Finding the Pits In CherryOS 494
An anonymous reader writes "DrunkenBlog is carrying a story with piles of gathered evidence (including screenshots of code diffs) exposing the speed claims of CherryOS, and that the company behind it (Maui X-Stream) is not only stealing code from the open source project PearPC but at least several other OSS projects too. There are some choice quotes from PearPC developers on how it is harming their project. They appear to have a strong case, but enforcing the GPL could take help."
Warez too! (Score:5, Informative)
Mirror (Score:3, Informative)
already slow... (Score:5, Informative)
Article through mirrordot [mirrordot.org]
Copyright infringement is NOT THEFT! (Score:5, Informative)
It does not matter who's copyright is being infringed or who is claiming it, it is STILL NOT THEFT.
I'll bet I'll be modded down now, since this sort of thing is only accepable on an anti *AA thread.
"Troll"??? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The sad truth... (Score:4, Informative)
--
What's worth doing is worth doing for money...
That does not mean the license has no teeth, just like many other civil laws: you have to have the money to go to court.
Oh and regarding your
Re:The sad truth... (Score:1, Informative)
Remember when the SCO lawsuits began? For those old enough to remember that far back, that gives an indication of how long a lawsuit can take and still have no end in sight. In fact they can take a lot longer. And they cost money that whole time. What you need is not a geek with a lawyer, but an unbelievably wealthy geek with a lawyer - and I don't think Bill G will be stepping up to the plate for this one.
Re:Steal or Copy? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Grab zagrabyonnoye (Score:2, Informative)
Furthermore, no one with half a brain would say that software someone bought and then used on something other than the exact hardware someone else wanted them to is "stealing." That's just daft double-speak.
Re:The sad truth... (Score:4, Informative)
Remember - as long as it's not a modification of or using parts of GPL code, then you can do what you like with it.
Re:Is Pear allowed to... (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, first, click-through EULA's are iffy anyway, and second, if you can extract the data from the SETUP.EXE program, you can do anything, since their site allows downloads without accepting the EULA [slashdot.org]!
Re:The sad truth... (Score:4, Informative)
You are correct that they don't have to give out the source to their own binaries, as long as they're not GPLed or derived from GPLed software.
Re:Is Pear allowed to... (Score:2, Informative)
It's like I own a car, but you claim it's yours so I prove it's mine by starting it with my chipped key and comparing the vin number to sales records then you trying to have me jailed for using your car w/o permision.
There's also something about the fact that cherry os people are doing something illeagle here and since thier hands are dirty they don't really have any recourse to ask the courts to protect it or something like that.
Like I said a real lawyer could probably explain/clarify my what I vaguely remember here, or even show whether it made leagle sense (even though it makes common sense to me).
Mycroft
Re:The sad truth... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-violati
Regarding these cases, Eben Moglen (the FSF's general legal counsel) once told me that the reason you've never seen a GPL violation case go to court is because it's always a slam-dunk case that will be decided in your favor; that it's always in the infringer's best interest to settle out of court. I don't know how self-serving that statement was, but it's worth pondering at least. It's been my experience, in any case.
Re:The sad truth... (Score:3, Informative)
FSF has also been taking action against GPL infringers for a long time now AFAIK.
Some infringers do get away with it, one such case was a proprietary messenger application misappropriating Psi's [affinix.com] code, but the defense is available if the developers are willing. Another sad case for me are the Linux kernel binary-only modules which apparently aren't perfectly legal either, yet I myself have a D-Link router that contains several. No-one is sure what the court would find on those, though.
Re:The sad truth... (Score:2, Informative)
see http://www.netfilter.org/news/2004-04-15-sitecom-
All tell the CherryOS authors how nice they are... (Score:3, Informative)
mail@cherryos.com; press@cherryos.com; info@mxsinc.com; arben@vx30.com; vx30@mauionline.com
I was thinking of posting this anonymously, but I didn't. Feel free to mod me as troll or anything else you want, but before that just think - how would you react if they were doing this to your own software project?
A nice letter is not as much as those guys deserve... They are scammers and deserve to be trusted as such.
Re:Warez too! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Stealing code? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Hypocrisy.. (Score:3, Informative)
Of course, we all know that's not the true purpose behind PearPC, but they could win on a technicality.
Re:The sad truth... (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, according to 3b,
"b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;"
they have to provide the source to any third party, not just people who have the binary.
Assuming they are not giving the phones away. If they are, they may get by with 3c.
all the best,
drew
Re:The sad truth... (Score:5, Informative)
Not everybody knows (Score:5, Informative)
It's worth making some noise even about something this blatant.
Re:Hypocrisy.. (Score:5, Informative)
PearPC - While able to run OSX - it is simply an emulation of PPC hardware. There are plenty of operating systems that PearPC can run eg: linux, bsd , beos etc. It is upto the person running the emulator whether they violate apples licensing agreement.
Cherry OS however - albeit the same thing as PearPC are explicitly advertising their (stolen) product for the purpose of running OSX. They are much more likely to find themselves on the end of an apple lawsuit than the PearPC developers.
Re:Why does CherryOS even bother? (Score:4, Informative)
Correction: Everyone on Slashdot and the PearPC forums.
Re:Hypocrisy.. (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, it is a really stupid clause, because it's an "illegal tie-in sale". IBM lost that one decades ago, trying to prevent clones of their mainframes. That's how the third-party IBM mainframe market was created.
Re:The sad truth... (Score:5, Informative)
Bruce
Why not do something about this? (Score:5, Informative)
This story made me decide to donate to the PearPC project http://sourceforge.net/donate/index.php?group_id=
Re:The sad truth... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The sad truth... (Score:4, Informative)
This is incorrect. Read section 3 in context
Quoting from http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html [gnu.org]:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
[My emphasis]
Thus you only have to comply with one of either (a), (b) or (c) and it is perfectly legitimate to sell GPL software and only provide the source with the purchased binary (thereby meeting the requirements of section a). Mind you, anyone who buys it can then quite happily make it available for free download if they want
Someone please mod this troll DOWN (Score:2, Informative)
Please mod him down.
Re:The sad truth... (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry