CherryOS Goes Open Source 370
netsniper writes "The CherryOS website now acknowledges a forthcoming alliance with Open Source Software! After going 'on hold' recently, a re-release of CherryOS is purported to be coming in May according to the site. This is great news on the surface, but let's see how it pans out. This move is probably a result of the many reviews of their product that set out to prove it was bogus."
Its too late for this (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's Easy (Score:5, Informative)
The problem being that the developer has sworn up and down that he used none of the PearPC code.
Re:How nice of them (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Still violating GPL? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Open sourced how? (Score:2, Informative)
What do you suppose the odds of that happening are?
Re:Cherry OS using the gnu-head . . . (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Still violating GPL? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Nothing to see. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Its too late for this (Score:1, Informative)
Umm yep (Score:5, Informative)
RTFL [fsf.org]:
"4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License."
Re:Nothing to see. (Score:3, Informative)
You're right, though; you can run Linux on a PPC. Linus does. You can also run FreeBSD on a PPC
Question of enforcement (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Too late! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Still violating GPL? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Its too late for this (Score:5, Informative)
What does affect CherryOS is section 4 of the GPL itself, which essentially states that any attempt to violate the GPL terminates any rights that the GPL might have granted you. Combined with section 5, that should mean that CherryOS has no right to distribute PearPC code.
Now, for some unrelated speculation. Maybe they're planning on releasing some "bleached" source, and then say "look, guys, we opened the source just to make you happy, and prove to you that we never used PearPC code" ?
Re:It's Easy (Score:2, Informative)
Note that CentOS and White Box provide repackagings of RHEL for free. As far as I know, Red Hat hasn't complained.
Interview scheduled; question suggestions welcomed (Score:2, Informative)
I'm a technical editor for EDN Magazine [edn.com], and am scheduled to be in Maui on vacation in early May. While I'm there, I've scheduled (several weeks ago) an onsite interview with Maui X-Stream [mxsinc.com], the promoters of CherryOS [cherryos.com]. Yesterday morning I got an email from company president Jim Kartes clarifying Slashdot's earlier heads-up [slashdot.org] that the software had been pulled, and yesterday's CherryOS website revision; "Due to Overwhelming Demand, Cherry Open Source Project Launches 5.1.2005".
Here's what Jim says: "Brian. Here's the deal. We have decided to change CherryOS to an "open source code" product. We will do so May 1st because we need a few weeks to prepare for this. We will be charging only $14.95 for this to cover our cost of development, plus ongoing development as well as marketing costs. We are doing this because we want all to see that we have not lifted source code from other sources."
I suspect that the PearPC development team, and many of the rest of you, have lots of questions for the folks at Maui X-Stream. Please visit my blog posting [edn.com] at EDN's website and suggest general topics for discussion during my interview, along with specific questions that you want me to ask Jim and other company representatives I meet with. I'll report back to Slashdot after the meeting, both here and on my blog.
Re:I have (Score:5, Informative)
In other words, if the termination gets legally proven, then the termination has confirmed legal force from the moment of the first infraction of the GPL.
Re:A charitable view... (Score:5, Informative)
The "company" that owns CherryOS, Maui-X Stream, has the following in their bio:
Jim Kartes is the president of Maui-X Stream. He and Arben Kryesiu started the company in the winter of 2003.
So, this publicity hounding "developer" is a also co-founder of the company, and hence: the company is not an innocent player in all of this.
Re:It's Easy (Score:3, Informative)
- Kickstart - open source
- GUI configuration tools - open source
So which parts are not open source?
Re:It's Easy (Score:3, Informative)
Read the full release [centos.org]
Re:It's Easy (Score:4, Informative)
This is about trademark - not copyright. From Redhat's email to CentOS:
This has nothing to do with the software that makes up Redhat which is (last time I looked) entirely GPLed. And CentOS continues today - sans Redhat trademarks.
nmap vs SCO (Score:2, Informative)
For those that don't remember (from Nmap 3.50 Press Release - 2004-02-20 [insecure.org]):
You Misunderstand When and How the GPL is Applied. (Score:3, Informative)
EM: Your Honor, these people are distributing our copyrighted software. Please make them stop.
GPLViolator: We invoke the GPL as a defense.
EM: Your Honor, according to clause 4, when they violated the GPL here here and here, it was revoked and void, therefore they cannot use the GPL as a defense.
GV: (I'm screwed...) Let's settle.
To date, no one has gone beyond the "let's settle" stage. The only way they could do that would be to deny they violated the GPL and request a jury to make a decision. Good luck convincing a judge of that.
-Hope
Re:It's Easy (Score:2, Informative)
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
So you don't charge for the software, you charge for distributing the software. I think that someone else is allowed to distribute another persons GPL software for free. So, they could charge for their product, but someone else could be giving it away for free if they released under the GPL to begin with.
Link to revocation of licence rights (Score:5, Informative)
Since I view Maui X-Stream as in breach of the GPL under which my code is distributed, let this serve as public notice, that my code is no longer legally available for any reason to Maui X-Stream. Since they refuse to co-operate with the very lenient guidelines of the GPL, and refuse at all ends to comply with it. They can no longer claim any rights under the GPL license concerning my code. As such, my original rights of copyright apply, and I refuse any legal access to Maui X-Stream to my code (my code being specifically the G4/AltiVec emulation in generic, and in specific to x86 scalar, and SSE as implemented as a modification to the PearPC project)"
Text copied from here [dnsalias.net]
Re:It's Easy (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, this is not a requirement. Remember that a similar attribution clause (the so-called "advertisement clause") in the BSD license made it incompatible with the GPL.
Trademark != copyright (Score:2, Informative)
The hat icon is redhat-main-menu.png, and belongs to the redhat-artwork RPM ... License: GPL
GNU General Public License is a license under copyright law. It is not a license under trademark law. Red Hat claims exclusive rights in the "shadow man" logo under trademark law, not copyright law.
Re:CherryOS is not his only problem. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:CherryOS is not his only problem. (Score:3, Informative)
Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?
Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)
Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?
Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide "equivalent access" to download the source--therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.
Does the GPL allow me to require that anyone who receives the software must pay me a fee and/or notify me?
No. In fact, a requirement like that would make the program non-free. If people have to pay when they get a copy of a program, or if they have to notify anyone in particular, then the program is not free. See the definition of free software.
The GPL is a free software license, and therefore it permits people to use and even redistribute the software without being required to pay anyone a fee for doing so.
If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge?
No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public.
The only thing tricky about selling GPL'ed software is that anybody can buy a copy and then start redistributing it for any price they choose, including free (as in beer). Whether or not that would happen in any given case, is anybody's guess.
And even if it does, that doesn't mean you can't still make a profit. It's entirely possible that people would choose to buy from you, as opposed to getting for free from somebody else. Just ask RedHat. People buy RHEL for thousands of dollars, despite the availability of CentOS, WBEL, etc.