CherryOS is dead! Long live PearPC!

trygvebw writes "Earlier today, an entry was posted on Arben Kryzeiu's blog, stating that he was stopping development of CherryOS. CherryOS was an application sold by MXS, inc, which was clearly an illegal rip-off of the open-source PowerPC emulator PearPC. CherryOS is dead, long live PearPC!"

Comments

Nice.. but

[Dh2000]

Is there an apology or anything?

Didn't think so

Re:Nice.. but

[Leroy_Brown242]

All's fair in love and war.

To many in this industry, both are involved.

Re:Nice.. but

[ModernGeek]

I think since the project isn't going to be maintained anymore, and CherryOS isn't going to be sold, that Cherry OS should release its source code to the public so they can prove it isn't just PearPC with a name slapped on it.

Re:Nice.. but

[Krach42]

No. There has been no such apology, nor reconciliation of previous infringements upon our copyrights.

So, while Maui X-Stream has passed the product off to Arben Kryeziu, and he has said that it's not worth the effort, and he will not continue the product, they have still not released the source code for their products.

We will continue to push them legally until they have complied, and reconciliated their previous actions.

Notice his blog even only mentions QEmu as an alternative to CherryOS. Thanks guy, way to appreciate the people you step on.

Re:Nice.. but

[Krach42]

I think since the project isn't going to be maintained anymore, and CherryOS isn't going to be sold, that Cherry OS should release its source code to the public so they can prove it isn't just PearPC with a name slapped on it.

Because they could only condemn themselves by doing so.

In attempting to go Open Source, they likely found how impossible it would be to hide a derivative work in the source code (you can't just rename variables, that's too easy to detect, and look for)

So, upon finding out how difficult it were going to be, they decided to remove liability by having Arben leave with the rights, and have him just stop the project.

great!

[croddy]

now, what about those video codec products that are full of GPL'ed code?

Re:great!

[hunterx11]

Maybe there is a gentlemen's agreement not to bother codec makers about using GPL'ed code if codec makers don't bother users about using illegal codecs with things like VLC.

Re:great!

[Lehk228]

VLC is based in and distributed from contries which do not respect software patents, this is one reason the EU software patent issue is a major problem

Re:great!

[Krach42]

No one has stop legal steps against MXS, and Arben Kryeziu.

Just stopping their release of the product does not absolve them of former infringements.

And what about VX30?

[wan-fu]

The company still hasn't answered any questions about VX30 (possible GPL violation?). Does anyone have news/updates about this?

Text of Arben's blog.

[Anonymous Coward]

The last bite on CherryOS

I decided that C-OS is not worth the hassle, not now or in the future. C-OS went to work without brushing its teeth or taking a shower, it was not ready.

Other current open source projects are progressing to the desired product; Qemu will soon support OS X and lead the way. Or maybe I am wrong and someone else will make a fast lead.

I love my Mac and would never switch back, sure I use my PC for work but that is just a bad habit that I am trying to get rid of. A friend of mine asked me why I am still creating software for Windows and that question is not getting out of my head. Oh yeah, I know - everyone out there who has their certain opinion about me will have their great comment hour right now. Its ok I expect that anyway.

Now what?

Don't know and won't know for a while.

I will go kite boarding or go fishing, get some air before I go back to my beloved square box. Tiger is great, amazing features and I love the hidden details. Don't know how Longhorn is going to compete with this OS now, would love to know what BG has planned for the future of Windows other than the marketing details.

What will change everything is WIFIMAX, wow it will be the first step into a security nightmare and communication dreamland.

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah, I know - everyone out there who has their certain opinion about me will have their great comment hour right now. Its ok I expect that anyway

So you should, scum. Code that I wrote for PearPC was found in CherryOS, and you went along with the bullshit that it was only similar because it "ran the apple code".

You're a liar and a thief.

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a liar and a thief.

He's a liar, a copyright infringer and a plagiarist. He's not a thief.

I think he's scum too, but that doesn't change the nature of his actions.

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[rogabean]

Oh yeah?

He stole code from one open sourced GPL'd project and put it into his closed project.

I call him a thief.

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[shaitand]

In order for theft to occur he would have to take something away. He didn't steal anything. He COPIED code from one open sourced GPL project and put it into his closed project. The PearPC project still has all of their code.

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[rogabean]

Bah another slashdot semantic war over the word "stolen".

v. stole, (stl) stolen, (stln) stealing, steals:

1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

Did he or did he not take property? The code belonged to the developers. He had taken code that belonged to someone and else.

It's theft of intellectual property. Yes it's plagiarism as well. I consider plagiarism just another form of theft.

To steal doesn't imply that the victim no longer has something. It states that something was taken from them.

Bah! it's Saturday and I'm arguing semantics on Slashdot.

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't steal anything. Lying isn't theft. Copyright infringement isn't theft. Plagiarism isn't theft.

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[Anonymous Coward]

Did he or did he not take property?

He did not. It's not property and it wasn't taken anyway, just copied.

As the Supreme Court judges noted in Dowling vs US, copyrights don't easily equate to property rights, they are a fundamentally different thing, and more limited in scope.

I really don't see what you are getting so worked up about. In this case, copyright infringement is worse than theft, because if he had merely stolen a CD with the code on, you'd be out the cost of a CD. Because he illegally copied it and claimed it as his own, he denied the privileges granted by the GPL from the people he distributed his illegal copies to.

It seems to me, the people who get so annoyed at people who point out the difference between theft and copyright infringement only do so because they think of copyright infringement as a lesser offence, rather than simply a different one.

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[FidelCatsro]

Hes a plagerist , though I consider plagerism as reprehensible as theft.
I suppose though , plagerism could fall under the bracket of theft(pure semantics) .The GPL ideals are about the freedom of the code and about keeping it free .What he did was restrict the freedoms of the code, plagerised the pearPC teams hard work and he did not return any changes he had made .

Its seems rather silly to me , All he would have needed to do would be to return changes and provide source code .The target audiance are most likely people who wouldnt want to or perhaps don't know how to compile from source and most likely want support for the product beyond IRC and forums.
There is no shame in continuing on from others work, it seems to me to be a pure ego thing in denying he got some code(or all the code) from the PearPC project.

I wouldn't myself call him a thief though , as from what i can tell we havn't lost anything bar his contribution to the GPL work.

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[rogabean]

I don't think of it as a lesser offense. I just consider it still to be a form of thievery.

So in most ways we agree. He is a copyright violator.

We just disagree on whether copyright violation is another form of theft. /sigh.. ok semantics aside. We are agree he is scum.

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[Anonymous Coward]

We just disagree on whether copyright violation is another form of theft.

Putting it in perspective: I have the Supreme Court on my side. You have the RIAA and the MPAA on your side.

Referring to it as copyright infringement won't piss anybody off. Referring to it as theft will, plus it will distract people from the point you are trying to make.

Basically, even if you won't concede that copyright infringement is not theft, it's still the wrong choice of words, assuming you aren't trolling.

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Gotta admit calling someone "scum", followed by "liar and copyright infringer" doesn't have the same emotional impact. It is even almost funny.

To the Anon Coward whose code was inappropriately copied, you have my sympathy.

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[Anonymous Coward]

To steal doesn't imply that the victim no longer has something. It states that something was taken from them.

And obviously, if something has been taken from you, you no longer have it!

SHEESH!

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[LWATCDR]

Ah but if you say that he stole from you then the people that download MP3s, and movies have also stolen. That is not something that people on Slashdot want to hear.

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[Anonymous Coward]

that definition does not apply to software.. it isn't an item that can be taken away from someone. When I copy someone elses work out of a book I haven't stolen those words.. i've committed plagiarism.

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Neither the Supreme Court nor the **AAs really define language. The first might define law or interpretation of it, the second is trying to exploit law.

The theft vs. copyright infringement it is a matter of splitting hairs, sometimes by people trying to justify what the are doing.

The way I can see it is: someone having something that they don't have a legal right to have. To be honest, it sounds like theft to me.

Theft doesn't necessarily have to mean depriving the original owner. A person could steal a car, joyride in it and return it in original condition before the owner needed to use it, unawares, but it doesn't stop the act from being called theft.

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[Travelsonic]

It's theft of intellectual property

Look, I don't like what he did either, but if " theft of intellectual property" exists, then why are pirates not in jail for this, or being prosecuted for it? Simple, the guy commited a copyright/GPL violation. Yes he was wrong, but the crime is not any form theft but instead an infringement. Legally those who pointed it out are correct. Nothing was really "anek" merely copied, and the supreme court ruled piracy and copyright infringement a crime, but not theft.

Yes it's plagiarism as well. I consider plagiarism just another form of theft.

I was tought this in school, but I reject this notion, only because I was taught a different form of theft not really being tought nowadays where there has to be loss in order for theft to exist, and not hypothetical lost either.

To steal doesn't imply that the victim no longer has something. It states that something was taken from them.

Wait, was that a 360 degree flip? Doesn't "taking" in the rawest sense mean that a person was relieved of his/her use or access to? Something they had? If so (this all depends on interpretation of dictionary and law, and philosophical aspects as well), you statement was an oxymoron.

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[Travelsonic]

The theft vs. copyright infringement it is a matter of splitting hairs, sometimes by people trying to justify what the are doing.

This is partial BS, copyright infringement and theft are legally different, and used to be tought as philosophic and legal different in terms of what occures, although tought as wrong together, but the fact that they are different is important to the debate because of the fact that the events that occure in each crime (which can be, and to alot are both equally wrong) differ, and mixing them together in a debate when one crime [in this case, theft] is NOT even relevant to the debate unless it is used to sway opinions using examples and moral language/

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither the Supreme Court nor the **AAs really define language.

No, but the Supreme Court's opinion on whether copyright is a form of property is very relevant when the person's argument rests on "he took property".

The theft vs. copyright infringement it is a matter of splitting hairs

No, it's not. The general public has a solid grasp of theft. They know it's wrong, they wouldn't even question it.

The public don't have a solid grasp of copyright infringement. If the RIAA and the MPAA weren't constantly trying to confuse copyright infringement and theft, a lot less people would take "copyright infringement is a terrible crime" at face value unquestioningly.

The reason the RIAA and the MPAA want to avoid this is because they know that the copyright laws are way out of proportion and favour them way more than society as a whole. They don't want to rock the boat by letting people ask questions like "is this really all necessary?".

I'm actually in favour of copyright and against copyright infringement, but do think that the laws need to be scaled back significantly. As long as the lie that copyright infringement is theft is propogated, the public will never even consider the possibility of scaling back the laws. After all, everybody knows theft is wrong - why should we go easy on thieves?

By confusing the two terms, you are supporting the RIAA and the MPAA's endeavours in this respect. It's not just a case of "splitting hairs".

The way I can see it is: someone having something that they don't have a legal right to have. To be honest, it sounds like theft to me.

That's way too broad a definition. Eavesdropping would be classed as theft, for example, because you'd have information you weren't supposed to have.

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[cortana]

This is always a fun argument. ;)

The word you're looking for is "plagiariser" or "plagiarizer" probably if you hail from the far side of the pond.

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[Anonymous Coward]

He did not. It's not property

So intellectual property isn't property... what is it? Chocolate?

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[xoboots]

The way I can see it is: someone having something that they don't have a legal right to have. To be honest, it sounds like theft to me.

That is lacking. I can build something in my garage with my tools and my materials that infringes on a patent that I was honestly unaware of. Under the law, I don't have the legal right to have such a thing. Yet what did I "steal" from anyone? You might say that I stole the use of the patent, but as I mentioned, I didn't use the patent -- I unwittingly infringed on it. And infringement is what I am guilty of.

Theft has always meant relieving someone of their personal property such that they no longer can enjoy its use. It is still a valid concept wherever people agree to observe property dictums. It does not, however, adequately describe intellectual artefacts such as ideas. The real difference is in the fact that a "real" physical artefact's use is bounded by physical properties -- there is only one of it. But the use of an idea is not bounded by physical properties. Anyone's use of an idea does not in itself prevent someone else's use of that idea.

Recently (in the last 100-200 years) society has tended to impose artificial laws to bound legal usage of intellectual artefacts. That's another discussion, but the main emphasis is that using the term "theft" for anything that relates to these types of goods completely mischaracterizes the true nature of the situation.

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[shaitand]

According to merriam-Webster

"1 : to get into one's hands or into one's possession, power, or control: as a : to seize or capture physically b : to get possession of (as fish or game) by killing or capturing c (1) : to move against (as an opponent's piece in chess) and remove from play (2) : to win in a card game d : to acquire by eminent domain"

In every definition of take there is either a direct requirement or implied requirement that in order to "take" you have to "take away" something. Cut-paste takes away the origninal, copy-paste does not. Therefore to copy is NEVER to take.

Also, the COPYRIGHT belongs to developers NOT the code. A copy of the code is just a representation of an idea. Ideas are owned by nobody (or everyone). Copyright is a legal grant of certain limited rights to control how an idea is used in exchange for revealing the idea to others. You can take source code (perhaps there is only one copy and it resides on a floppy) but the only 'property' is the copyright on the source code, not the code itself. He did not steal your copyright, he infringed upon the privilages it grants you.

"To steal doesn't imply that the victim no longer has something. It states that something was taken from them."

In order to 'take' something, the victim can no longer have it.

"Bah! it's Saturday and I'm arguing semantics on Slashdot."

Tell me about it. *sighs* I wouldn't argue it if I did not think it was an important semantic though. If you forget or do not fully understand the difference between the idea (copyrighted material) and the property (the copyright granted) suddenly a lot of 'protections', 'rights', and 'enforcement' become reasonable.

And each of those things unjustly hinders the progress of mankind.

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[Mr. Slippery]

It's theft of intellectual property.

There is no such thing as "intellectual property" except as a bad metaphor. Ideas are not the same as real estate or physical objects.

There are legal entities of copyright, trademark, and patents. Violating these may be illegal, but is not theft, it is infringement of the copyright/patent/trademark.

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[QuantumG]

And you're a liar and a plagarist is just redundant.

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[nacturation]

Look it up in Black's Law Dictionary sometime. Theft is generally defined as taking someone else's property with the intent to deprive the owner of its use. No deprivation? Then it's not theft.

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[sabinm]

Give me a break. Anyone can see that this was a dumb kid who was looking to make a quick buck. It's obvious that he didn't understand the GPL and just lifted the code.

Can't you see the hints in his writing style? Can't you understand that when you ravenous mad foaming at the mouth dogs came for him he dug in his heels and kept at it?

This kid is NOT scum. He isn't half the villian you losers make him out to be. I feel bad for him. He obviously has *some* talent. No one has suggested to him to help work on PearPC.

This kind of lynch-mob attitude disgusts me. You guys just found a small target and started on him like a pack of rabid dogs. I've no respect for that. I hope those who make such asinine comments don't represent the majority of the Free software community. Why don't you stand up to a senator?

Yeah, what this kid did was dumb. Foolish and incompotent. Maybe even criminal. But the vapid cruelty that the community has spewed on him is undeserved and disproportionate to the crime. Get your priorities straight and lets stop the witch hunt.

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[Travelsonic]

No, it is a bunch of 1s and 0s that unlike property can be copied, mutliated, deficated, ect near infinity, and you can somehow retain an original of that.

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[Anonymous Coward]

Did he or did he not take property?
Now you've substituted a different word that you apparently don't quite understand. No, he did not take it. He copied it.

To steal doesn't imply that the victim no longer has something. It states that something was taken from them.
And since he still has it, obviously it wasn't taken from him.

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[Anonymous Coward]

A person could steal a car, joyride in it and return it in original condition before the owner needed to use it, unawares, but it doesn't stop the act from being called theft.

Of course during the time the thief had it the owner was deprived of its use, whether or not he would have actually used it. But what if he made a copy instead? Nobody would call that theft, even if he had a Replicator that made a perfect copy as if by magic.

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[Travelsonic]

Theft doesn't necessarily have to mean depriving the original owner. A person could steal a car, joyride in it and return it in original condition before the owner needed to use it...

That statement made no sense. When that hypothetical person took that car out, for that time being they DEPRIVED the owner of the use, regardless of if he/she was using it. Either way theft requires some sort of loss, and your example further seems to suport that stance.

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[Travelsonic]

Ah but if you say that he stole from you then the people that download MP3s, and movies have also stolen.

Yeah, but unless you can prove it has happened, IE You don't have the mp3/movie anymore, then I doubt that theft can be factually applied here, but instead see it only used emotionally.

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[iroll]

Maybe if Cherry-OS had gone quietly into the night (with a little "my bad" message) the FIRST time that he showed it off, and everybody and their brother explained to him that what he was doing was ripping them off, your defense would hold some water. But they kept trying to push it, and kept trying to claim it was original work, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This makes him more than dumb, foolish, and incompetant. It makes him a grade-A jerk. And the longer that a person acts like a jerk (months in his case) the longer his comeuppance will likely be.

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[MyDixieWrecked]

Much like a rapist can steal someone's virginity... although they can't get that back...

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[oldwolf13]

"taking" implites that you have their item, and they do not. If I "take" an apple from you, you no longer have that apple. It's closer to plagarism then theft.

Now I now you can say "he took that code from pearpc", but this is simply not correct... he copied it.

While I get tired of /. arguments about this sort of thing, I really agree with those who say it isn't stealing, and it shouldn't be labelled as such.

Just because it's in every day usage, doesn't mean it's correct.

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[LWATCDR]

Interesting... The idea of if no one saw you it never happened...
So as long as you are not caught it is okay... So if someone copies a huge chunk of GPLd code and sells it as their own.... As long as no one finds it then it never happened....

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[Moofie]

When something is taken from you, you don't have it anymore. That's what the word means.

If I copy something, you still have it. So nothing has been taken from you.

I'm not saying that what this joker did was OK, I'm saying that it's not called "stealing".

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[databank]

Intellectual property is an oxymoron. It isn't property at all. Its an idea thats' written down.

When writing software, you're essentially writing down your idea on how to make the computer work. Someone else may want to make a similar idea on how it works. They may even want it to do exactly the same thing as you want to do but that still doesn't make it a piece of "property". It makes a copied idea.

Now if they were to remove your name from it and put theirs on it and claim they wrote it, then its fraud. Again there's no theft going on. Merely the copied and falsely written claim that they came up with the code. Like a real-estate agent who doesn't provide full disclosure about a house, neither is a programmer providing full disclosure about where the software really came from.

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[madprof]

Infringing copyright is hardly morally better than stealing, is it?

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[kz45]

Oh yeah?

He stole code from one open sourced GPL'd project and put it into his closed project

I call him a thief

sorry, the original sourcecode was never stolen. (if it was, you wouldn't be able to download it at the pearPC website).

The GNU shouldn't be used in the same sentence as the word free. The free software foundation is just as bad as the BSA. Instead, however, they make their money off of GNU violations than companies that have installed commerical software illegally.

software freedom is the freedom to use software in any way that I so choose.

cherryOS might have been using OSS, but it didn't hurt anyone. The source to pearPC is still readily available and free.

Information needs to be free. If pearPC didn't want their sourcecode to be used, they shouldn't have released it to the public in the first place.

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[Travelsonic]

Interesting... The idea of if no one saw you it never happened... So as long as you are not caught it is okay... So if someone copies a huge chunk of GPLd code and sells it as their own.... As long as no one finds it then it never happened....

No, just that the crime is not nessecarily theft philosophically (succesfully argued against calling it theft) and never theft under law, but always wrong either way.

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[Travelsonic]

Infringing copyright is hardly morally better than stealing, is it?

That is one question that varies from personal morals/opinions of one person to another. I personally think it is only morally "better" in certain cases, equally wrong in other cases, although they are still different crimes in terms of what happens. Just my personal opinion it is.

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[Morosoph]

The theft vs. copyright infringement it is a matter of splitting hairs,sometimes by people trying to justify what the are doing.

I agree that the motive is frequently self-justification, although sometimes its more abstract, such as a challenge to the primacy of the concept of property per se vis-a-vis freedom, but it is hardly a matter of splitting hairs whether the owner keeps the original or not: it is a matter of great importance, especially to the owner!

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[ErikZ]

Making a mistake and owning up to it is ok.

Making a mistake and lying about it gets a lynch mob.

Hopefully, others will see the example made of him and make an effort at leading an honest life.

Re:Text of Arben's blog.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that something tangible WAS "stolen" by this "thief".

The guy took CREDIT for the other guy's work.

Credit is not tangible.

Credit, as in claimed experience, is very valuable.

The PearPC developers can't take credit for their development because of what he did? Of course they can.

Stealing of credit

You guys really do go to all sorts of lengths to work the word "stealing" in there, don't you? Taking credit for something that doesn't belong to you is called PLAGIARISM. Not "stealing of credit", what a lame, inaccurate phrase.

Shame

[thsths]

I think it is a shame that this "episode" was so destructive. Many similar open source projects have benefited quite a lot from a company that is "productising" the development versions. Think wine, think Qemu, think Mozilla: they all have commercial partners that apply the last polish and charge money for that.

The same could have been true here, if MXS had been a bit more open and honest. After all, the GPL does not prevent you from charging money.

As it is right now, PearPC seems pretty dead. By now, Qemu clearly has the better PPC CPU emulation, it only takes a clever delevoper to make it boot Mac OS X. Which would be awesome.

Re:Shame

[Anonymous Coward]

it only takes a clever delevoper to make it boot Mac OS X. Which would be awesome.

It would be a much smarter developer who could get Mac OS 9 booting on an emulator. Why bother emulating what's essentially Just Another Unix, when you can run something truly unique and elegant that you can't get anywhere else.

Re:Shame

[rogabean]

On what do you base that PearPC is dead?
PearPC happens to be very much alive and alot of work is still actively being done on it...
see: PearPC.net

Re:Shame

[Anonymous Coward]

because os9 is a shitty buggy operating system, and x86 machines already have Windows to fill that role.

Re:Shame

[rogabean]

Sheepshaver will boot OS9 (up to 9.0.4) and some work has went into getting it booted under PearPC as well.

Re:Shame

[Guspaz]

But since there hasn't been a release in 8 or 9 months, and only one news post in that time, it IS dead as far as the public is concerned.

Besides, unless PearPC sees some hefty speed improvements, it won't be terribly useful no matter how "alive" it is. 15x slower than host? At that speed it will be years before PCs are fast enough for PearPC to be used by regular people to run their favourite OSX apps, and by then Apple will have something else out that people will want to run.

I also don't understand why PearPC doesn't simply stop development on the "generic" emulator. At 500x slower than host it will NEVER be of any use to regular folks, and I don't understand why all work isn't concentrated on the JITC, which might actually have a chance at becomming fast enough to be useful. Get us 10x or 5x slower than host and I will consider PearPC to be useful.

Re:Shame

[rogabean]

Try a release from my site:

PearPC Downloads

I happen to use PearPC on a daily basis and would say that it has achieved somewhere around 10x slower then the host. It is getting faster. True the "official releases" haven't been updated in a while, but I promise you ALOT of work is still going on.

Re:Shame

[Guspaz]

Unfortunately Sheepshaver doesn't run under Windows, and as such it's use is extremely limited.

Re:Shame

[rogabean]

PearPC Downloads (oops hit plain old text on last comment out of habit messing up the link)

Re:Shame

[rogabean]

Sheepshaver for Windows
Actually it has been ported! :)

Re:Shame

[Guspaz]

That indeed seems to be a hefty speed increase, and on it's way to being usable as a general-use application. However if so much development and improvement was going on in the background, how come nobody ever updated the PearPC site? You'd think that in 9 months somebody would have had time to write up a paragraph on occasion.

Re:Shame

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I thought Mac OS X was a lot more than just another Unix. If I only cared to run Unix, I'd just run some Linux distro on an x86 computer.

Actually, I do run Linux distros on a couple x86 computers running as servers and other network machines that run Linux, but I control them using a Mac, so I get a great GUI desktop interface and still have compatibility with Unix software.

Re:Shame

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the JITC version is based on the logic described in the interpreted version maybe, k, thanks, have a nice day

Re:Shame

[Guspaz]

Ah, good news. How does it compare speed-wise to PearPC?

Re:Shame

[ColaMan]

From what I heard, they were holding off on their patches so that CherryOS would fuck off and die.

If you saw a product that was clearly a rip-off of yours, you'd hold onto your new developments too.

Re:Shame

[Guspaz]

But if CVS was still being updated, and the patches were still being published, then what was to stop CherryOS from using those?

And why did any of this prevent news updates?

Re:Shame

[FidelCatsro]

too true , and you can infact run the unix base of OS X on x86 http://www.opendarwin.org/ without the aid of an emulator.
What i find to be the charm of OS X is the coupling of a great unix core with a charming GUI and the applications therein(naturaly also the frameworks aswell)

If all you care about is the unix base in os x then opendarwin is progresing steadily ( http://www.xdarwin.org/about/ may also be of intrest)

Re:Shame

[the_greywolf]

you can't really compare them. Sheepshaver is more akin to UAE than PearPC. it emulates a motorola 68k core, not a PPC.

Re:Shame

[Saven Marek]

then it must not be able to run os9, which is a powerpc operating system.

Re:Shame

[Guspaz]

As the sibling post mentioned, you are incorrect. SheepShaver is a PowerPC emulator, not an '040 emulator. It is plainly visible on the SheepShaver site, and this is of course what allows it to run OS9, a PowerPC-only OS.

While SheepShaver presents itself as a MacOS environment, it is plainly says on the site that "There is also a built-in PowerPC emulator for non-PowerPC systems."

Re:Shame

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the pearpc-devel mailing list or the PearPC.net forums - there are updates to the code daily! Just because they haven't released a new stable version, it doesn't mean that the development is dead. The developers of PearPC are working on OpenBIOS support, enhanced Altivec and hwmmu.

Wasn't ready???

[waffleman]

Amazing reasoning for quitting the 'project'. "I decided that C-OS is not worth the hassle, not now or in the future. C-OS went to work without brushing its teeth or taking a shower, it was not ready."

Apparently, he means that he couldn't dress up an open source project enough before violating the copyright. Strange justification for stopping. Or maybe his potential customer realized that they were dealing with a crook and the 'worth' evaporated.

Re:Wasn't ready???

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine if this happened at the time of QDOS

...what?

[Eternal_Flame]

Didn't they also announce they were going open-source not long ago?
What ever happened to that?

Re:...what?

[rincebrain]

Site no longer exists, I submitted a story a few weeks ago about them removing the notice of a May release, but it never got posted.

Why isn't the legal case moving forward anyways?

[Lead Butthead]

A license violation is a license violation. Stopping now does not undo the past violations. They did profit from license violation, and that violation must be paid, one way or another.

Re:Why isn't the legal case moving forward anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

I appreciate looking like an inbred hick is "in" these days, but nonetheless, I feel it appropriate to remind you that there is no "s" on the end of the word "anyway". Please note this for future reference.

Yes, you can continue to pluralize it in front of your redneck friends. Just don't use it when you're with real people.

Re:Why isn't the legal case moving forward anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

what about if he puts a "z" after it as in anywayz? :P

Re:uhh....

[rogabean]

Ummm no... it's never been a derivative of Wine.

It's always been a direct rip off of PearPC.

Slashdot Posters are getting weirder and weirder and less cohesive everyday.

Re:Why isn't the legal case moving forward anyways

[FidelCatsro]

Sometimes its better to just let things go . Sure a case may have ment another Test of the GPL in court , but it would also mean the folks behind PearPC would have less time to hack away at the code.

With the demise of CherryOS , most likely from the presure of the aligations, We can rest easy for now . It may not be an ideal victory , but a victory non the less

It atleast shows that the community and the GPL are begining to hold alot more sway .Far better this I say than making a few more lawyers rich off of IP litegation.

Re:Why isn't the legal case moving forward anyways

[Anonymous Coward]

Profit??!!?? How many copies did he sell or distribute?

Re:uhh....

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you're right, Eric. I don't know what this is about. I suspect a fuck-up by the submitter...

Re:Why isn't the legal case moving forward anyway

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Wouldn't use of "anywayz" then be for the redneck geek crowd?

Re:Why isn't the legal case moving forward anyways

[iggymanz]

no, if this thieving and plagerising two-legged sack of crap gets away with his actions, then other companies may feel the potential benefits of stealing open source code and claiming it as their own outway the consequences of discovery. Look at SCO, they not only used GPL code, but then try to extort license fees for and claim ownership of GPL code. This evil has to be nipped in the bud NOW, or the freedoms that open source developers give to the users, and the freedoms we users have will be taken away.

Re:Why isn't the legal case moving forward anyways

[FidelCatsro]

I do agree , I just have a rather large aversion to using lawyers .
I look at it like this..
He has given into the presure of the community with only the threat of using the lawyers , This says alot about the percived strength of GPL in a legal setting .

SCO on the other hand struck first attempting to exploit the GPL with patent litegation and license fees, Legal action here was unavoidable and was used (Rightly so).

Perhaps i am being a little soft here .
I agree He should be made to comply with the GPL and release his changes back , I would just like to see it done without the lawyers.
Though that may perhaps be unavoiadable if we are to persue this.
Pressure has made him so far remove it from sale and kill the project , so perhaps a little more can make him fully comply with the GPL .
I know this would perhaps not be the best outcome in a legal sense , but it would definantly be very welcome and save alot of people alot of stress .

Though i can totaly see your point .

What about the code they ripped off?

[mikesown]

CherryOS has ripped off a lot of code from pearpc(licenced under the GPL). Shouldn't they be sued regaurdless of weather they plan to distribute it furter? Isn't this just a message saying 'Yeah you can attempt to rip off out code, you can just stop development and not release the source code if you happen to get caught'

Re:What about the code they ripped off?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm... who is gonna sue CherryOS? The developement team on PearPC? I'm sure that it's not worth the cost of a lawsuit. CherryOS is done, finished, kaput; we can all get back to life now that this little episode is over.

Re:What about the code they ripped off?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't they be sued regaurdless of weather they plan to distribute it furter?Weather distribution, hmm :).

Re:What about the code they ripped off?

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL says if you modify GPL'd code, you must either (1) only redistribute it under the GPL or (2) not redistribute it at all.

CherryOS has apparently decided to take option 2.

"Other open-source projects"

[R.Mo_Robert]

One sentence in the blog post says:

"Other current open source projects are progressing to the desired product; Qemu will soon support OS X and lead the way. Or maybe I am wrong and someone else will make a fast lead.

Maybe "someone else" besides Qemu will lead the way to supporting OS X? Don't they mean something like PearPC, which they surely know about considering they stole its code? The fact that they're totally avoiding mentioning this product in their blog post says a lot.

Re:uhh....

[Jerf]

Evidence?

Post in his lounge - some tips!

[ndvaughan]

I don't know about you, but I always feel a sense of justice when someone's blog is flooded with comments when they do or say something stupid.

However, when I tried to post a message, it gave me some lame error message (I think related to an invalid SQL query). But I found that if you write the message in the Name field (the very top input field), and leave the message empty, it posts fine. You might also want to use a public proxy server, since you can only post one message per hour per IP address.

The pressure must have gotten to him/them

[Private.Tucker]

Its good to see what the community is capable of doing to shut down people who copy work and give it their own name, nonetheless, make a profit off of it. Long live Open Source!

Stopped?

[iwebmaster]

Don't you have to start first in order to stop? Did they ever start? Probably stopped called it "theirs."

Re:uhh....

[dn15]

Huh? CherryOS / PearPC let you run Mac OS X on a PC. WINE lets you run Windows apps in Linux. One emulates, the other does not. They are two totally different things.

*cringes*

[Amiasian]

Smeagol: No, no!
Gollum: And a murderer!

Smeagol: ... You win. Go away! Go away.

Might makes right

[guet]

All's fair in love and war.

I notice the photographs on your website are 'Copyright Benjamin Kaufman 2004'. You will be just as meekly accepting if I rip those off and put them on my website as by myself then?

Didn't think so.

Re:Might makes right

[ShieldW0lf]

I notice the photographs on your website are 'Copyright Benjamin Kaufman 2004'. You will be just as meekly accepting if I rip those off and put them on my website as by myself then?

What makes you think he took those pictures?

reply to your sig

[peragrin]

English is easier said than done, can only be said by a person who has never traveled to random points in the USA, and then gone to the UK.

English gets it's own unique dialect for every 100 miles of travel. neighboring dialects are close, but when you travel 1000+ miles things get complicated, The basics are there but the phrases are not.

Re:reply to your sig

[Frodo Crockett]

English gets it's own unique dialect for every 100 miles of travel. neighboring dialects are close, but when you travel 1000+ miles things get complicated, The basics are there but the phrases are not.

You forgot that the dialect can vary wildly within the same local. For example, have you ever tried talking to an "average" teenage girl? Not only do they say things like "like" and "ohmygod" way too much, but the FBI agents who come to talk to you afterwards will almost certainly speak in a completely different dialect! It gets so confusing....

Re:reply to your sig

[Krach42]

Not only do they say things like "like" and "ohmygod" way too much

Like ohmygod, people like don't talk like that all the like time?

Cherry trees

[Anonymous Coward]

If a Cherry tree falls and none uses it, does it make a sound? Stories on Slashdot don't count.

Consider his comments in light of costs

[Corpus_Callosum]

If they really did write Cherry OS from scratch, as was asserted over and over by these thugs, then consider his comments again:

I decided that C-OS is not worth the hassle, not now or in the future. C-OS went to work without brushing its teeth or taking a shower, it was not ready.

Or to rephrase: "I decided that even though I spent millions of dollars and several years of my life building this product, the moment I was challenged by these horrible guys that want to ruin me by claiming I stole their GPL code it became clear to me that my product (which I was so loudly glamorizing a copule months ago) really isn't ready and I am just gonna drop it."

They aren't codec makers

[Anonymous Coward]

The same company tht "wrote" CherryOS has video streaming and viewing applications which are quite obviously contain riped-off GPLed code in violation of the license. People discovered this while digging around due to the CherryOS fiasco. It has nothing to do with patents.

Arben Ain't A Kid

[cmholm]

Whatever he is, Arben Kryeziu ain't a kid. He got himself from Albania, to Germany, and then to Hawaii in search of his fortunes. He met his wife while vacationing in Hawaii. He's an adult who hooked up with a Maui businessman, Jim Kartes, to crank out software and IT services.

Arben seemed to be doing just fine until he pulled this cheap stunt. I'll bet a lunch at L&L Drive Inn that Jim told Arben to pull the plug on this Cherry thing, once he realized that the bad PR threatened to shit-stain his business reputation. I wouldn't doubt that Kartes lacked the technical saavy to know that his partner was utitilizing the work of others without attribution... until it was spelled out to him by the "lynch-mob".

I thought they were going opensource

[core]

Their website was announcing that they were going to opensource CherryOS. I guess a 1 KB diff mainly to remove copyrights wasn't enough to build a community on :P

Good news, one less parasite. I know it's against Apple's business model, but I wish they'd allow usage of MacOSX on PearPC officially, it's a damn useful too to get PC programmers introduced to the Mac at no cost (the mini is cheap, but still an expense). Hey Apple, it's in your long-term interest to get more applications on OSX :)

Cartoon miniature golf for MacOS X: http://www.funpause.com/gardengolf/

Re:Why isn't the legal case moving forward anyways

[Krach42]

I was on this case from the beginning to test the GPL. There's really no other issue here. I have no problem with people making money from selling PearPC, as long as they comply with the GPL. If they hadn't been idiots, they could have worked with us, instead of against us.

Anyways, as a development community, we weren't spending really any time working on this issue, at least not development time. Though, I still intend to see this issue dealt with properly, and in court if it must.

Not when they are repeat offenders, however

[phorm]

See article here

If it's a one-time offender you might not want the hassle of persuing them. If they're repeat offenders and just keep trying to get away with ripping off other people's code, they need to be nailed (perhaps the PearPC and other developers who have had their GPL product violated can band together against these scummy ripoff artists).

Re:uhh....

[Anonymous Coward]

You got it backwards.

WINE can be a derivative of Cherries.

Or Pears

Check out Drunken Batman

[j0kkk3l]

http://www.drunkenblog.com/drunkenblog-archives/00 0534.html Here is a very in depth comparison. gpl code everywhere in vx30