

Where can I find the source for Cherry Coke? I want to make my own soft drink and deny that it comes from Coke.

Don't let it get away so easily

[Wolfier]

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.

Open sourced how?

[bcmm]

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.

Re:Open sourced how?

[mr.mighty]

It is not legitimate. By violating the GPL previously, they lost their rights under the GPL. Now they have no right to use the PearPC code unless the owners of that code explicitly give them permission. If they continue, even if they open source it, they are guilty of copyright violation.

What do you suppose the odds of that happening are?

I know what will happen!

[paulius_g]

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...

what happens if..

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

You're too late

[pklong]

You're too late. April 1st was ages ago.....

Re:For those who don't know

[gl4ss]

well.. you might expect that those would click on either one of the links to get to know just what it is.

Does this even matter?

[Drunken_Jackass]

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?

Re:Does this even matter?

[Rolan]

Does it really matter to the common user that wants to run OSX on their windows box?

You're right, it doesn't matter. Since the OS X license agreement specifically says you can only run it on Apple hardware, so it's illegal to do so. And we've seen just how eager Apple can be to sue at times. No, I don't hate Apple, I use all OSes (okay, most).

Re:Does this even matter?

[Rolan]

From the AC.... An improved emulator is still useful for developing other operational platforms.

I agree. PearPC has many uses, and I fully support its development. My response was strictly to the question of "does it matter to those who want to run OS X."

If you can't beat them

[Chris Kamel]

join them...

Even funnier...

[ImaLamer]

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.

Re:Even funnier...

[PurpleXanathar]

Yet another reason for which having a 100% GPL product is not a 100% viable solution.

Effectively one can use free (as in both beer and freedom) sw as a publicity vehicle.

Now I've to go, I have to open www.officialgentoo.com to sell my distro for 20$/copy.

[Before you write, yes I would be liable for the name, and for the same reasons Lindows.com had to change to Linspire..]

Re:Even funnier...

[Ciaran_H]

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?

Re:Even funnier...

[legojenn]

Before you write, yes I would be liable for the name, and for the same reasons Lindows.com had to change to Linspire.

If you ware smart, you could call your Gentoo clone Genspire. The domains do not seem to be taken.

If I was smart, I would have registered those domains and stole your idea.

Re:Even funnier...

[legojenn]

d'oh. I misread the search....genspire.com is taken.

Re:Even funnier...

[neurojab]

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.

Re:Even funnier...

[millette]

Oh, I had that same comment but missed your response. I'm sorta relieved now, thanks for pointing that out, about the Gnu head logo.

Re:Even funnier...

[tepples]

Sometimes what begins as a fork overtakes the original project.

Case in point: the X.org X11 server, whose hardware drivers were forked from XFree86.

Re:Even funnier...

[smyle]

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.

No you don't. You only need to provide your source to anybody to whom you distribute a binary. That doesn't necessarily mean the original author.

Now, in practice, among "typical" GPL coders, that amounts to the same thing.

Re:Even funnier...

[ImaLamer]

AHHH!!

But can you stop someone from giving the source back to the original author or anyone else?

No...

Re: Even funnier...

[gidds]

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...

Mmm. Though the ironic result of this is that because you can fork, it encourages the developers to be responsive enough that no-one wants to fork it!

Re:Even funnier...

[smyle]

But can you stop someone from giving the source back to the original author or anyone else?

No...

Of course not. But that decision is still up to the one who has the source. The original author has no God-given right to get the changes back unless the binary is also available to him.

...but this is all just quibbling over the finer points of the GPL anyway.

It's a little ickier than that.

[kahei]

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!

Not popular demand

[The New Andy]

"Overwhelming Demand" Not being anal, but I don't think they were ever popular.

Oh sorry, typo

[crahan11]

I think the correct date would be: 4.1.2005

Re:Oh sorry, typo

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the correct date would be: 4.1.2005

What's so special about 4. January ?

No, I'm New Here

[New Here]

No, I'm New Here

copyright infingment != theft

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you steal it. They only copied and modified the source, no theft here.

Move along, the parent is nothing but a TROLL!

Re:copyright infingment != theft

[Short Circuit]

I'll bite.

Copyright infringement is theft in the sense that you're robbing the copyright holder of any rewards he should have received under the license he chose, be it monetary or just warm feelings.

Re:copyright infingment != theft

[sepluv]

By that argument, pretty much any action by any human being (esp. any that involve them making money for themselves) is theft.

I think if you look in a dictionary or your jurisdiction's laws you will find that theft is:

intentionally and permanently depriving someone of a physical object under their possession.

Diverting someone's money into your account is fraud BTW--not theft--not that that is what is happening here.

Re:copyright infingment != theft

[Short Circuit]

I actually agree with you assertion but like to see the /. knee-jerk reaction and double standard when it comes to the GPL being abused and say, i don't kow, music and movies being copied.

Many /. readers don't download music not appropriately licensed, yet advocate that the content industries find a way to exploit the business potential of the technologies they're inestead attempting to suppress.

And many /. readers advocate dissolving all copyright law, from traditional MPAA-syle copyright to Creative Commons and GPL concepts.

It's not really fair to lump everyone on /. into one catagory.

Re:copyright infingment != theft

[Short Circuit]

Tsk. Tsk.

Someone who has the legal skills to look into my jurisdiction's laws on theft should know better than to extrapolate a legal argument from a single specific non-legal one.

I was arguing from the common-sense side of it, not written-law.

And now, since I've stuck my foot in legal discourse, I should point out that IANAL.

Re:copyright infingment != theft

[drinkypoo]

Guess what? Common sense says that depriving someone of a physical object is different from devaluing someone's media through making and distributing copies of it.

No matter how you feel about either issue, if you don't realize that the two are different, you are a potzer. It's pretty obvious. Let's go through a little thought experiment shall we? Let's say you have a band and you make an album, then I steal the original master that represents your studio time and so on. This is theft, I have deprived you of something. Now, let's say instead, I work at the studio, and I just make a copy of the master, and then distribute it around the internet. Let's say that this costs you more sales than it generates - a dubious proposition that no one has ever sufficiently managed to prove, but we'll work with it - therefore I have devalued your work through copyright infringement but since I have not deprived you of the item, I have NOT stolen it. If I have stolen anything I have stolen your profits by depriving you of some of them. We call these damages, and you may sue for them in court based on the fact that I illegally copied your copyrighted material.

I have NOT robbed the copyright holder of work they have done. The result of that work is still right in front of them. What I have done is devalued the media, in terms of commercial value. There are, of course, other things to value about music, and I have affected none of them. Whether it is more noble to produce music for money or for the joy of production or to make others happy is a discussion for another thread.

Re:copyright infingment != theft

[drinkypoo]

I know I shouldn't feed AC trolls, but you are an idiot. We have separate bodies of law for theft and copyright infringement because they are separate things. You have yet to prove that copyright infringement HAS an ill effect on society, and in fact no one has done so. Your use of the term "piracy" as if it meant something in this context is as ignorant as your overall comment. Most "theft" of intellectual property provably does not harm individuals; even most musicians, for example, make the majority of their money on ticket sales for live shows, not album sales, the vast majority of which goes to the label.

The fact remains that theft is stealing, and using someone's intellectual property without permission isn't stealing, because it doesn't deprive anyone of anything - this deprivation is central to the concept of theft in both legal terms, and linguistic ones. It might be wrong, but IT IS NOT THEFT and no amount of wishing will make it so. Some amount of voting could, though, I suppose.

Re:copyright infingment != theft

[NeteruNeko]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theft
Theft:
n.

1. The act or an instance of stealing; larceny.
2. Obsolete. Something stolen.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=steal
Steal:
v. stole, (stl) stolen, (stln) stealing, steals
v. tr.

1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
2. To get or effect surreptitiously or artfully: steal a kiss; stole the ball from an opponent.
3. To move, carry, or place surreptitiously.
4. To draw attention unexpectedly in (an entertainment), especially by being the outstanding performer: The magician's assistant stole the show with her comic antics.
5. Baseball. To advance safely to (another base) during the delivery of a pitch, without the aid of a base hit, walk, passed ball, or wild pitch.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=property
Property:
n. pl. properties

1.
1. Something owned; a possession.
2. A piece of real estate: has a swimming pool on the property.
3. Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks.
4. Possessions considered as a group.
2. The right of ownership; title.
3. An article, except costumes and scenery, that appears on the stage or on screen during a dramatic performance.
4.
1. A characteristic trait or peculiarity, especially one serving to define or describe its possessor.
2. A characteristic attribute possessed by all members of a class. See Synonyms at quality.
5. A special capability or power; a virtue: the chemical properties of a metal.

According to the arguments that you have given, it is perfectly alright for me to come over to your house at night, break into your car, take it for a drive, and then return it, since you haven't lost anything. It really isn't "stealing" industrial secrets, and I shouldn't be put in jail for releasing chemical weapons information to hostile countries?

Please note:
Theft = Stealing (by your comments)
Stealing = To take (the property of another) without right or permission. (definition 1)
Property = Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks. (definition 1, sub 3)

If you do not like the laws, get the laws changed. Otherwise, live by them. This is not a right, this is a responsibility.

Re:copyright infingment != theft

[drinkypoo]

Damn, you are stupid. Let's go over this one more time, and then I will wash my hands of you. If you take my car, it is my physical property. You have deprived me of it. It doesn't matter if you bring it back, you still stole it. It's a stupid example.

If you copy my CD, you have not deprived me of it. Period. That's all there is to it. It's not theft.

If you do not like the laws, get the laws changed. Otherwise, live by them. This is not a right, this is a responsibility.

So I should follow laws, no matter how ridiculous, simply because they are the law? You are doubly an idiot. Ever hear of civil disobedience? It's not actually necessary to be arrested for what you believe in, in order to commit it. Even if you don't want to use that term, the fact is that there is no particular reason to follow a stupid law other than the threat of punishment.

The fact that you suggest otherwise implies strongly that you are the moron I believe you are.

Sure, it's better to get the law overturned, but the entire system is corrupt, so I don't believe I would receive anything like justice. Thus, why bother?

I do not feel that I have any natural responsibility to follow unjust laws. You can follow them if you like.

Re:copyright infingment != theft

[NeteruNeko]

Sigh. You are not understanding my statement:

"If you do not like the laws, get the laws changed. Otherwise, live by them. This is not a right, this is a responsibility."

The responsibility is NOT to "live by the rules", it is "If you do not like the laws, get the laws changed." If you can't be bothered to attempt to change the laws you do not like, you have no right to break said laws, and you deserve all punishments outlined by said laws. If you don't like it, change it. Or more colloquial, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." Or more crudely, "Put up or shut up."

The ridiculous statement about the car might be irregular, but I still stand by the idea of theft of "intellectual property".

Re:copyright infingment != theft

[NeteruNeko]

BTW, you have still not answered my refutation of your claim "The fact remains that theft is stealing, and using someone's intellectual property without permission isn't stealing, because it doesn't deprive anyone of anything - this deprivation is central to the concept of theft in both legal terms, and linguistic ones. It might be wrong, but IT IS NOT THEFT and no amount of wishing will make it so. Some amount of voting could, though, I suppose." I have outlined it in definitions of English language from accredited dictionaries (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved) Where is your substantiation for -your- claims, aside from personal definitions?

Re:copyright infingment != theft

[ifwm]

"if you don't realize that the two are different, you are a potzer" Do you hear that? It's your credibility vanishing. No logical fallacies please.

Re:copyright infingment != theft

[ifwm]

So, he finds reasonable EVIDENCE that you are wrong, and you refute that by... calling him stupid. Sad

Re:copyright infingment != theft

[drinkypoo]

So, you find two comments by me that you disagree with on the same subjects, and you chase them down and write separate replies at least two minutes apart. Sad

Re:copyright infingment != theft

[ifwm]

Again, attack the person. What are you 13? Get a girlfriend man. Or a boyfriend, whatever.

I imagine you're not a very nice person at all.

Re:copyright infingment != theft

[NeteruNeko]

At this point, with nothing but personal attacks after I accept that I overreached with one comparison, I feel that there isn't much more to be expected for a refutal. Sigh.

Go steal as many MP3s as your hard drive can hold, let alone movies that are still in the theatre. Justify it any way you want to. Heck, I have done my share of "justification" in the past. Just come back when you are willing to play nicely and have convincing arguments for these actions, or a better alternative to the status quo.

Re:copyright infingment != theft

[ifwm]

I think you made some great points. In fact, the next time someone screams that they're not stealing by using p2p software to download copyrighted music, I'm going to give cut and paste your post.

Re:copyright infingment != theft

[NeteruNeko]

Thanks. I personally have done "ahem" questionable activities in the past (not admitting anything in particular, dang RIAA), but it really is a matter of people taking personal responsibility for their own actions. If I get sued for what I have done, knowing full well that what I was doing was wrong, there really isn't much that I can complain about. That is just the chance that I took.

Fair use is a whole 'nother can o' worms. However, if a business makes money by using copyright/ intellectual property and disregards a firmly written licensing agreement, I hope a whole lot of whoop-arse gets opened. That isn't a case of "joe-down-the-street" wanting to listen to what he could get on the radio for free anyways, it's "lets make money by bypassing the R&D (people's jobs) and going directly to greenbacks-by-the-fistfull". BTW, I am not meaning the jobs of people writing the software (in this case) since PearPC is a hobby project, done not-for-profit. I mean the jobs of people that should have existed in order to create a different software. We have enough problems in the tech industry with offshoring/ weak economy (USA) that we don't have to have some smarmy wisearse who probably has 3 yachts wanting to pocket more cash rather than pay workers to do things legally. Heck, off-shore it. Just stop lining your pockets a little to make sure you do it legally. Greed. Sigh.

Re:copyright infingment != theft

[sepluv]

Guess what? Common sense says that depriving someone of a physical object is...

I'm confused as you seem to be repeating exactly what I said in your reply to me.

Re:copyright infingment != theft

[sepluv]

You have deprived me of it. It doesn't matter if you bring it back, you still stole it

Actually it does matter: if you do not intend to permanently deprive someone of a physical object under their possesion without their permission it is not theft. Although, at least in my jurisdiction there is a special motoring offence of taking a car that you do not own which is seperate from theft (to discourage joy riders from borrowing others' cars).

If you copy my CD, you have not deprived me of it. Period.

Thank you. And it wouldn't be theft even if you were deprived of it unless I had intent to permanently deprive you of it and it was a physical object (which it is not).

Cherry OS using the gnu-head . . .

[StateOfTheUnion]

On the first link of the topic, Cherry OS's website, there is a GNU image from the FSF . . .

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.

Re:Cherry OS using the gnu-head . . .

[PhilHibbs]

Is it a trademark? According to http://www.gnu.org/graphics/heckert_gnu.html the copyright isn't even owned by gnu.org, it's released under the Free Art Licence

Re:Cherry OS using the gnu-head . . .

[halivar]

Is it a trademark? According to http://www.gnu.org/graphics/heckert_gnu.html the copyright isn't even owned by gnu.org, it's released under the Free Art Licence

No. Freely licensing your IP does not void the copyrights you hold on it. The copyright is owned by gnu.org (donated by the artist) and it's released under the FAL.

Re:Cherry OS using the gnu-head . . .

[PhilHibbs]

Where did you see that? It just says that it is donated under licence on that page.

Re:Cherry OS using the gnu-head . . .

[spiritraveller]

The copyright is owned by gnu.org (donated by the artist) and it's released under the FAL.

From the GNU website:
We would like to thank Aurelio A. Heckert for donating this graphic to us under the Free Art License.

The artist has licensed it to GNU under the FAL. So Mr. Heckert still has the copyright and GNU just has a license to distribute it.

Re:CherryOS "Inventor" can't even ...

[benjcurry]

Right. I'm an American with a logical mind and I've never understood why people in the U.S. use mm.dd.yyyy...makes no sense. Either yyyy.mm.dd or dd.mm.yyyy, please!

Re:Time for GPL Challenge

[maxwell demon]

Given that the current GPL version is 2, I think your crystal ball has serious math problems ... ;-)

Yes but...

[Mr. Underbridge]

Does this mean that CherryOS has already lost their license to use the source code from PearPC?

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?

Re:Yes but...

[slavemowgli]

Yes - the fact that you do not hold the copyrights to the PearPC code.

Re:Yes but...

[swv3752]

Some readings of the GPL would claim that once in Violation of and GPL licencing, you are forever banned from distributing any GPL code.

In a more practical sense, a Judge would not look at Cherry to favorably if they tried that.

Cherry could have just sold box sets and put the source on cd in the box. They would then not have to give out the Source code to anyone who asks as it would be the responbility of the downstream distributors.

IE I buy CherryOS and give a copy to a friend, That friend would need to get the source from me as Cherry would not need to give out the source.

Re:Yes but...

[Minna Kirai]

Some readings of the GPL would claim that once in Violation of and GPL licencing, you are forever banned from distributing any GPL code.

Some people have read the GPL that way, but those people are wrong.

If you violate the terms of the GPL, your rights to have the software under that license are terminated. But it says nothing about your ability to re-acquire the software under a second license, which happens to be textually identical to the first one. So just stop the violating behavior, download another copy of the software from the original offer, it contains another license (which you can then obey), and off you go.

When a license contains a self-reference ("this license"), it means only that specific license, and not every other license with text like this one.

Re:Yes but...

[Mr. Underbridge]

When a license contains a self-reference ("this license"), it means only that specific license, and not every other license with text like this one.

OK, then am I wrong in believing that an 8-year-old could figure out how to get around that clause in the GPL? Seems like the very nature of the GPL prevents it from having any enforcability on that point.

Re:Yes but...

[jbolden]

The GPL gets all its powers from copyright law. Copyright law (for example the cleanflicks case which occured after version 2 of the GPL) considers the copy to carry the license not the source code in the abstract.

Re:Yes but...

[Mr. Underbridge]

The GPL gets all its powers from copyright law. Copyright law (for example the cleanflicks case which occured after version 2 of the GPL) considers the copy to carry the license not the source code in the abstract.

So that means each copy is effectively seperately copyrighted, correct? So as long as I license my GPL-derivative work under the GPL, it's effectively a new work?

Bottom line, I'm trying to interpret the actual text of the GPL to determine if PearPC could stop me (for example) from redistributing their work under the GPL to whomever I please, regardless of whether they've rescinded my licensee's contract under same. I don't see anything in the GPL (or anyone's response) that proves otherwise.

Am I correctly interpreting what you said?

Re:Yes but...

[jbolden]

So that means each copy is effectively seperately copyrighted, correct?

Seperately licensed not seperately copyrighted.

So as long as I license my GPL-derivative work under the GPL, it's effectively a new work?

Each copy has its own license. I'm having a little trouble parsing what you are saying here and I'm trying to be careful.

Bottom line, I'm trying to interpret the actual text of the GPL to determine if PearPC could stop me (for example) from redistributing their work under the GPL to whomever I please, regardless of whether they've rescinded my licensee's contract under same.

I'm arguing that the "rescinding" isn't an act with any legal validity. So no they couldn't do anything.

Am I correctly interpreting what you said?

I think so.

A pointless exercise

[gunpowda]

What original source code would there be? A link to the PearPC site would accomplish exactly the same thing.

Re:CherryOS "Inventor" can't even ...

[zoomba]

Whenever I hear a date spoken, it's usually said like this "April 7th, 2005" Even many people who live abroad say it like that. Why isn't it then logical to write a date out in the same order it is spoke?

I don't think I've ever heard someone say todays date is "2005, April 7th"

Re:CherryOS "Inventor" can't even ...

[rbarreira]

Yeah, middle-endian sucks... Let's hope they don't start using this in cpu's :)

Motives

[Morosoph]

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.

Re:CherryOS "Inventor" can't even ...

[rbarreira]

Well, here in Portugal NO-ONE says dates like that, fortunately... Even if we did, it's kind of different because when you say it that way, there's no chance of confusion (the same isn't true for dates expressed with numbers).

Umm yep

[McDutchie]

You can't simply revoke their license, the GPL has no provision for that (and thank God for that).

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."

overwhelming demand

[koehn]

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.

Re:overwhelming demand

[benhaha]

Erm, no. They lose the right to copy if they voilate the GPL. But once they comply, they can re-acquire the right to copy in the same way as anyone else, by agreeing to the terms of the GPL.

Nothing in the GPL prevents anyone from using GPL'd works if they have violated the license terms IN THE PAST, only if they are CURRENTLY violating them.

This is the plain-english reading of the GPL, and also the same conclusion a German court recently came to.

A charitable view...

[CDarklock]

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.

Re:A charitable view...

[drew]

while theoretically possible, it doesn't make the company any more respectable in my eyes, as they swore up and down that the entire project was written in four months by their lead developer, who has shown a blatent disregard for the GPL several times on the past.

Re:A charitable view...

[CDarklock]

How do you think they determined that? I'll bet they asked him. "Did you write this whole thing in four months?" "Why yes, yes I did." End of story in most organisations.

And in many large companies, there's also a sort of nervous laughter while pointedly looking the other way about certain employees. We *know* what they're doing probably isn't strictly speaking legal or ethical, but we studiously avoid knowing too much about it because that would obligate us to *do* something about it (and potentially expose us to implication). When you're pretty sure your colleague is stealing from competitors to give your company a stronger market advantage, doing the Right Thing is probably detrimental to your career, so you pretend to have more doubt than you really do.

Re:A charitable view...

[saddino]

That was my initial impression as well, but that is clearly not the case. As the developer, Arben Kryesiu has been extremely vocal about his "creation" of CherryOS and has granted many interviews proudly describing his "inspiration" to write CherryOS -- hardly a "fly-by-night" developer who got caught up in a lie and skipped town after delivering a bogus product.

The "company" that owns CherryOS, Maui-X Stream, has the following in their bio:

Jim Kartes is the president of Maui-X Stream. He and Arben Kryesiu started the company in the winter of 2003.

So, this publicity hounding "developer" is a also co-founder of the company, and hence: the company is not an innocent player in all of this.

Re:A charitable view...

[drew]

in this case, the 'certain employee' who claimed (publicly, not just to his boss) to have written cherryOS in four months, by himself, is one of the founders of the company. this is not a large company we're talking about, here, this is a small shop with at most a couple of developers.

So, we have a company that was founded by a guy who is known to have blatantly disregarded the GPL in the past, that from all apearances has no employees except the two founders, whose two main commercial products show substantial evidence of consisting mainly of code taken from open source projects.

you may wish to give 'the company' the benefit of the doubt regarding their intentions in this mess, but if you do, just remember, they are not the victim of some 'fly by night' contractor, but of one of their own founders.

Re:A charitable view...

[adiposity]

Arben *is* the company. He *is* the one who claims to have written CherryOS. He *is* the one who claims that all the PearPC code was put in by another developer, who probably never existed, and whose existence was never mentioned except after the accusations. He *is* the one who lied and said this developer only put a small amount of code in there, even though it was obvious that the entire core of PearPC was copied (only a slightly different front-end was used).

-Dan

Re:A charitable view...

[CDarklock]

I'm primarily suggesting that we're taking an extreme view of this situation, and there is another extreme view on the opposite side. Both views are probably *too* extreme.

As George Carlin said, somewhere between "Famous Potatoes" and "Live Free or Die", the truth lies... and it's probably a *little* closer to "Famous Potatoes".

Re:A charitable view...

[yamla]

A company is legally responsible for copyright infringement committed by their employees in the course of their employment. In this case, therefore, the company would NOT be completely innocent. Or, in fact, innocent at all.

Of course, this hinges somewhat on the fact that it was not a contractor who copied the code but rather, an employee. Or, in fact, a cofounder of the company. I'm not sure if or how things would be different if it was a contractor who produced the work. In any case, though, the company is not allowed to continue distributing the application as they have continued to do, so they'd be at least partially liable.

Question of enforcement

[ari_j]

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.

release the installer code

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

Re:You've overlooked something

[Slashcrap]

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.

Re:CherryOS "Inventor" can't even ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Whenever I hear a date spoken, it's usually said like this "April 7th, 2005"

I've only ever heard that on American TV - in the UK we say 7th of April, 2005 instead.

DDMMYYYY is a logical order in that it starts specific and becomes more general, much like postal addresses.

YYYYMMDD is great for numeric sorting in computing, as it's correct for date order too.

I can't really see any good reason to use MMDDYYYY at all, except "it matches the common spoken form in US English". Perhaps it's just another American mutation from real English, like dropping the 'u' in colour. :-)

Re:CherryOS "Inventor" can't even ...

[Zebadias]

When I hear the date spoken its 7th of April 2005 but this may be because I live in England.

It won't happen

[CdBee]

The creators of PearPC have withdrawn MXS' right to use their code (The GPL allows for this, apparently), due to prior illegal use thereof..

Re:It won't happen

[Ciaran_H]

Interesting. Do you have any links? I'm interested in seeing it. Not that I don't believe you, but I just hadn't heard it before.

Re:It won't happen

[arose]

The GPL does not allow to withdraw the "right to use". But you automaticly lose any privileges granted by the GPL (read distribution rights) if you break its terms.

I have

[Kjella]

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

Re:I have

[McDutchie]

The fact that no due process has taken place does not mean the license has not been terminated; it just means that such termination has not yet been legally proven. That's not the same thing. The recovation still takes place at the moment of the infraction.

In other words, if the termination gets legally proven, then the termination has confirmed legal force from the moment of the first infraction of the GPL.

Re:I have

[AndroidCat]

Due process and conviction apply to criminal law. A licence dispute might end up in civil court involving contract law to get a judgement to enforce either cancelling the revocation or stop the shipping of unlicenced product.

Re:I have

[sparkz]

I suspect you're getting too bogged-down in the detail... what if I download the source afresh - I get a new license to use that source (not the one I downloaded a year ago and abused the license)

Re:I have

[McDutchie]

what if I download the source afresh - I get a new license to use that source

I doubt a judge would agree with that line of reasoning.

Curiouser and Curiouser...

[rincebrain]

The company site has removed CherryOS from their product listings.

http://www.mxsinc.com/

Re:Curiouser and Curiouser...

[rincebrain]

Still interesting to note, though, that they're not got any information on it any more.

Would be surprised...

[NemosomeN]

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.

Interview scheduled; question suggestions welcomed

[bdipert]

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.

Re:CherryOS "Inventor" can't even ...

[pizpot]

Hint: if you name some files like file.20050406 file.20050407 file.20050408 Then when you sort them by name, they also sort by date. :-) Here at MotorCoachInd, we use 07AP05 format. It does't sort, but you know what it means for sure.

The next step in this circus...

[Jugalator]

Would be if PearPC was actually secretly developed by ...dun dun dun... SCO!

That would make a lot of brains to explode here. :-)

Re:You've overlooked something

[Welsh Dwarf]

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.

And then

[Patrick Mannion]

They'll annouce, they're partnering with Microsoft and going closed source.

Attention grabbers

[Patrick Mannion]

I'm thinking CherryOS is loving this attention. I mean over the past copule of weeks, it was CherryOS this or CherryOS that.

I wonder....

[Patrick Mannion]

If they'll merge with PearPC, of course then again, it's a rip so it won't really do much.

Re:CherryOS "Inventor" can't even ...

[univacmac]

i cant quite remember who did that - but some time in americas history, a guy (cant remember who) wanted to make US english simplier and different from UK english and to make it simpler was to drop all the U's in words like color. it wasnt that big a hit, but the spelling changes stayed. correct me if i am wrong.

CherryOS is not his only problem.

[GoRK]

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 :)

Re:CherryOS is not his only problem.

[ivoras]

Most of the posts seem to bash on the guy(s) for violating GPL and other licenses. That (violating GPL) is bad, against license, morals, etc. - no news here.

What I would really wish is for someone to explain how could they use the open-source code, produce something marketable and still profit from it? Or is it just the case of "if you don't want to release it as GPL, you don't belong here and don't ever ever ever use GPL tainted code for commercial stuff". If that's the case, several good products (theirs) wouldn't have been made.

As I understand it, they took the open-sourced code and actually added value (features) to it, and their customers are happy for it. They certainly invested time & resources in adding the features. In short, how to reconcile the wish for profit & GPL?

Re:CherryOS is not his only problem.

[BigDaddyJ]

Two choices:

• Release the source as GPL, but sell the bundling, a la Red Hat & co. You can actually make pretty good money this way, since you can tie support to the purchase of a product.
• Negotiate with the developer to get a commercial license which allows you to close-source all modifications and release it as a product. Many developers are willing to do such "dual-licensing" agreements, and in fact some (TrollTech for example) offer such an arrangement from the outset.

--bdj

Re:CherryOS is not his only problem.

[psykocrime]

You can sell GPL'ed code for as much money as you want. There is no problem producing GPL'ed code and selling it for a profit. Read this part of the GPL FAQ:

Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?
Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)

Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?
Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide "equivalent access" to download the source--therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.

Does the GPL allow me to require that anyone who receives the software must pay me a fee and/or notify me?
No. In fact, a requirement like that would make the program non-free. If people have to pay when they get a copy of a program, or if they have to notify anyone in particular, then the program is not free. See the definition of free software.

The GPL is a free software license, and therefore it permits people to use and even redistribute the software without being required to pay anyone a fee for doing so.
If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge?
No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public.

The only thing tricky about selling GPL'ed software is that anybody can buy a copy and then start redistributing it for any price they choose, including free (as in beer). Whether or not that would happen in any given case, is anybody's guess.

And even if it does, that doesn't mean you can't still make a profit. It's entirely possible that people would choose to buy from you, as opposed to getting for free from somebody else. Just ask RedHat. People buy RHEL for thousands of dollars, despite the availability of CentOS, WBEL, etc.

Re:CherryOS is not his only problem.

[Junta]

The chief differentiator being that RHEL is bought only because of support, not on technical merit of the product by itself. For individual applications particularly, if successful you could guarantee:
a) It *will* be re-released for free.
b) Unless really complicated, the support alone will not be enough incentive for people to chose the pay option enough to justify any business case.

Let's face it, to do exactly as the GPL expects for products that inherently require little/no support/service, it is near impossible to make money. A lot of companies find the LGPL much more palletable, and can build commercial, non-free software on free libraries and not go against the spirit of those authors.

I like the GPL for my projects, as I don't like the thought of some company or person grabbing my work, putting the slightest bit of spit and polish, and making money off of it while I get nothing for building the base for them, not even code contributions for what they've done.

Worried ...

[climb_no_fear]

that lawsuits from the FSF would pop their Cherry (ouch that hurt)

Red Carpet

[clickster]

I for one welcome our fruity new overlords. Hail Pea...Cherr...fruits.

I doubt that

[Just Some Guy]

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?

Re:I doubt that

[iCEBaLM]

Yes. You own your code.

Re:I doubt that

[jbolden]

You see the answer below. I think this is an interesting question. "Projects" are not legal entities and thus can't own copyrights. On the other hand when you submit code to be redistributed by a "project" are you in fact giving a license to the project maintainer (who is a legal entity)? Since the GPL allows for encorporation into other projects under the terms of the GPL I think the law would assert that this constitutes full rights with full standing.

In which case I'm not sure the guy who wrote the Altivec code has the right anymore to indicate whether Cherry OS can use code he wrote from PearPC.

That's not even counting the fact that even if he were the maintainer I question whether he would have those rights. The law has pretty much consistently ruled against the "I'm cancelling XYZ's rights" for things that are widely distributed.

Re:I doubt that

[bedessen]

Yes, but you can't revoke a GPL-licensed work retroactively. You can make future versions available only under a more restrictive license, but once you put Version X.Y-Z out under the GPL it's out, you cannot relicense it later. You can of course always dual license it, but there is still a copy of the GPLd one. And of course if a party violates the GPL then they forfeit their right to the terms of the license and no longer have those rights. "Said person" cannot retroactively revoke anything, except as far as to demand that since CherryPC violated the terms of the GPL they no longer have a right to the code. But that's not revoking anything, that's just enforcing terms that are already in the GPL.

Once it's out under the GPL, it's out forever, there is no revocation, regardless of what the copyright holder wants or desires. Otherwise it would not be Free software, as a company could release something and then later decide to revoke all rights because they want to make more money off the product.

hit ms

[blackomegax]

great, lets set out to prove windows is bogus next,

then MS will be FORCED to release source code.


riiiight?

Re:Valid clause?

[91degrees]

Ultimately, it depends on what a court says. A legal opinion is just an opinion.

If the pearPC guys do decide to sue, then they could prevent CherryOS from distributing under the GPL, but I don't think it's certain that they'll win.

GPL

[eventhorizon5]

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:

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/oldvers ion

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

nmap vs SCO

[hotspotbloc]

Yes, actually. Remember nmap vs SCO?

For those that don't remember (from Nmap 3.50 Press Release - 2004-02-20):

SCO Corporation of Lindon, Utah (formerly Caldera) has lately taken to an extortion campaign of demanding license fees from Linux users for code that they themselves knowingly distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL. They have also refused to accept the GPL, claiming that some preposterous theory of theirs makes it invalid (and even unconstitutional)! Meanwhile they have distributed GPL-licensed Nmap in (at least) their "Supplemental Open Source CD". In response to these blatant violations, and in accordance with section 4 of the GPL, we hereby terminate SCO's rights to redistribute any versions of Nmap in any of their products, including (without limitation) OpenLinux, Skunkware, OpenServer, and UNIXWare. We have also stopped supporting the OpenServer and UNIXWare platforms.

Really just PearPC?

[misleb]

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

Their web page says

[studoug]

Due to Overwhelming Demand

Cherry Open Source Project

Launches 5.1.2005

Woulld that be overwhelming demand, or threat of lawsuit. : )

Re:Interview scheduled; question suggestions welco

[zitsky]

We will be charging only $14.95 for this to cover our cost of development, plus ongoing development as well as marketing costs.

So, they are still trying to "sell" this and now we're back to square one. 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.

You Misunderstand When and How the GPL is Applied.

[HopeOS]

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

GNU Heads, Refunds, and new definitions of words

[JavaJoint]

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!"

Re:GNU Heads, Refunds, and new definitions of word

[JavaJoint]

[oh, now I'm the wanker.. sorry that was all run together.. here's the proper version... - dls]

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!"

Link to revocation of licence rights

[CdBee]

" 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

Re:Link to revocation of licence rights

[krumms]

You missed the most interesting part:

Notice, if you're paying attention, even if they comply with the GPL now, they're still in violation of my copyright.

Trademark != copyright

[tepples]

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.

Re:Trademark != copyright

[FooBarWidget]

So? The original poster claimed that RedHat is not 100% GPL. Trademarks have got nothing to do with the license.

Re:Trademark != copyright

[eraserewind]

One question, how can it be GPL if it has additional restrictions imposed upon it?

GNU Open source

[millette]

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.

lose, not loose.

[Cryptnotic]

Your post isn't insightful if you can't spell properly.

Copyright industry malcontent

[tepples]

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).

Re:Copyright industry malcontent

[tepples]

If you sing it, program it, write it, or create it in some other way, it is yours and you [should] be allowed to [have] the opportunity to profit from it

The incumbent music publishers will argue in court that you did not in fact create an original work but instead subconsciously copied something that you had heard ten years ago on commercial FM radio. (Read More...)

until your death.

Then what's the point of the "plus 70" in life-plus-70 copyright terms?

In Other News...

[superultra]

Vanilla Ice has announced that he is dedicating his 1990s hit song, "Ice Ice Baby" to David Bowie and Queen.

Copyright infringement plus plagiarism

[tepples]

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.

Depends on whether they include © notices

[tepples]

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.

Distribution charge

[tepples]

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.

You have a Y2K bug

[tepples]

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?

CherryOS Stands For...

[boingyzain]

So I guess CherryOS stands for "Cherry Open Source" now?

Re:You Misunderstand When and How the GPL is Appli

[jbolden]

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.

Re:Valid clause?

[91degrees]

Not exactly the same situation though.

Personally, I'm fairly neutral over CherryOS now they're at least vaguely doing the right thing, but sympathetic towards the bnetd guys (although I can't remember the details).

The site should read...

[borgheron]

"Because of overwhelming evidence..." instead of "by popular demand." :)

GJC

delaying tactics

[Khashishi]

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.

Re:CherryOS "Inventor" can't even ...

[morpheus800e]

some time in americas history, a guy (cant remember who) wanted to make US english simplier and different from UK english and to make it simpler was to drop all the U's in words like color.

I'm pretty sure that was a guy named Noah Webster. His doings may have had some minor effect on the American English language.

When you think about it.....

[Starraisin1]

I guess this means CherryOS is no longer a virgin after May 1st.

Re:CherryOS "Inventor" can't even ...

[koko775]

Isn't it because you usually say it "Month, Day, Year" as in "January 01, 1979" rather than "1979,January 01" or "01 January 1979"?

No, there will be more shenanigans yet.

[koko775]

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.

More GPL confusions

[sparkz]

There's no need to acknowledge the original project (though it's considered polite).

Re:You Misunderstand When and How the GPL is Appli

[jbolden]

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

Re:CherryOS "Inventor" can't even ...

[cmay]

I was going to reply with the "we use mm.dd.yy because you speak it as April 10th 2005" argument, but everyone else has already done that.

So, let me pose this question. Why does the military NOT use the normal US convention of saying "April 10th 2005". To them it is "10 April 2005".

Notice I didn't say "The Tenth", or "Tenth Of". It's simply "Ten April 2005".

On another note: Nothing about the calendar(or the clock) makes sense. Ok you are locked into 365 days / year, but why 12 months? Why some have 30 some have 31 and Feb has 28?
Why 12 hours on the clock and 24 hours in the day?

12 is a better number to base your system off than 10 in my opinion because it can be divided into equal halfs, quaters, thirds. Base 10 can only do 1 of those (.5).

So, if you accept that we live in a 10 base world, and that people are not going to switch to a 12 base system, why not have a 10 based calendar and clock?

How easy would this be??
yyyy.ddd.hh.mmm.sss

Today would be:
2005.98.05.31.05

10 hours / 1 day
100 minutes / hour
100 seconds / minutes

With this modified system, what we think of as a "second" would only be 15% different from what we call a second now.

Whatever... the damn stupid souther state americans could never survive if we changed to the metric system, so this type of change could never happen.

Maybe if we made the case that Jesus loves the metric system?! It could work!

That wasn't flamebait!

[R.Mo_Robert]

Moderators ... that wasn't flamebait, it was a serious question.

Re:CherryOS "Inventor" can't even ...

[masklinn]

Would still be much funnier to use Maya calendar system.

These guys had 2 calendars, haab the solar year with 18 months of 20 days and an additionnal 5 days (Uayeb) AND tzolkin the religious year which is barely understandable (basically, you get 13 day ranks from 1 to 13, then 20 names, and every time a day passes you both increase the rank and go to the next day... 260 days year without any kind of month in it)

The date was spelt xXyY
With x the rank from tzolkin
X the day name from tzolkin
y the day of the month from haab
and Y the name of the month from haab

Using this combo, your calendar (calendar round) is really 18980 days, or 52 solar years

The GPL is Not a Per-Copy License

[HopeOS]

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

Re:The GPL is Not a Per-Copy License

[jbolden]

And what case law do you have to back this position up?

Re:The GPL is Not a Per-Copy License

[HopeOS]

No case law is necessary since the definition will suffice. A license is a grant, not a piece of paper. If you could resurrect a void license by making a photocopy, the legal system would be turned on its ear. No lawyer would attempt to argue that for fear of sanctions.

-Hope