Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

CherryOS Mac Emulator Resurfaces

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the and-takes-a-deep-breath dept.

OS X 574

Clash writes "Following its initial announcement and subsequent controversy last October, Mac emulator CherryOS has finally been released. Its creator, Arben Kryeziu, found himself in hot water last year amid claims the software was simply stolen from the open source PearPC project. With the code now under public scrutiny, it appears that such allegations are true. According to BetaNews, CherryOS boots up in the exact same manner as PearPC, and its error messages and source files are nearly identical. The emulator also includes MacOnLinuxVideo, which is the same driver used by PearPC to speed up graphics. The CherryOS configuration file also closely mirrors that used by PearPC. Trial download without registration found here."

cancel ×

574 comments

Cherry tart for me! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11887189)

Yeah, YAFP!

-DT

Um. (4, Interesting)

Capt'n Hector (650760) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887193)

Why would this be released? Isn't that sort of... illegal?

Re:Um. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11887204)

Why?

It doesn't contain MacOS X, it has just (apparently) reversed engineered the necessary bits and pieces.

And if it is just a copy of PearPC, I have my doubts towards the legality of the OS license.

why would it be illegial? (0)

CarrionBird (589738) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887206)

Despite what several companies may have told you emulation, by itself, is not illegial.

Re:why would it be illegial? (3, Informative)

imsabbel (611519) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887217)

but selling a program ripped of from a open source app violating the GPL should be.
Or didnt your even RTFSummary?

Re:why would it be illegial? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11887338)

. . . should be

Indeed, but this will only be proved illegal when someone takes the CherryOS distributer to court. Until then, there ain't much people can do, except complain.

So who is willing to take this evil man to court? Anybody?

Anybody at all?

Re:why would it be illegial? (2, Interesting)

cortana (588495) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887357)

It's up to the copyright holder whose intellectual property has been infringed to bring action upon MXS.

Re:why would it be illegial? (4, Insightful)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887344)

More exactly, you can sell a program ripped of from GPL project. But then you also have to provide source code and grant your customers the right to re-distribute as specified in the GPL.

If you don't do that, you are violating the GPL and asking to be sued.

If you follow the GPL, others can re-distribute YOUR program which will limit the price you can charge without being undercut by others. Linux distributions are a good example for this:
Companies like Novell/SuSE can get away with charging up to 100 Euros for a nice package of installation disks, manuals and some installation support. But you won't find a 1000 Euro distribution without some proprietary software add-ons or extended support included.
As opposed to the server versions of Windows, where the OS alone may cost some thousand dollars.

Re:why would it be illegial? (2, Informative)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887368)

However, you do need to include the relevant copyright notices in the source.

Re:why would it be illegial? (2, Informative)

bygimis (576467) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887235)

Yes but stealing someone elses source code and releasing a commercial product based on it is illegal. You need a valid license from the copyright holder to distribute someone elses work.

Re:why would it be illegial? (2, Informative)

91degrees (207121) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887268)

Which is somethign they have. PearPC is released under the GPL. This does permit redistribution. It's the main point.

Unless they're breaching the terms of the GPL without permission from the original authors of the software, this is legal. They may be breaching these terms, but that's still to be proven.

Re:why would it be illegial? (4, Informative)

pe1rxq (141710) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887299)

The GPL doesn't permit just distributing binaries wihtout informing the receivers what the License terms are.
They should atleast put a notice with it saying 'This contains GPL code, send your request for the source here:'

Jeroen

Re:why would it be illegial? (0, Troll)

91degrees (207121) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887308)

Are they doing this? Have you acquired a copy and checked for the LICENCE.txt document?

If it's not there then you're right. If it is there then you're still right, but your point is moot.

Re:why would it be illegial? (1)

CarrionBird (589738) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887333)

Sad as it is, these losers DO have a valid license, the GPL. Since they obviously did no actual work, there are no changes to the source that they would have to give back.

Re:why would it be illegial? (1)

pe1rxq (141710) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887374)

They have to offer the source (even if not modified) if they distribute binaries. There is an exemption in the GPL if it is really small scale distribution (ie your neighbour) but they are aiming to high for that.

Jeroen

Re:why would it be illegial? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11887381)

Perhaps you could point out where this "exception" in the GPL is please? I only ask because I know you're wrong.

Re:why would it be illegial? (1)

Dwonis (52652) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887424)

I think he's referring to Section 3c... which only applies to noncommercial distribution of binaries made from unmodified source code.

Re:why would it be illegial? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11887465)

I'd agree with you. However that's that a very odd way to read section 3C (It doesn't say anything about the scale of the distribution of course). It's also clear from even the most cursory glance at that section that you still need to provide a copy of the written offer along with the binary you're distributing.

Re:why would it be illegial? (1)

Nicholas Evans (731773) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887434)

They *did* change the source, silly. How do you think they managed to change everything that said PearPC to CherryOS?

Re:why would it be illegial? (5, Insightful)

FidelCatsro (861135) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887249)

Yes Emulation is fine , Although Stealing someones work and claming it as your own work is unethical and illegal in the way that it violates PearPCs license . This is not a DMCA type nonsence Copyright issue , This is blatently rebranding someones work without permission and selling it as yourown .
No matter how you feel about Intelectual property , This is immoral , unethical and illegal and rightly so

Re:why would it be illegial? (-1, Troll)

j.bellone (684938) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887286)

Those are the terms of the GPL.
I love how, when the tides turn on GPL software, the GPL advocates start complaining about source code theft. That's the fucking license; you wanted it, you love it, deal with it. Under the GPL any software can be "hijacked" and sold on the commercial standpoint as another name.

Re:why would it be illegial? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11887305)

I dont think anyone is arguing that. The problem is YOU MUST GIVE BACK. If you take GPL code and modify it, and ship it, then you MUST provide the modified source. If CherryOS does this then no one can complain.

Re:why would it be illegial? (1)

blanks (108019) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887426)

The company is still swearing up and down that it does not contain any pearPC source code.

Yes many people have found things that are simular (to the point that yes this seems like a license violation), but until the developers can audit the code, or they are taken to court, there is not enough proof (legal proof?) that this is a license violation.

They do not claim to use any other source code, and after downloading the applicaton, their license is not related to or reference the GPL at all.

As for the suppying the source, I never understood why people belive that they need to have a link available to the source online to comply with the GPL. Hell if a company wanted to they could supply you the source in the form of a print out (or alphabit soup) and they would comply with the terms of the GPL license.

Re:why would it be illegial? (2, Insightful)

pe1rxq (141710) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887312)

Under the GPL any software can be "hijacked" and sold on the commercial standpoint as another name.

Yes you can sell it under another name and ask a billion for it... But you still have to acknowledge that there is GPL code in it and have to supply the source code upon request.

Jeroen

Re:why would it be illegial? (1)

FidelCatsro (861135) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887363)

Perhaps i should of made myself more clear
as you really are allowed to take someones work under the gpl and use it with your own name , however you must abide by the copyleft , and not claim it all as your own code and keep your changes free
If i wished to sell a version of Bash on cd called FISH (fidel shell) or something I could , but if i were to not make the source avaliable and totaly hide any referce to the GPL claming it was all my doing , then i would be breaking the terms . I do appoligise that my lack of clarity has caused you to go off on a rant about the GPL

you should take a long read through it someday , its good to know your rights

Re:Um. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11887211)

Only if what you read in /. is gospel, carved-in-stone truth.....

Enforce the GPL or it loses relevance (4, Insightful)

muhan (714007) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887335)

If cherryos violates GPL, is someone going to actually try to do something about it? Where's the lawsuit? If not, the GPL might as well not exist.

Re:Enforce the GPL or it loses relevance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11887468)

the GPL might as well not exist.

Er, no. You mean "PearPC might as well be BSD licensed". Whether or not the copyright holders of PearPC enforce their license has no effect on other projects using the GPL.

2 Dikky (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11887196)

lol hy this is so heartiez

keep fighting great nord

GPL (5, Interesting)

b0lt (729408) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887200)

If CherryOS is sued for this, won't this test the GPL furthermore? It might finally get a court to acknowledge that the GPL is not "unconstitutional" (*cough* SCO *cough)

-b0lt

Re:GPL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11887367)

No.
if they get sued, it will be for plain copyright breach due to not having a license (since they obviously aren't conforming to the terms)

Re:GPL (2, Insightful)

Nichotin (794369) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887380)

And what if some crazy court decides that the GPL is invalid? Woldnt CherryOS still be guilty, as they now have no license to redistribute at all?

Intellectual Property? (4, Insightful)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887205)

Sounds like some of the people on slashdot are developing respect for intellectual property. Be careful, our willingness to respect property is what makes it real. If too many people start to respect intellectual property, it will become as real as normal property.

Re:Intellectual Property? (2, Funny)

Telvin_3d (855514) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887219)

SOunds a little like Santa Clause One too many people start believing and the next thing you know some fat guy in a bad suit is breaking into your house once a year

Re:Intellectual Property? (0, Offtopic)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887240)

No, think about it. If we had no respect for each others property, the whole concept would be meaningless. This isn't anything like believing in santa claus (unless you mean believing in the spirit of christmas or some such silliness).

Re:Intellectual Property? (5, Informative)

FidelCatsro (861135) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887315)

OK first off
IP is broken down into three main areas comenly on slashdot

1:Patents - Mainly refering to software patents , or the ownership of an idea , most slashdoters are against this and rightly so , as it stiffels freedom

2: Trademarks - Can be both very usefull on one hand to stop cheap rip offs but also gets abused alot by companys (IE: why pentium is called pentium as intel tried to trademark a number )

3: copywright : also a two sided blade , abused alot in the DMCA which companys use to stop us enacting our rights to fair use , and used properly in the GNU GPL and Creative commens license which i hope i dont need to explain to people here

Ok i do dice over the issues , but IP is not just one thing , and in this case its totaly right to complain about people violating IP , its the copyright equivelent of identity theft( well close enough)

Re:Intellectual Property? (1)

orasio (188021) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887423)

On your point #3:

Copyright is bad always. The GPL uses it to tun it around. In no way does Copyright help GPL. The GPL is a tool we use _against_ the aggressive use of copyrights.
Of course, there are lots of people who use copyright in a non abusive manner. That doesn't mean that copyright laws do work.

Wondering how developers feel about this (5, Interesting)

aendeuryu (844048) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887209)

This is kind of off-topic, but...

I was always wondering how developers behind BSD-licensed products felt about this whole thing. Before you pounce on me, I know PearPC is a GPLed product, but the way I see it, the risks are pretty similar.

So, how would BSD developers feel about creating something, having it ripped off, and bandied about by someone else as if it was their own creation, with the original developers getting no credit? Has it happened? Did it cause you to think about switching to GPL, or maybe some other license?

Re:Wondering how developers feel about this (3, Informative)

Nikademus (631739) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887233)

How do you think MS services for Unix has been created? It's just a complete OpenBSD ripoff.

Re:Wondering how developers feel about this (1, Troll)

flydpnkrtn (114575) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887377)

Rather than just spreading slander do you have a link that verifies this? Even running strings on something in SFU that matches some OpenBSD utility? Or a website?

OpenBSD is released under the BSD license (hence the name.) See here for details [openbsd.org] .

So it's OK to use their code and not release the source. PearPC is GPL'd [gnu.org] . Big difference.

Don't just throw something out there with no proof... that's just like people claiming MS licensed code from VMS/DEC [slashdot.org]

Re:Wondering how developers feel about this (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11887242)

"So, how would BSD developers feel about creating something, having it ripped off..."

The fact is that BSD developers are beyond that and the lack of ego is codified into the license. Its a much more 'mature' license in some ways.

As such, you can't 'rip off' BSD applications as long as you leave the copyright files alone. You don't even have to display them, you have to leave the credits in there somewhere and we are happy.

This post is licensed under the BSD. I'd prefer that you kept it under BSD, but if you want to edit it and take credit for it, feel free to do so.

Re:Wondering how developers feel about this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11887245)

I'm no expert, but if CherryOS is simply PearPC repackaged, and PearPC is GPL open-source, then why would anyone choose CherryOS over PearPC. They'd just get PearPC in the first place, wouldn't they?

Re:Wondering how developers feel about this (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11887264)

"So, how would BSD developers feel about creating something, having it ripped off..."

The fact is that BSD developers are beyond that and the lack of ego is codified into the license. Its a much more 'mature' license in some ways.

As such, you can't 'rip off' BSD applications as long as you leave the copyright files alone. You don't even have to display them, you have to leave the credits in there somewhere and we are happy.

Re:Wondering how developers feel about this (5, Insightful)

amonredotorg (807621) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887273)

Let me quote something...

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

  1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
  2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

Which means that they'd still have to credit you.

Re:Wondering how developers feel about this (1)

Lisandro (799651) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887296)

Well, if it happens, it's you fault alone for picking the BSD license in the first place. No, i'm not bashing BSD (i think it's a oss great license) - but you've got to understand it's entirely possible to happen if you choose to use it.

Having said that, i feel most BSD hackers don't really care much about it - they do it for the love of art, sort of speaking. BSD-licensed code tends to be high quality and used in a lot of places, for some reason (Microsoft TCP/IP stack, f.ex., or atleast it used to).

Re:Wondering how developers feel about this (1)

0BoDy (739304) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887326)

Um... not the best example of good code.
Have you ever tried to do anything with microsoft tcp/ip stack? one of the most self-corrupting pieces of software on the window platform: win9x->XP. I'm not bashing BSD either, Just pointing out you contradicted yourself; probably on accident.

Re:Wondering how developers feel about this (1)

Lisandro (799651) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887389)

Yeah, probably not the best example i can come p with... the BSD TCP/IP had the so called "slow start" [sun.com] bug, and some BSD variants even crashed with the "Ping of death" (a.k.a WinNuke).

Still, there's a lot of quality BSD code used outside BSD systems, both in other OSS systems and comercial ones.

Re:Wondering how developers feel about this (1)

ehanuise (672994) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887324)

It's true that _many_ aspects of MS windows' TCP-IP stack smell BSD-ish :-)
(and since it's from an old codebase, there's lots of old bugs that were fixed long time ago in bsd netstack but which are still present in windows'...)

Free publicity. Why? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11887213)

Why is this fraudster getting so much free press? It would be different if the headline read "Stolen code illegally released", but as it is you might think CherryOS is something other than someone elses stolen property.

At least this time the schmuk has taken the "trouble" of removing all references to PearPC in the binary. Sadly he's too stupid to remember to change the configuration file format, or the hard coded MAC address that PearPC uses for the emulated NIC.

Re:Free publicity. Why? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11887287)

under slashdot logic, its not really stolen (just like pirating is not stealing)

Great. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11887216)

But does it run Linux? And has anybody looked into setting up a Beowulf cluster...

It's stolen ? (5, Funny)

jpiggot (800494) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887223)

...in Russia, a new site called "ALLOFPEARPC" is selling the software for mere pennies. Apparently, there's no law against selling it, you know...

Re:It's stolen ? (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887329)

There isn't! It's GPL - you can sell it for millions if you want.

A bit more on the rip... (4, Interesting)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887224)

It's said that if you change the line containing prom_bootmethod in the CherryOS configuration file from "auto" to "select", you're supposed to clearly see that it's PearPC. I haven't tried this out myself though, as I already believe in that it's the same thing. There's also word in a Neowin thread that CherryOS has simply upped the screen refresh rate to make it look faster.

I Hope Someone... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11887252)

Pops this guy's cherry

Re:I Hope Someone... (1)

ceeam (39911) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887393)

With a pear?! Now that would've been nasty. But I doubt his ass is pleural.

I am sorry but (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11887258)

apple isn't cool anymore:

suing journalists
closed file formats
hardware lock-in
DRM

and people ripping off apple are even less cool.

So what? He's just forked a GPL project. (-1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887260)

Happens all the time. If anyone claims CherryOS is a bit suspect perhaps the same could be said about a number of the *BSDs. Ok , he's been a bit underhand but as far as I can see he's done nothing wrong and hasn't violated the GPL.

Re:So what? He's just forked a GPL project. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11887279)

Except that CherryOS hasn't published their source code.

Re:So what? He's just forked a GPL project. (4, Insightful)

pe1rxq (141710) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887280)

You mean besides lying about it, and not telling people they have a right to the source code?
(He should have supplied the License allong with the binary)

Jeroen

Re:So what? He's just forked a GPL project. (-1, Offtopic)

Hanzie (16075) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887282)

parent deserves +5 insightful.

Re:So what? He's just forked a GPL project. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11887334)

grandparent and you deserve -1, Wrong.

Re:So what? He's just forked a GPL project. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11887294)

I don't see the source code for CherryOS available anywhere, nor a written offer to supply the source code to anybody who downloads CherryOS. CherryOS is violating the GPL, and not even doing a good job at hiding the fact.

Re:So what? He's just forked a GPL project. (1, Insightful)

Mysticalfruit (533341) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887311)

The distinction that your missing, is that he violated the GPL when he didn't acknowledge the PearPC work that he derivied (if he actually did any deriving (other than just changing every instance of "PearPC" with "CherryOS" (which any of us on slashdot could easy accomplish with 5 lines of perl or shell script)))

He didn't enhance the product in any way, he just renamed it.

Re:So what? He's just forked a GPL project. (5, Insightful)

A.K.A_Magnet (860822) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887354)

Happens all the time. If anyone claims CherryOS is a bit suspect perhaps the same could be said about a number of the *BSDs. Ok , he's been a bit underhand but as far as I can see he's done nothing wrong and hasn't violated the GPL.

That's where you're wrong not only for the OBVIOUS reason "if you fork a GPL software it must remain GPL" (and I just downloaded the installer and afaik the code IS NOT distributed along), but also because he denied having forked PearPC, where the GPL forces to keep the copyleft of the original authors (ok you can still say "it's my software I coded it all alone last saturday" and let the copyleft in the code, but then everybody can read it if it's GPL'd, so I think giving credit to the legitimate authors is something that the GPL implies)

Even if the PearPC licence had been more permissive (MIT or BSD style), he would still be a moron who cannot even admit he just took the code.

In the current case however, he's just a thief and I hope the PearPC developpers will get some support to sue and get the GPL tested in an US court.

Re:So what? He's just forked a GPL project. (1)

MrFlannel (762587) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887369)

No he didn't "just for it", he clearly violated the GPL (section 2b):
"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."
Which means he CANNOT charge for this (among other issues like the source that are dealt with in later sections), which is what he is doing ($50 a pop).

Re:So what? He's just forked a GPL project. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11887425)

Although he can't charge for the license, he can charge for distributing the program. Otherwise selling Linux distributions would be illegal.

Where he's going wrong is by not supplying the source code and not licensing the program under GPL.

Could this give succour to beleaguered SCO? (0)

SimianOverlord (727643) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887289)

Here we have one vendor incorporating GPL'd code into their product without attributation. It's on the record. Now SCO are arguing the same thing happened with IBM / Novell / whoever it is this week. This sets the precedent that it does happen. This can only aid SCO, especially when they take this to a technically illiterate judge. They can bring up CherryOS in court, and in front of the judge, say "CherryOS incorporates code from PearOS. Why are we bringing this up? It does not make sense.

If CherryOS incorporates PearOS code you must acquit."

Not the only one. (5, Informative)

eddy (18759) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887290)

I saw that Miranda [miranda-im.org] had been ripped off for (at least) a second time.

Going to all that trouble just to rip people off and install spyware. It's fucking sad.

Re:Not the only one. (2, Informative)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887417)

Hang on, I followed your link.

I might be a bit behind now, but the messenger in question says the following on their front main page:

Overview
Star Messenger is a multi protocol instant messenger client, based on Miranda IM client, designed to be efficient and easy to use.

Then, JUST below the download link, theres another that says Source files available here.

Now, there may be other things wrong with it, but at initial glance, that looks just like any other legitimate derivative works, and if they are complaining about something being a rip-off, then perhaps they shouldn't have used the GPL.

I just realised something (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11887295)

nobody has actually tried this yet. why not download the trial, install it, try it and when/if you discover that it is pearpc in disguise then rip it to shreds.

It wasn't stolen (2, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887298)

The open source community still has it. No loss of property, therefore no theft.

For people who believe in sharing, GPL zealots are incredibly possesive about intellectual property.

Re:It wasn't stolen (1)

Xshare (762241) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887320)

Difference is: He's selling it to mass amounts of people, not "stealing" it for personal use.

Re:It wasn't stolen (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887341)

So? If people want to pay for a product they can get for free, then let them.

Re:It wasn't stolen (1)

PhoenixK7 (244984) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887407)

The other problem of course is that he's claiming that HE wrote it. It's not that he's selling other people's work, he's claiming that HE is the creator of the work.

Re:It wasn't stolen (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11887343)

The guy took someone else's work, changed it a little bit, and published it under his own name, without complying with the original authors conditions.

Whether you call that "stealing", "ripping off", "license violation" or whatever is neither here nor there, what does matter is that it's illegal under copyright law.

Hope he gets sued to hell.

Re:It wasn't stolen (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887371)

Do you have a copy of CherryOS? If so, please could you post a list of files?

Re:It wasn't stolen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11887431)

Whether you call that "stealing", "ripping off", "license violation" or whatever is neither here nor there, what does matter is that it's illegal under copyright law.

Why lie and say that it's theft when you could just as easily say that it's copyright infringement?

Re:It wasn't stolen (5, Informative)

BenjyD (316700) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887359)

Theft means taking without permission. The GPL only grants permission to 'take' the licensed source code if you obey certain restrictions. This guy doesn't appear to have met those restrictions, so he has stolen the code.

The point of the GPL, in case you missed it, is that modifications to the source cannot be kept from the community if the modifier wants to distribute their work. If you want to benefit from GPL code, you have to give back in the form of your modifications.

Re:It wasn't stolen (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887384)

Theft implies the original owner is deprived of the property (As does the word "Take").

Theft also has a specific legal meaning which does not cover IP infringement.

The point of the GPL, in case you missed it, is that modifications to the source cannot be kept from the community if the modifier wants to distribute their work

Yes they can. There's no clause in the GPL requiring changes are returned to the community.

Re:It wasn't stolen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11887441)

That isn't what he said of course. He said the changes "cannot be kept from the community if the modifier wants to distribute their work". Which is true. There isn't a single clause in the GPL that says this because the original poster has simply described the effect of several freedoms which are provided by the GPL.

The author of a work derived from a work licenced under the GPL must, at the very least, provide a written offer to supply the source code to any recipient of the work. The GPL, aided by copyright law as defined in countries which are a signatory to the Berne Convention, requires that the source code of the derived work must also be licenced under the GPL. The GPL contains provisions which allow any person who recieves a copy of a work licenced under the GPL to redistribute that work to any person or group of people as they see fit E.g. "the community".

Therefore the author of a derived work licenced under the GPL has no mechanism by which to withold the source code to their derived work from "the community".

Re:It wasn't stolen (5, Insightful)

nametaken (610866) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887385)

The purpose of the GPL is to keep the code and any contributions open. Its specifically designed to keep people from taking 4 millions hours of your work, tinkering with it a bit, closing the source, and selling it off as your own.

It really is all about protecting our ability to keep software evolving... not about ego boosts.

Re:It wasn't stolen (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887412)

Its specifically designed to keep people from taking 4 millions hours of your work, tinkering with it a bit, closing the source, and selling it off as your own.

Nobody's taken anything. The authors still have their 4 million hours of work.

It really is all about protecting our ability to keep software evolving... not about ego boosts.

You still have this ability. You still have the source. PearPC is avaialbable on sourceforge.

Re:It wasn't stolen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11887446)

The purpose of the GPL is to keep the code and any contributions open.

It doesn't matter what the purpose of the GPL is, this is not theft. It is copyright infringement.

Re:It wasn't stolen (2, Insightful)

orasio (188021) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887450)

You are right. it's not stolen.
There's no such a thing as "intellectual property".
Anyhow, it violates the GPL, so it's unethical and a breach of the license they were handed. So they don't have the right to distributed the GPLed code.
Unauthorized distribution.
Theft of identity, maybe, they say they are the authors, and they arent.

Deal with it (-1, Troll)

j.bellone (684938) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887300)

You wanted the GPL, deal with it.

Re:Deal with it (3, Insightful)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887373)

Absolutely. And the way to deal with it is to prosecute them for copyright violation. They have used the GPL'd code in a way that neither copyright law nor the GPL permits, and they should be taken to court for it.

Re:Deal with it (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11887428)

Come on ... where is the cry when Apple lifted BSD and never gave Aqua back to it? This is a joke. You can't have it both way. If this company delivers a Mac-on-PC emulator that is 20% better than PearPC it's worth $50. That 20% could include useful things missing from PearPC like a real installer, documentation and support.

Sound (5, Funny)

Shinaku (757671) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887302)

Sound. There is no sound support on this version. We will be releasing an update that will include sound capabilities as soon as it becomes available.

As soon as it becomes available in PearPC?

Re:Sound (1)

NetNifty (796376) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887398)

Maybe the PearPC sound system can have an obscure "bug" in it - not something that could occur in normal development, but something that would 100% prove (that's if the proof of the obscure variable name being identical between the two pieces of software isn't enough) that CherryOS is definatly based from the GPL'd PearPC code.

Mac emulator? (3, Funny)

Pan T. Hose (707794) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887323)

I think that comparing Mac and CherryOS is basically comparing apples and pears.

Wired link (4, Informative)

blanks (108019) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887336)

Found a good link with info from both cherryos developers and pearlpc developers. here [wired.com]

Great quote from the developer (2, Informative)

blanks (108019) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887350)

Kryeziu said he's under unfair scrutiny because people refuse to believe the product is real.

"If it isn't, it will ruin my reputation," he said. "I will end up as a bartender. I do not want to be a bartender."

I guess being a theif is better then slinging booze.

Re:Great quote from the developer (2, Funny)

the_2nd_coming (444906) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887392)

notice his name? semantically it sounds like "Crazy You".

Intellectual property? Test the GPL? (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887379)

I don't know about any of that. I think it's more of "someone's taking from our community" is the feeling. Either this guy is a moron or someone bigger and darker is out there funding this guy's legal defense.

It should be pretty obvious that this guy will have legal action taken against him at any moment. He has no reputation as a business owner that I can tell so he has nothing to lose. But this case would have interesting value to those businesses out there who have and who would use GPL code in their stuff. I don't think I'm being paranoid or dramatic when I suggest the possibility is there. After all, isn't it Microsoft that ultimately funded SCO's legal machine? Or at least partly?

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, and I know that no one could disagree with that.

Clear license violation (4, Informative)

Ulric (531205) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887394)

If this is in fact based on another GPL program, which seems to be the case, and no source is provided, that is a violation of the GPL. Quoting:
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

You must not pretend that it's the original code. You must provide source. You must tell the users their rights.

Note that there is no requirement to credit the original authors, which some people seem to believe.

Re:Clear license violation (1)

blanks (108019) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887443)

The problem is not with them complying with the GPL. They are saying that it does not contain any GPL code, or related to pearPC at all.

If they would just admit that it does have GPL'ed code in the application, that would be a different story.

Re:Clear license violation (1)

m50d (797211) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887459)

No, read section C again. You must print an "appropriate copyright notice", which will include the names of whoever holds the copyright, almost always the original authors, unless the program doesn't do so. So if the authors want to be credited like this (and haven't sold/given away their copyrights) you have to keep crediting them.

from the other article (2, Interesting)

fr1kk (810571) | more than 9 years ago | (#11887436)

This is an excerpt i found interesting from the wired article about CherryOS (OCT 2004):
Kryeziu said CherryOS runs to 36,000 lines of code and was inspired by open-source Mac emulator PearPC, but is not in any way based on it.
"There's a big difference," he said. "They are way slow."

Yeah... way slow and identical to CherryOS(?)

It's not just CherryOS (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11887452)

This guy is a serial GPL abuser:

VX30 ad stats is a rip of phpadsnew [phpadsnew.com] .

VX30 itself is nothing more than a wrapper for mpeg1 and Ogg, ripped from Jorbis [jcraft.com]

Some people have no shame...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...