Slashdot Mirror
CherryOS Goes Open Source
netsniper writes "The CherryOS website now acknowledges a forthcoming alliance with Open Source Software! After going 'on hold' recently, a re-release of CherryOS is purported to be coming in May according to the site. This is great news on the surface, but let's see how it pans out. This move is probably a result of the many reviews of their product that set out to prove it was bogus."
..that they are popping their Cherry?
It seems unlikely that they're doing it voluntarily. Maybe they came to an agreement with the people behind PearPC in order to keep the whole thing out of court?
Oh please. Can this whole shenanigan just end already? By now, it's already been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that CherryOS is a repackaged version of PearPC (google for "spiro multimax 3000"). Arben and MXS are using absolutely any tactic to get attention. He must have a serious ego problem.
Take off every sig. For great justice.
It's easy. All they had to do in order to avoid all the bad press is to start out with it being Open Source. The GPL states that you can charge for a product, or do whatever you like with it, just as long as your provide the source code. And if you use source code from another project (PearPC), then you have to acknowledge it.
It was so simple and easy, I don't know why they didn't Open Source Cherry OS from the begining.
If your friend lies to you, and then comes clean... you maybe forgive them, but you never really respect them all that much, because you know they can lie to your face.
CherryOS will never look that cool to any of us, because they only came clean because of being caught in a lie.
s/demand/threats of legal action/
It would be funny if the OSS release proved that it wasn't a rip-off of PearPC. Unlikely, but funny.
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.
"You're older than you've ever been, and now you're even older."
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
Does this mean that CherryOS has already lost their license to use the source code from PearPC?
The developer of the Altivec emulation (the one who was collecting money for a lawsuit) has already revoked their rights to his code. Even if they try to open source they still have problems as they are now dealing with copyrighted code.
I for one wish to thank CherryOS developers for being so generous to give the fruits of their so hard work to the community.
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.
This move is probably a result of the many reviews of their product that set out to prove it was bogus.
1. Say Windows XP/Longhorn is bogus
2. Wait for them to release it as Open Source
3. ???
4. Profit!!!
This sig does not contain any SCO code.
They're only admitting it now.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Can they just open source their "project" now? Is it not too late? Hasn't several developers permanantly revoked the GPL license from CherryOS so they can never use their code?
It smells more like a half-assed effort to calm down legal threats than anything.
The moment you see their words "popular demand" you know they're STILL trying to lie and get away with something.
If this is true, then the agreement sucks.
At the very least, it must include an admission of guilt and a formal apology, or some form of other punitive measures.
It seems they can *totally* get away with it now, and nobody will even know they did something wrong.
Don't let it happen.
How can you steal it. They only copied and modified the source, no theft here.
Move along, the parent is nothing but a TROLL!
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!
BenCurry.net
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
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."
Assume the project starts up and hires some fly-by-night guy to design and build this system. He promises he can do it in four months for X amount of money.
This guy tries like hell to build the project, but gets stymied by some stuff. So he downloads PearPC and tries to figure out what he's doing wrong.
Eventually, he figures out that what he did wrong was promise something that nobody could deliver, so he panics and starts mucking around in PearPC to conceal its origin.
When the deadline hits, he sends them his "obfuscated" version of PearPC and collects his check. He runs off into the night hoping nobody ever finds out.
Meanwhile, the completely innocent company puts this project up for sale. The open source community raises hell. The company goes "OMG! WTF?" and yanks it off the market.
After some examination, the company decides that the only possible way to recover from this (according to their lawyers) is to GPL the project. Since it qualifies as a work made for hire, they own all the rights to the non-PearPC code, so they can license *that* however they like.
Just playing devil's advocate. Maybe the big bad company isn't the villain here; maybe it's just one crappy little ass-hat developer.
Microsoft cheerleader, blue flag waving, you got a problem with that?
RTFL
I have. But have you heard of a small legal principle called 'due process'? Once you've legally established that 4 has been violated, the license is revoked. It said so in the next sentence. Your claim that the license has been violated is not a conviction.
Otherwise IBM would have had to stop shipping AIX long ago based on SCOs claim that the license is revoked. See the difference? If you want to terminate their license, you must prove (a preponderance of evidence) that there are grounds for termination.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
" If you're reading this, anyone at MXS, I have been far more than fair. I have so far only ever asked you to comply with the GPL, and release your source code. But now you've pissed me off. Being that I need now contact a lawyer, I will not stop simply there. Being that I'm full copyright owner of my code, and can do as I please, including providing overriding licenses to those openly available.
Since I view Maui X-Stream as in breach of the GPL under which my code is distributed, let this serve as public notice, that my code is no longer legally available for any reason to Maui X-Stream. Since they refuse to co-operate with the very lenient guidelines of the GPL, and refuse at all ends to comply with it. They can no longer claim any rights under the GPL license concerning my code. As such, my original rights of copyright apply, and I refuse any legal access to Maui X-Stream to my code (my code being specifically the G4/AltiVec emulation in generic, and in specific to x86 scalar, and SSE as implemented as a modification to the PearPC project)"
Text copied from here
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU