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."
Does this? (Score:4, Insightful)
In all seriousness though, this looks like a perfect time to test the GPL in cou rt (if they make it that far.)
Does their use of OSS without complying with GPL violate copyright laws or justlicensing laws?
Steal or Copy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Stealing code? I though they were wrongfully copying it, or did we completely throw away the concept of copying alltogether?
The sad truth... (Score:5, Insightful)
This would be anticlimactic (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does CherryOS even bother? (Score:4, Insightful)
How about a legal fund for PearPC? (Score:3, Insightful)
GPL coders (Score:4, Insightful)
This is news? (Score:2, Insightful)
So if the SCO Lawsuits were Good for Linux... (Score:2, Insightful)
It seems like this might be a good case if the evidence is really so strong.
Re:Copyright infringement is NOT THEFT! (Score:3, Insightful)
If I download a song by *insert popular music person here* and claim that I performed the song and charge people for a copy.. I'm a theif and I've stolen their hard work and their income.
Damn those code thieves! (Score:4, Insightful)
Can we just call it breach of license and stop being all dramatic about it?
The Opensource Community needs to pull together (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Copyright infringement is NOT THEFT! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you're not. If while he was distracted you grabbed hold of the plans he'd written down and walked off with them without permission then that would be theft. Claiming his work as your own would be fraud. Duplicating his work and distributing it without permission would be copyright infringement.
No, they didn't steal it. (Score:3, Insightful)
You know what's funny (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:When is stealing IP justifiable? (Score:2, Insightful)
Serious question? It's because most people here identify themselves more with the open source movement than with the music industry.
If you steal from my house I will be "up in arms", if you steal from my neighbours house I will be almost as outraged. If you steal from a bank I have no connection with on another continent then I may be interested in the news report, or maybe not.
Re:The sad truth... (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at the Linux phones out there. None of the phone manufacturing companies supplying the OS on those things have released ANY code for those phones.
And that's Linux itself!
Why isn't anyone doing anything about this?
Re:Copyright infringement is NOT THEFT! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Stealing code? (Score:1, Insightful)
Now this distincition is pointed out in any story covering so called software piracy, or lawsuits involving P2P and rightly so. Though infringing on the GPL is disgusting without a doubt, why simply pointing out that the code wasn't stolen (as in, it's still available to the developers) should be considered flaimbait is beyond me.
With that out of the way, those assholes broke the GPL, let's sue them to kingdom come! And if the PearPC guys need funds for legal action, I'm sure the FOSS community will be more than happy to help them out.
Re:When is stealing IP justifiable? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Free Software movement's goal is to increase the availability of software. Free Software advocates want to give control to the end-users. The GPL is designed to prevent people from hoarding it and reducing the availability. It basically uses copyright law against itself*, because if there were no copyright then all software would be Free.
In contrast, the RIAA's goal is to decrease the availability of music. They want to control it themselves. Their use of copyright is designed to augment their ability to control and hoard the music.
Even though both organizations use copyright as a tool, they use it for opposite goals. And that's why we believe copyright infringment is moral in one case and not in the other.
*when I say the GPL uses copyright against itself, I mean the modern (e.g. RIAA's) interpretation of copyright. Originally, the goals of copyright were more aligned with the goals of the GPL, to increase and spread knowledge. It could be argued that the modern interpretation is a corruption of copyright, and the GPL is a device to try to restore its original meaning.
Re:Grab zagrabyonnoye (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think Apples EULA statement about running it only on apple hardware is legal anyways, it sounds like illegal tieing, but what the hell do I know? IANAL.
Re:Stealing code? (Score:3, Insightful)
Compensetory vs. Punitive (Score:2, Insightful)
Punitive damages are different. It means the judge takes money from the defendant just because he was a naughty boy, it's a punishment. Typically it's awarded to the plaintiff but IIRC a judge can award punitive damages to a third party as well (this may vary by state). In this case an organization like the EFF would be a good candidate.
Re:Why does CherryOS even bother? (Score:3, Insightful)
so you might get to see people buying their ripped of software, yes.
Re:contact the EFF and the FSF? (Score:3, Insightful)
But regardless of my personal feelings, I have to be fair. I refuse to call what the CherryOS guy did "theft" because I don't want the RIAA calling copyright infringment of their songs "theft." I would rather be pedantic than hypocritical.
It's just like the recent murder spree we've had here in Atlanta (where I happen to live). This guy was on trial yesterday for rape, when he grabbed the bailiff's gun, killed him, the judge, and another deputy, and ran. He killed a customs officer today, before he turned himself in to the FBI.
Now, my dad was saying things like "they oughta just shoot him." But I disagree. Even though it's blatantlly obvious that he killed those people, and he should be executed for it, he still deserves Due Process.
The CherryOS guy deserves to not be called a "thief" for the same reason. Get it?
I want to be able to argue my position (sharing music is moral, infringing the GPL is not) without the opposition being able to turn people's emotions against me (by calling me a "thief" or hypocrite). To achive that, I must give them the same consideration.
Hypocrisy.. (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree, it is not OK for CherryOS to take code from PearPC under the terms of the GPL.
But it is also not OK for PearPC to write software to explicitly violate Apples EULA.
Its suicidal for PearPC to press the case on CherryOS because the nature of both is to violate the EULA of a 300lb gorilla. This legal copyright, liscencing thing is a two way street. If you want the GPL enforced then you're going to have to stop bitching when the EULA of any other software is enforced.
More /. HYPOCRISY (Score:3, Insightful)
I may get modded down for this (I know, it's a cliched phrase), but I'm getting incredibly sick and tired of these CherryOS articles and their "stolen code" discussions.
Slashdot and its readership are quite happy to demonize the RIAA when it goes after infringers of its copyright. Posters will go so far to defend piracy that they will even initiate pointless discussions about how copyright infringement isn't theft (it is, because you are depriving them of revenue they would otherwise be receiving), and that it's just a cultural movement to take intellectual property. There are entire belief systems and mindsets invented to justify this piracy.
But since the very first CherryOS article, everyone has been discussing "stolen GPL code." People have even suggested legal action. Note that when I refer to Slashdot's opinion, I'm talking about the majority opinion as filtered through the upmods and discussion threads.
So, let's break it down:
I'm sorry, but I find this highly amusing. Four years of non-stop demonization of *AA and pro-piracy articles, and every time there's an incident of possible GPL infringement, suddenly everyone is on the side of intellectual property and the law. Look at all this talk of testing the GPL in court! Since when was everyone a fan of intellectual property all the sudden? Oh, that's right, when it didn't have to do with protecting the piracy you've grown accustomed to the convenience of all these years. It makes the pro-piracy opinions around here appear even more self-serving than they already were.
Note to those preparing to reply with "That's not everyone on Slashdot" replies, I know. If none of the above applies to you, congratulations. But it applies to the majority, and the nature of Slashdot's posting system tends to encourage groupthink. And so, you get these ridiculous double standards that people haven't full thought through.
Re:Copyright infringement is NOT THEFT! (Score:3, Insightful)
how the average joe can help (Score:2, Insightful)
the average man may not be able to help in a court of law, but the best way for the average person to ensure the GPL is upheld is to boycot software that violates it.
Actually.... (Score:3, Insightful)
One one hand there's the desire to "send a message" but on the flip-side, some OSS developers feel that it's important not to totally alienate the commercial devel world, and understand that sometimes screwups and misunderstandings happen. Especially in a world of cheap contractors, offshoring, MCSEs who think they're developers, and limited knowledge of OSS and its licensing.
You may have guessed that I fall on the side of playing things cautiously. If someone stole my code, I'd either (a) laugh at them and tell them how utterly stupid they are for actually bothering to steal code that bad, or (b) get rather pissed off
I'm not at all convinced that much tolerance would be extended to really blatant offenders who deny it and continue to offend. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any cases like that that've come to court.
Re:More /. HYPOCRISY (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that Slashdot as a whole tends to be against making money without making a useful contribution to society, and against corporatism. So they're OK when someone patents a specific, useful, non-obvious idea and makes money from it, but not when a corporation which probably didn't invent the idea buys up an obvious patent and goes around suing people who are using the idea independently. Similarly, if someone copyrights a work and makes it available at a reasonable price, most Slashdotters would be fine with that, even if they would prefer that he give it away. But when the RIAA gets rich by selling crap music with ridiculous contracts to prevent the artists from making a buck, this is a bad thing.
My personal views are pretty similar. I hate obvious patents, especially software and business method patents, and patent-whoring companies as well as copyright-whores like the RIAA (but their music is mostly crap, so I don't pirate it). I'm fine with copyrights on say Windows (although I wish it were better), and I think the copyrights on PearPC are legit also. Personally, I try to make my work public domain, because it's not good enough to sell and I don't want people to bother about credit, but if I do something saleworthy, I'll certainly sell it.
Re:Grab zagrabyonnoye (Score:5, Insightful)
It may be true that no GPL cases have come to court (although I'm not sure about that either). But there has been a very large number of infringement claims that never made it to court, becuase the guilty party gave in. In summary, to win against the GPL, you cannot argue that it is invalid: if it were invalid then normal copyright law would mean that any copying or distribution was illegal - so that approach would be the lawyer equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot. Instead you would need to convince the judge that it is both valid but allows more than it appears to allow. But that is a difficult case to argue ;)
Re:More /. HYPOCRISY (Score:3, Insightful)
The bottom line is that copyright infringement in this day and age where nearly anyone can make a copy of anything is a fairly nuanced and complex matter. This is essentially because many of us (read:you) have forgotten the spirit in which these laws were created. I applaud you for playing a sort of devil's advocate and trying to get these folks on /. to clarify their particular positions on the matter (as you have clarified mine), but to the extent that you accuse the greater majority of Slashdot as hypocrites, without apparently appreciating the complexity of copyright, goes too far.
Re:The sad truth... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Hypocrisy.. (Score:2, Insightful)
PearPC does nothing of the sort, PearPC *might* infrenge on IBM/Moto & Apples IP (namely the rights to create a PPC based proccessor), but PearPC does not violate Apples EULA. End-users *might*, but then again, they might use it for checking that Open SOurce Software X runs fine on LinuxPPC.
Re:The sad truth... (Score:3, Insightful)
If they've given you a binary, you have the right to the source code under the GPL.
Bruce
Re:When is stealing IP justifiable? (Score:2, Insightful)
Not 100% correct (or badly phrased): the RIAA's goal is to restrict the number of competing sources of music and control the distribution of music (even exclusive distribution is quite different from hoarding). The record industry relies on having a large, clearly demographically defined market and exclusive control over promotional channels. P2P threatens to fragment that market by making more styles of music readily available and responding to changes in styles more rapidly than major media outlets.
Illegal P2P usage plays right into their hands, as it gives them the legal basis they need to shut down or absorb any potential competition and continue the status quo. So instead of P2P becoming a great new way to spread ideas and promote culture from a grass roots level with everyone on an equal footing (the true egalitarian utopia the 'net was supposed to be), we'll just have a continuation of the existing cycle of a brief blaze of protocol glory followed by a flurry of lawsuits, with big media still in the driver's seat. It's ridiculous to complain about media oligopolies, then effectively swamp the only truly uncontrolled distribution channels with exactly the same material in a pretense of being an electric Robin Hood. We don't need more sources of the same, we need alternatives. That's what real competition is about; currently, the majority content of P2P networks simply confirms that people want the **AA's products as is (at worse quality, even), so what incentive do they have to work harder?
I would like to see a day where the only things on P2P networks are GPL, creative commons, or public domain. Sure, you won't be able to download Generic Pop Diva #437's latest single, but which is better: a forum where anyone can express themselves to the world with an equal voice, or 3 minutes of ear-candy and a billion good ideas lost forever?
There is no moral high ground since both groups insist on forcing their moral values on the everyone else. At the heart of the issue is the right of the creator of a work to do with it as they see fit, whether it's release it free, ask a fee, or shove it up their nose. That's part of free speech: the right to limit who you're speaking to on a totally arbitrary basis, even the right to remain silent. Does Scoop Dogg Doody (or whatever that rapper's name is today) have the right to come round to your house and demand you perform a few songs for him? No, you have the right to tell him to sod off. Reverse the places: just because he's a rich bastard who can afford to record himself, does that mean you now have the right to demand his performances? At what level of wealth do we start repealing constitutional rights? I'm just curious, since you seem to be trampling the rights of others in the quest to assert your own, what makes you believe you deserve rights and others don't, and how exactly does this make your position more moral? And as far as protest and civil disobedience goes: six years, zero improvement; in fact, thaks to knee-jerk reaction legislation like DMCA and PIRATE, things are now considerably worse. Might be time to re-think the strategy perhaps?
I believe there's no reason the laws of supply and demand shouldn't apply when ever people's time and effort are involved (in fact I think OSS and public domain work should be subsidised by tax deductions*; it would be more than worth it for the economy). And if that doesn't suit you, there should be a legitimate alternative. Which might be there, but it's really hard to tell with all the illegal warez clutter.
*On a per-title/stable release basis would probably work the best.
Nothing to do with licenses. (Score:4, Insightful)
This has nothing to do with licenses, since they are not following the terms of the license (GNU GPL [gnu.org]) offered to them by the copyright holders.
This is copyright infringment, plain and simple.
1) They copied copyrighted works and claim it as their own, in some cases without even removing the orignal author's name and GNU GPL license notice.
2) The only way they can legally use the copyrighted works is by honouring the license under which they authors have released it with
3) They have not honoured the terms of the GNU GPL (Unless they are simultaneously denying the use of GNU GPL'd code and are also providing downloads to said source code).
4) Now we fall back to good old-fashioned copyright law. If you don't have permission, you can't copy it.
Considering the complete lack of evidence of there being even a sliver of their own code in the PPC emulation, apart from doing a "search and replace" for "PearPC"->"CherryOS", then this does in fact need to be taken very seriously.
Ok, so if they follow the gpl, so what?
So what? They wouldn't be breaching international copyright law, that's what.
Contributors to PearPC don't want to work 40hrs a week at their real job and come home to find their pride and joy/hobby being ripped off to profit some wanker who just slapped together a nice VB frontend over a couple of weekends.
Re:When is stealing IP justifiable? (Score:3, Insightful)
And his "right" to make a profit through copyright isn't a constitutional Right at all, so that can't be what you're talking about. If the choice is between his "right" to profit, and the public's Right to freedom of information (i.e., culture), the public wins. That's the stated purpose of copyright, donchaknow.Now, that really is a legitimate argument -- the idea that copyright infringment via P2P is counterproductive. Honestly, I don't really have an answer for you on that one, because it's hard to say "this is morally righteous blah blah blah... and by the way, don't do it." For what it's worth, I personally don't download all that much music anyway, and it's usually old stuff (like the Beatles et al. where the artists are dead).
Problem with the GPL. (Score:1, Insightful)
All OSS should be relicensed under BSD or MIT. Code should be free. Let them do what they want with it, we'll all be better for it.
Re:The sad truth... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why we apply the LGPL, not the GPL, to the C library and its headers.
Bruce