Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
OS X Operating Systems Software Your Rights Online

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Finding the Pits In CherryOS

Comments Filter:
  • Does this? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by maotx ( 765127 ) <> on Saturday March 12, 2005 @04:19PM (#11921463)
    Looks like they had their cherry popped ;)
    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)

      by Anonymous Coward
      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... *SNIP*

      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)

      by Saeed al-Sahaf ( 665390 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @04:24PM (#11921497) Homepage
      The sad truth is that the GPL has no real teeth, because most of the people writing GPL'd code do not have the resources or time to do anything about "code theft".
      • Re:The sad truth... (Score:2, Interesting)

        by maotx ( 765127 ) *
        If it is possible to sue for ?damages? then I'm sure at least one geak who is a lawyer would like to take a stab at it.

        If anything else I'm sure that somewhere out there is a geek lawyer who wouldn't mind taking a shot at it if s/he could be reimburst for expenses.
      • "Troll"??? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Saeed al-Sahaf ( 665390 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @04:32PM (#11921563) Homepage
        "Troll"??? It's not a troll. And it's not a condemnation of GPL either. It's a truthful statement that most FOSS developers can't afford to sue people.
      • Re:The sad truth... (Score:4, Informative)

        by serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @04:32PM (#11921566) Journal
        The sad truth is that the GPL has no real teeth, because most of the people writing GPL'd code do not have the resources or time to do anything about "code theft".
        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 .sig: does that apply to sex too?
      • by deanj ( 519759 )
        Definately not a Troll.

        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?
          1. 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.
          1. 1. Has anyone asked for the source? Were they refused?

          To be more specific;

          1. 2. Have people who
          2. own one of the phones or had one of these phones distributed to them asked for the source? Were they refused?

          Read the GPL (and any other licence that applies). The source code offer is based on distribution for most of these licences...though the detai

        • Re:The sad truth... (Score:4, Informative)

          by jacksonj04 ( 800021 ) <> on Saturday March 12, 2005 @05:03PM (#11921767) Homepage
          I would say it depends on how the phones work. If all they are is a basic kernel with the companies own proprietary binaries on top, then there's nothing the company has to distribute. The kernel is available, it's their own binaries which make it special.

          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:The sad truth... (Score:4, Informative)

            by Tim C ( 15259 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @05:25PM (#11921927)
            No, they have to make the source of the kernel they use available to anyone who has the binary (ie an owner of the phone). Just saying "it's stock 2.4.2, get it from" isn't good enough, they have to make it available themselves.

            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:The sad truth... (Score:3, Informative)

              by KarmaMB84 ( 743001 )
              They have to make it available upon request, but I don't see anyone getting upset and taking them to court when they tell them the exact source for the underlying OS is available at If it becomes unavailable at, then they'd have to either start mailing it on physical media to people who request it or link them to their own FTP (possibly even with a one time username/password) for it or something similar. It would be incredibly stupid for the OSS community to force anyone distributing
      • Re:The sad truth... (Score:5, Informative)

        by dominator ( 61418 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @05:28PM (#11921949) Homepage
        That's not true at all. I've hashed it out with a few corporations over wvWare [], my MSWord reading library. Usually the threat of action is enough to have the infringers quaking in their boots, and coax them into complaince. When it's not enough, you've got the FSF all-too willing to come to your aide: n.html []

        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, Interesting)

          by mav[LAG] ( 31387 )
          I don't know how self-serving that statement was, but it's worth pondering at least.

          It's not self-serving at all - at the heart of the GPL lies the power of copyright law. In court the plaintiff will say "Your Honour, Infringer A is distrbuting my copyrighted work without permission - make him stop please." Infringer A has two choices: a) admit copyright infringment and get fined or jail time OR b) say "I have a license to do so - the GPL." Either way, he loses. Moglen and Stallman knew exactly what they
        • Well, if you are the lawyer of Scammers Inc. and you are up against your old law professor, who is a buddy of the judge, you'd settle too...
      • Re:The sad truth... (Score:3, Informative)

        by slux ( 632202 )
        Luckily, we now have the Software Freedom Law Center [].

        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 [] 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 c

    • In all seriousness though, this looks like a perfect time to test the GPL in court (if they make it that far.)

      If you consider public relations aspect of such a trial, it's really a bad choice. You cannot legally run MacOS on non-Apple hardware, it is explicitely forbidden by MacOS EULA. Obviously CherryOS is an illegal rip-off of a GPL tool - but the legality of said tool is also dubious. It won't look good in the press - I can already imagine headlines quoting the famous communist slogan, "steal what wa
      • by RdsArts ( 667685 )
        Cherry-OS is a PPC emulator. If someone runs Mac OS X in "violation" of some EULA, that's the user's problem. Many have used it to, for example, test out PPC Linux distros.

        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.
        • Typical person from the press: What's PPC? It looks to me like you are running MacOS X on that machine. But that's not a Mac, isn't that illegal?

          Most people from the general press don't know what they are looking at. Take for example, the release presentation for the Transmeta Crusoe back in 2000, some idiot reporter in the audience thought he was speaking for everyone when he said "I think a lot of us came here thinking that you were going tell us that this chip was going to run Windows better and wi
      • by iCEBaLM ( 34905 ) <icebalm@[ ] ['ice' in gap]> on Saturday March 12, 2005 @05:02PM (#11921751)
        PearPC can be used for more than just running MacOS X, you can run PPC Linux on it and various PPC BSD's, aswell as Darwin.

        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.
      • by IWannaBeAnAC ( 653701 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @06:26PM (#11922330)
        The legality of that EULA would be a much more interesting court case IMHO.

        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 ;)

  • Warez too! (Score:5, Informative)

    by sH4RD ( 749216 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @04:22PM (#11921484) Homepage
    According to this thread [] on, he is using a warez'd copy of several programs as well.
  • Mirror (Score:3, Informative)

    by Joey Patterson ( 547891 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @04:24PM (#11921500)
    The DrunkenBlog site is very slow, so here's a MirrorDot mirror [] of it.
    • More /. HYPOCRISY (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bonch ( 38532 )

      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 t

      • Right back at you: (Score:4, Interesting)

        by koko775 ( 617640 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @06:17PM (#11922278)
        This post probably won't be modded up, but for the sake of argument:

        Your points would be valid if they weren't so automatically cynical.

        * Slashdot is okay with copyright infringement and P2P piracy. But it is not okay with copyright infringement of GPL code.
        No, Slashdot is for the freedom to do things without big corporations having the means or possible means down to breathe down everyone's back, or against laws that are contrary to fair use. Many slashdotters don't practice what they preach, but to treat all slashdotters as equally hypocritical is itself hypocritical, unless you yourself are hypocritical. In either case you are a hypocrite.
        * Slashdot is okay with pursuing legal action against CherryOS on behalf of PearPC authors. But it is not okay with the RIAA pursuing legal action against infringers to protect its own property (and let's not forget Slashdot was suggesting they do this in 2000 during the Napster lawsuit).
        Slashdot *would* be okay with the RIAA pursuing legal infringement if they weren't trying to sue for $150,000 per song (or something). Do you think that the PearPC would claim millions in damages to Maui X-Stream? Duh, no.
        * P2P copyright infringment is not theft. But taking GPL code is "stealing" it.
        P2P copyright infringement is not theft. Selling copyrighted materials is. Taking GPL code is not theft. Selling GPLed materials is.

        You take three extreme examples and apply stereotypes to all three. BTW, saying "but it applies to the majority" and then talking about "ridiculous double standards" is also a double standard. Congrats on hanging yourself with your own rope, hypocrite.
      • by wirelessbuzzers ( 552513 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @06:24PM (#11922319)
        Of course, the pro-piracy opinions are largely self-serving, but there is an important difference here: Cherry OS is for profit. I expect that most of the pro-piracy posters on Slashdot are against selling bootlegged CDs or DVDs, and especially strongly against taking obscure works and selling them as your own.

        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.
      • by Anonymous Coward
        It's interesting. In every one of these CherryOS threads, you come in, take an oversimplified view of the nature of copyright infringement, and act all high and mighty thinking you've exposed some supposed Slashdot hypocrisy on the matter. Yes, to claim the code was "stolen" isn't technically true. I'll give you that. But there is a clear difference between the type of copyright infringement that Slashdotters generally defend and the type that they generally rail against. When people download music/movies,
      • P2P copyright infringment is not theft. But taking GPL code is "stealing" it.

        It gets even more extreme than that. If someone uses code released under a completely different license, say BSD, and doesn't "give anything back" to the posters personal satisfaction, they are considered to be stealing.

        A lot of the problem is that there is a natural tendency to side with the little guy against a perceived bully. It's giving favor or support to the underdog. This is all fine and good, but what happens when the u
  • by SlashThat ( 859697 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @04:24PM (#11921502)
    Who gets the compensation? Do they split it between the developers? How they decide who the developers are and what part each of them gets? What if PearPC is based on other open source projects? This is going to be interesting...
  • by karmaflux ( 148909 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @04:24PM (#11921503)
    ...if after all that noise from SCO the first court case to test the GPL involves some little dorky scammer trying to sell code he didn't write.
  • by chrispyman ( 710460 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @04:25PM (#11921507)
    Though the article is /.'ed, I have to wonder, why does CherryOS even bother? Everyone already knows that their project was a ripoff of PearPC and they've already lost the trust of everyone.
  • already slow... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Neophytus ( 642863 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @04:25PM (#11921508)
    • Yeah, it was more than a little slow for awhile there. That initial surge made things wig out a bit -- this was a particularly bad one. It's evened out now after a few minutes and should be fine.
  • by Mark19960 ( 539856 ) <> on Saturday March 12, 2005 @04:26PM (#11921514) Homepage Journal
    Im sure these two organizations would be glad to take this matter up.

    if I was a PearPC developer, I would.
    this is blatant theft.
    • Well, no, as the other response said, it's blatant copyright infringment.

      Also, I was acutally under the impression that the FSF only defends their software (i.e., stuff they hold the copyright to). The EFF is probably a better bet.
      • ok, your both right about the choices of words.

        but, I have contributed to several projects, and continue to do so. (PearPC is not one of them)

        however, as a contributor, if I saw the project that I contributed to, I would be completely outraged.

        Just reading about this happening to PearPC makes me very angry.
        It could happen to me!

        I would feel as if it was stolen from me.
        Granted, code isnt something 'tangible' but the fact remains, they cook the code from the project, repackaged it and are now selling it

        • Yep, I would be outraged too. In fact, I am pretty outraged about this.

          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 a
          • (I am SO not a lawyer.)

            This crime actually involves two seperate considerations:
            1 CherryOS apparently is in violation of current copyright law.
            1b. This violation aledgedly came about in part through breaking a contract (1 or more examples of the GPL). That's a civil matter, not a criminal one, so the GPL violations themselves definitely aren't theft in just about anyone's book.
            2. In this particular case, the copyright violation was intended to lead to CherryOS getting paid money for someone else's work. Th
  • by lxt ( 724570 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @04:28PM (#11921534) Journal the sheer cheek of putting up a "performance comparison table" on the CherryOS website between CherryOS and PearPC...

    I mean, even the name itself smacks of copyright infringement...
  • by serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @04:29PM (#11921538) Journal
    It is copyright infringement, just like the subject says.

    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.
    • Actually, this is almost theft. If you make a LEGO fort and offer the plans to people for free, that's all well and good. But if I come along, get the free copy of your LEGO plans, change the title, violate the license it was originally licensed under, claim I made it all myself, and charge people for it.. I am a theif and I stole something from you. I've stolen your hard work and claimed it as my own.

      If I download a song by *insert popular music person here* and claim that I performed the song and cha
      • by Ralph Yarro ( 704772 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @04:39PM (#11921608) Homepage
        But if I come along, get the free copy of your LEGO plans, change the title, violate the license it was originally licensed under, claim I made it all myself, and charge people for it.. I am a theif and I stole something from you. I've stolen your hard work and claimed it as my own.

        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.
      • That's copyright infringement (violating copyright law) and plagiarism (claiming others' work as your own).
    • He's right, you know!

      I, for one, am not a hypocrite. What the CherryOS guy is doing is wrong, but it's not theft. It really is copyright infringment, even if we don't like it this time.

      So, who else here on Slashdot has the integrity to stand with us?
      • Stand with you on what precisely? Changing the name of the crime? Fine, it's "copyright infringement" and not "theft".

        If your next step is to say that "copyright infringement" is not a crime, then "integrity" is not the word I'd use to describe your position. They're taking credit for something they didn't do, and violating the license to boot.

        What punishment is appropriate is entirely open to debate (I'm not certain what an appropriate punishment for ordinary theft would be). I find that a far more i
        • Stand with me on not being hypocritical and disingenuous by using loaded words only when it suits your cause, and complaining loudly when it doesn't.

          On that note, I'm going to continue and agree with you that yes, copyright infringment is a crime (assuming civil offenses are crimes) in both cases.

          Now, the difference comes when you start talking about the morality of the two situations. In other words, they're both copyright infringment, and both against the law, but the public infringing the RIAA's copyr
    • No. Plagiarism is so much better a word. Much more fitting and has similar, if not greater negative connotations.
  • by Mr Ambersand ( 862402 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @04:31PM (#11921557)
    I doubt that the FSF or the EFF are willing or able to get involved; but that doesn't mean that users and people who have a vested interest in keeping the integrity of the GNU license can't raise the funds needed to sue the CherryOS fools.

  • GPL coders (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Mantus ( 65568 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @04:32PM (#11921560)
    It seems like every couple of months or so we hear about some company violating the GPL. When are the OSS programmers going to do something about it? IMO it's not even close to enough for a violating company to say "Oops, we're sorry, here is the code" It's called commertial copyright infringement and the true copyright holders aught to sue the companies for every dime they can get. Companies violate the GPL because they feel its good for their bottom line. Someone should prove it isn't.
    • Actually.... (Score:3, Insightful)

      Sometimes, I think it's quite fine for the company to repair the situation and be done with it. If the wronged developers are OK with that, and think it's a reasonable option, that's just fine.

      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'r
  • This is news? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Daedala ( 819156 )
    No, not really. Tell me what the PearPC group (or whoever) is going to do about it -- that's news. It might even be worthy of the front page. But this is beating [] a dead [] horse. []
  • Is now the time to test the legality of the GPL?

    It seems like this might be a good case if the evidence is really so strong.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 12, 2005 @04:35PM (#11921591)
    Now PearPC is going to have to write it all over again! If only the CherryOS people knew how much damage their code theft has done!

    Can we just call it breach of license and stop being all dramatic about it?
  • by episodic ( 791532 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @04:36PM (#11921594) Homepage Journal
    If persons are going to take GPL'd software and claim it as their own, then the work of many talented programmers can be passed off like cheap tracings of the Sunday comics. Pull together. Agree on this - blatent copying for no reason can't be allowed. Lest when those that take GPL'd software use it and fark it up, the first thing reported is that the software had an 'open source' base, further alienating the mainstream computer users.
  • by Fox_1 ( 128616 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @04:44PM (#11921629)
    in like less then a month random people have compiled more evidence supporting the idea that CherryOS is a complete and blatent ripoff of PearPC, then I ever saw come from the well funded SCO Group supporting their idea that Linux infringed on some of their code.
  • by TheGuano ( 851573 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @04:49PM (#11921664)
    I just don't understand. A regular rumor/hype/unsubstantiated-claim is made and the general tendency is not to give them the benefit of the doubt - they get flamed and hen-pecked to hell before they even have a chance to prove their claims. Then CherryPC comes along, which is SO MANY WAYS is such an obvious rip-off that IT'S ALMOST AMUSING, and people act so damned civilized, presenting balanced views, structured evidence, etc. Why bother with the niceties in this case? Just call Hawaii5-0 and bust a cap in his ass already.
  • by cr0y ( 670718 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @04:49PM (#11921667) Homepage
    ....legally take apart cherry (ie, decompile, hex edit, reverse engineer) the cherry exe to compare it to pear? IF they did this and found it to be the same, could pear counter-sue for reverse engineering? Would it hold up in court?
  • Just wondering, could cherryOS file lawsuits against the people who are discovering this information?

    I dont know what levels people are going to find this information, granted its ovious that nearly the entire project is stolen from one or more other projects, but could they use this as a line of defence?
  • Anonymous? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Leo McGarry ( 843676 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @04:54PM (#11921700)
    An anonymous reader writes ...

    Gee. I wonder who that could be [].
  • On the Trial Download page [], there are 5 checkboxes you "have" to agree to. If you don't check them, and click Download, it still lets you download with agreeing!

  • Google Bomb (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Kalak ( 260968 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @05:04PM (#11921772) Homepage Journal
    Blatently Stolen from a PearPC page that I've lost the URL for (claim credit for the idea if you like), is to link
    <a href="">CherryOS</a>
    CherryOS []
  • Come now, let's have some consistency, shall we? Violating the terms of the GPL is not "stealing" any more than copyright infringment. It's illegal, sure, but it's not theft.

  • by rbarreira ( 836272 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @05:34PM (#11921992) Homepage
    Why don't we all send a nice letter to the makers of CherryOS? Here are some email addresses:;;;;

    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.
  • by KrackHouse ( 628313 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @06:10PM (#11922227) Homepage
    From their website:
    "Jim Kartes is the president of Maui-X Stream... He later worked as a news and documentary cameraman for CBS News in New York." (emphasis mine)

    I guess we should have seen the writing on the wall.
  • by Nordberg ( 218317 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @07:08PM (#11922581) Homepage
    CherryOS -> CheeryOS -> Cheerios

  • by Amich ( 542141 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @07:51PM (#11922816)
    It's obvious this sort of thing is an outrage, and we should stand up and do something better than preaching to the choir on Slashdot.

    This story made me decide to donate to the PearPC project 08675 [] . I'm sure if enough donations piled up, PearPC's authors would go after CherryOS in court.
  • Trademark (Score:3, Interesting)

    by xgamer04 ( 248962 ) <> on Saturday March 12, 2005 @08:29PM (#11922993)
    In addition, on this page [], they don't acknowledge Motorola's trademark on "AltiVec". It sounds like these guys really have their IP knowledge down.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.