Beta
×

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!

Finding the Pits In CherryOS

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the light-the-bombeck-beacon dept.

OS X 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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Does this? (4, Insightful)

maotx (765127) | more than 9 years ago | (#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? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11921488)

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?

Re:Steal or Copy? (3, Interesting)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921512)

'spose it also depends on if they have or have not included the GPL thingy. Have they REALLY violated GPL? Or are people just pissed because they want to make money on freely avail. code?

Re:Steal or Copy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11921526)

Have they REALLY violated GPL? Or are people just pissed because they want to make money on freely avail. code?


I'd say the latter, but that's just me

Re:Steal or Copy? (2, Informative)

NetNifty (796376) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921633)

IIRC the GPL says you can charge whatever you want for the binary, but you have to release the source code which you used in it (ie make it available, at the very least by including the LICENCE.txt in the main directory of the software) and release it under the GPL licence. CherryOS has not done this.

Re:Steal or Copy? (4, Funny)

noidentity (188756) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921597)

Didn't you hear? The PearPC developers don't have the code anymore because the CherryOS guys stole it. That's why they want the source of CherryOS released, so they can get it back!

No, they didn't steal it. (2, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921619)

They infringed the copyright and/or violated the GPL. I've said that copyright infringment isnt' stealing in many a P2P story, so I'll say it here too.

The sad truth... (5, Insightful)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921497)

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... (2, Interesting)

maotx (765127) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921532)

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.

Re:The sad truth... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11921578)

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.

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.

"Troll"??? (3, Informative)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921563)

"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... (3, Informative)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921566)

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?

Re:The sad truth... (1)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921603)

Oh and regarding your .sig: does that apply to sex too?

Yes. I support legalized prostitution.

Re:The sad truth... (0, Offtopic)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921737)

I do too, but I was wondering if this view influences to your own actions directly.

And what about things it's worth paying for... are they worth doing? Is payment allowed to be negative?

Re:The sad truth... (2, Insightful)

deanj (519759) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921639)

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?

Re:The sad truth... (1)

wo1verin3 (473094) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921762)

>>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.

Are you sure? Have you requested the code after purchasing the product?

They don't have to make it available as a download on the web and they may even charge you a fee for shipping/media costs/etc although not for the code itself. Under the GPL this is acceptable.

Re:The sad truth... (1)

Spoing (152917) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921763)

  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 details do indeed differ.

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

jacksonj04 (800021) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921767)

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.

Grab zagrabyonnoye (1)

Trurl's Machine (651488) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921593)

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 was stolen".

Re:Grab zagrabyonnoye (2, Informative)

RdsArts (667685) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921655)

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.

Re:Grab zagrabyonnoye (1)

suso (153703) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921754)

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 with less crashes". Him saying this showed that he had no idea what he was looking at. The press doesn't get it and in the end will make up whatever story they want that sounds good.

Re:Grab zagrabyonnoye (4, Insightful)

iCEBaLM (34905) | more than 9 years ago | (#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.

Stealing code? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11921477)

"is not only stealing code from the open source project PearPC but at least several other OSS projects too"

Interesting. If this code was actually stolen, when did the PearPC development team notice it missing?

Last Tuesday morning (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11921494)

It happened last Tuesday morning. Ram (who works primarily on printer-related IO) went to compile and test his latest Pear code. He immediately got errors due to missing subroutines and even some missing libraries. It was estimated that the CherryOS folks had broken into his system and removed the code sometime shortly after midnight Monday.

Re:Stealing code? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11921675)

Parent might be a troll, but he is on to something. They didn't steal the code, they infringed on the copyright.

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.

Warez too! (5, Informative)

sH4RD (749216) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921484)

According to this thread [serverkompetenz.net] on PearPC.net, he is using a warez'd copy of several programs as well.

Where is the story? (-1, Troll)

jsimon12 (207119) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921486)

Am I missing it in the BLOG? Looks more like a string of comments about Cherry, rather then a coherent argument.

Re:Where is the story? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11921525)

Scroll up.

PC competition for McIntosh I-Mini dotMAC? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11921490)

When Stephen Job announced their "I-Minor" McIntosh, it caught my eye. Wanting to buy/build a small computer for my already cramped breakfast bar, I started pricing out similar hardware. The results startled me. Most of the configurations I found were more than the humble US$499 of the "I-Minor" MAC. To match price I had to configure with a much bigger shuttle-style case.

My question is this. What PCs are currently on the market to compete with this? When my woman asks for the "cute little I-Minor dot-McIntosh with Tigger(R) by MAC", what real computer can I buy instead?

Re:PC competition for McIntosh I-Mini dotMAC? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11921554)

When my woman asks for the "cute little I-Minor dot-McIntosh with Tigger(R) by MAC", what real computer can I buy instead?

Good question. I'd say the closest real computer to an Mac mini would be a Mac mini.

Mirror (4, Informative)

Joey Patterson (547891) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921500)

The DrunkenBlog site is very slow, so here's a MirrorDot mirror [mirrordot.org] of it.

If the court decides they should compensate... (5, Interesting)

SlashThat (859697) | more than 9 years ago | (#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...

Re:If the court decides they should compensate... (1)

Paleomacus (666999) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921587)

It might make sense to give any compensation to the founder or current project lead so that they can disburse it as they see fit. I would think if this gets taken to court the developers of PearPC will have to be defined as well as what constitutes PearPC.

Really though, I have no idea and can't wait to see what comes out of all of this.

Re:If the court decides they should compensate... (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921600)

I think shutting down the CherryOS crooks would be the more important part, and any monetary compensation could be donated to the FSF or EFF (especially if they were to give legal help).

Re:If the court decides they should compensate... (1)

0siris (123757) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921724)

Compensation is usually given out for exactly that - to compensate financially. Has PearPC actually lost money over this?

Not that I agree with code theft, but it seems it's more of a moral issue.

This would be anticlimactic (4, Insightful)

karmaflux (148909) | more than 9 years ago | (#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.

Re:This would be anticlimactic (2, Funny)

farble1670 (803356) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921565)

some little dorky scammer trying to sell code he didn't write

worked for mr. gates, didn't it?

Re:This would be anticlimactic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11921775)

This would be excelent test of the GPL - if it does get taken to court, then the community will stand a far better chance against "some little dorkey scammer" than against a large company.
This will, hopefully, lead to a legal precident which will greatly help future GPL court cases, like the SCO case

Why does CherryOS even bother? (3, Insightful)

chrispyman (710460) | more than 9 years ago | (#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.

Re:Why does CherryOS even bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11921612)

The real reason they shouldn't bother is because extremely slow Mac emulation is useless.

already slow... (5, Informative)

Neophytus (642863) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921508)

Re:already slow... (1)

drunkenbatman (464281) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921588)

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.

contact the EFF and the FSF? (2, Interesting)

Mark19960 (539856) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921514)

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.

Not even blatant, not even theft. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11921531)

"this is blatant theft"

It is not any kind of theft. Duplication of something (as in copying code) does not meet the "Taking" requirement of theft. Unless this "stolen code" was actually removed from the PearPC premises, nothing was stolen. Words mean things.

Re:contact the EFF and the FSF? (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921634)

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.

Re:contact the EFF and the FSF? (1)

Mark19960 (539856) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921725)

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

this may not be 'theft' but it sure looks like it to the layman.

im not a person that knows about the 'law', but to me, I feel as if it has been stolen.

When is stealing IP justifiable? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11921519)

Why are people here up in arms when GPL code is stolen, but not when copyrighted music or movies are illegally downloaded or swapped?

Not trying to be a troll, I'm genuinely curious to hear a well thought-out explanation. It often strikes me that I'm the only visitor who's not tone deaf.

Re:When is stealing IP justifiable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11921561)

Post the same as non-AC and I'll take time to answer.

Since when was copying stealing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11921590)

None of what you mentioned is theft. BEfore the discussions begin on this conflict of ideas I will explain it legal-wise (morals you can call it whatever the hell you want, I don't care as long as you don't try forcing your moral opinion as moral truth).

Either way, the crime would be copyright infrigement. To constitute theft (Stealing is NOT a legal term first of all) you must take something tangible, or intangible, but the item must be completely be removed from the posession of somebody else to constitute theft. When duplicating copyrighted work without the concent of copyright holders, you aren't taking anything out of posession of anybody else, hence why the crime is not theft. If it was, that is what we would be sued for by downloading illegal music. :)

Saying "copying is theft" sounds almost Orwellian to me. I can see it now:

War is Peace
Ignorance is Strength
Freedom is Slavery
Copying is Theft.

Re:When is stealing IP justifiable? (1)

wheelgun (178700) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921595)

Nobody likes it when their personal sacred cow is taken out for slaughter. Methodology might have something to do with it. The RIAA and MPAA send out legal notices to blind grandmas and little kids. All the PearOS folks have to do to catch the offending party is download a file the suspects are putting out for public consumption.

What interests me is the whole idea of a Mac emulator. It is a neat idea, but I've never seen a high demand for a mac emu- at least not the sort of demand that would inspire one to think there is a paying market niche.

You can't steal IP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11921606)

None of the situations you described involved theft. I suggest you reword your question, perhaps to involve unauthorized duplication.

You certainly are, however, "tone deaf" to use the word "stealing" when it has nothing to do with situation.

Re:When is stealing IP justifiable? (2, Insightful)

Ralph Yarro (704772) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921632)

Why are people here up in arms when GPL code is stolen, but not when copyrighted music or movies are illegally downloaded or swapped?

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:When is stealing IP justifiable? (1)

TheGuano (851573) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921746)

It's almost like asking why your child is prettier and smarter than everyone else's.

Re:When is stealing IP justifiable? (5, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921749)

It's more than that. It's the difference between the goals of the RIAA vs. the Free Software movement.

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.

You've got to laugh... (3, Funny)

lxt (724570) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921534)

...at 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...

Copyright infringement is NOT THEFT! (5, Informative)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921538)

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.

modded down for being accurate. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11921569)

I was modded down for daring to ask, since the code was stolen, when did PearPC notice it was missing from their possession?

Re:Copyright infringement is NOT THEFT! (2, Insightful)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921584)

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 charge people for a copy.. I'm a theif and I've stolen their hard work and their income.

Re:Copyright infringement is NOT THEFT! (4, Insightful)

Ralph Yarro (704772) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921608)

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.

Re:Copyright infringement is NOT THEFT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11921618)

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.


No, you violated copyright laws, they still hold the copyright to it can sue, and own posession of the song. This is why I HATE all these anti-plagiarism papers they make us read in school, because it gives the inappropriate idea that copying and stealing are the same when logically, they are not (to me at least)

You didn't "steal" their income, how can you take away something from somebody they don't have? Oh wait, you can't, you can wrongfully decrease it, but you can't take away from somebody something they don't have yet. Potential is potential, not "I already have (something) when I don't".

Still... not theft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11921626)

"I've stolen your hard work and claimed it as my own"

Wrong on both counts: the hard work has already been done. It cannot be stolen unless you have a time machine. "Claimed it as my own" is not theft. It is, however, a fraudulent representation: a situation that is often quote illegal. What you and others forget that is that just because it is illegal, that does not make it theft.

"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."

No, you are not a thief, as you have stolen nothing. You've committed fraud, but not theft. Nothing was stolen from the pop singer.

Re:Copyright infringement is NOT THEFT! (1)

Dwonis (52652) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921786)

That's copyright infringement (violating copyright law) and plagiarism (claiming others' work as your own).

Re:Copyright infringement is NOT THEFT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11921620)

this is theft because they claim to have writen it
from scratch.

if ther where distributing a rebranded PearPC
for profit it wouldnt be theft. Now for the *AA
thing, i would agree to call copyright violator
thefts if they can prove that the idiot who share
britani spirit audio tracks claim to be britani spirit
her self.

-Bob

Re:Copyright infringement is NOT THEFT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11921637)

this is theft because they claim to have writen it

from scratch.


Naw, it is more of a fraud because of their claim of doing others work, in order to constitude theft you have to deprive them of posession over something, and they can't have posession of something simutaneously.

If the people involved deleted the code when copying it then I might agree that it is theft because they in that case deprived the origional creators the right to use/reap from the code.

Thieves? (1)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921651)

"this is theft because they claim to have writen it from scratch"

Sounds like a false representation, for sure. However, this does not cross the causality barrier to be anything like "therefore, this is theft".

I can claim to be the King of France (or even Britani Spirit!), but does that make me a thief? No.

Re:Thieves? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11921728)

if i look at your driving lisence and other identity
cards then i claim to be you for any pourpose and i
get arrested for any crimes. what would be the
headline in the new paper next morning?

"identity theft got arrested p.12"

I am sure every one have seen surch headline once.
Deprive somme one from it identity dont let a empty
warehouse or a zero'ed bank account but it still a theft.

-Bob again

(sorry for posting twice as anonymous crowd)

Re:Copyright infringement is NOT THEFT! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11921646)

This is a casual discussion board, not a court of law. People use the word "theft" because it reflects their personal feelings about the morality of the action. They are not under any obligation to use the legally precise terminology.

Re:Copyright infringement is NOT THEFT! (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921663)

And others rant against the use of the word "theft" because it is their personal feeling.

At least we know what we are talking about. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11921679)

"And others rant against the use of the word "theft" because it is their personal feeling"

Mostly, it is a personal feeling of reprehension about those who lie about illegal acts (like calling non-theft situations "theft") in order to somehow make them seem worse than they are. At least we know what we are talking about when we complain about words being used without any regard to meaning just for emotional effect.

Re:At least we know what we are talking about. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11921747)

> in order to somehow make them seem worse than they are

Copyright Infringement is quite often a more serious crime than theft. The word is used not because it's "worse" but because people can connect with the feeling of being stolen from. If someone infringed your copyright, I'm sure you would have feelings similar to "being ripped-off".

The objection is usually from lilly-livered geeks who have guilt issues with their MP3 downloading habits. Nobody likes being thought of as a criminal, but that's the case whatever you call it.

Re:At least we know what we are talking about. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11921789)

The word is used not because it's "worse" but because people can connect with the feeling of being stolen from.


Even though it is a false feeling, since in reality, they were duplicated, but nothing was removed A LA theft.

If they want to teach us what makes copyright infringement wrong, they should do it by explaining truthfully the concepts behind it instead of taking shortcuts by going "it's wrong because it's theft" because that's what calling it theft is - Taking shortcuts when they are too lazy to get off their asses and explain copyright infrigement.

The objection is usually from lilly-livered geeks who have guilt issues with their MP3 downloading habits.


Oftentimes yes, but moreso from people who are educated, although limited sometimes in how copyright laws work and hate hearing crimes called in a legal argument the wrong thing in a way that seems deceptive.

MOD PARENT UP! (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921665)

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?

Semantics (1)

jfengel (409917) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921695)

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 interesting question than imagining that I can excuse the crime by renaming it.

Re:Semantics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11921721)

I find that a far more interesting question than imagining that I can excuse the crime by renaming it.


I find it piss angering to read things like this. We are not renaming anything, the crime is copyright infringement. THAT is what the law says, and I know it is wrong, but you sir, are just making false accusiations because I NEVER, nore for that matter did anybody else pointing else that copyright infringemet is copying and not theft, say that the crime is o.k because of the fact that it isn't theft.

It is people like this that deserve a swift kick in the shins.

Re:Semantics (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921798)

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 copyright is more moral (or less immoral) than the CherryOS people infringing the PearPC people's copyright. See my other post [slashdot.org] for that particular argument.

Their defense? (1)

xenostar (746407) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921539)

Look at the monkey, look at the silly monkey!

MOD PARENT DOWN (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11921556)

SHimmy up my pole why don't ya?

How about a legal fund for PearPC? (3, Insightful)

Mr Ambersand (862402) | more than 9 years ago | (#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.

Re:How about a legal fund for PearPC? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11921729)

Typical American.
Keyword in you post: sue

GPL coders (4, Insightful)

Mantus (65568) | more than 9 years ago | (#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.

This is news? (1, Insightful)

Daedala (819156) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921562)

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 [slashdot.org] a dead [slashdot.org] horse. [slashdot.org]

Re:This is news? (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921745)

No, it's not news... But it is stuff that matters.

So if the SCO Lawsuits were Good for Linux... (2, Insightful)

X43B (577258) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921573)

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.

In other news... (1, Offtopic)

rob_squared (821479) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921575)

...it has been discovered that Canada Dry is shockingly similiar to ginger ale.

Damn those code thieves! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#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?

The Opensource Community needs to pull together (4, Insightful)

episodic (791532) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921594)

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.

#comments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11921615)

Is there a reason the comments section of that post is linked, and not the article section?

You know what's funny (5, Insightful)

Fox_1 (128616) | more than 9 years ago | (#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.

Stealing code? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11921644)

...DrunkenBlog is carrying a story with piles of gathered evidence (including screenshots of code diffs)...

If they released the code for CherryOS then how is this stealing? Or am I missing here?

Why should anyone even get CherryOS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11921657)

Who would pay $50 for something they can get for free? At least this news is giving PearPC a little more attention. Right now I am using it to submit this comment.

CherryOS is given too much credit (4, Funny)

TheGuano (851573) | more than 9 years ago | (#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.

Is Pear allowed to... (4, Interesting)

cr0y (670718) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921667)

....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?

DMCA, reverse engineering? (1)

blanks (108019) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921669)

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?

Re:DMCA, reverse engineering? (1)

a rabid platypus (619640) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921765)

IANAL, but I would think probably not. Reason being that "if" they infringed upon the code in PearPC then they have no right to license said code anyways.

Anonymous? (2, Interesting)

Leo McGarry (843676) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921700)

An anonymous reader writes ...

Gee. I wonder who that could be [slashdot.org] .

Sorry pal... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11921764)

Tell me what it's like being a bartender.

How to avoid their EULA (2, Interesting)

MooseGuy529 (578473) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921766)

On the Trial Download page [mxsinc.com] , 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 (2, Interesting)

Kalak (260968) | more than 9 years ago | (#11921772)

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="http://pearpc.sf.net">CherryOS</a>
CherryOS [sf.net]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?