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."
Re:Nothing to see. (Score:5, Insightful)
oh please (Score:5, Insightful)
It's Easy (Score:5, Insightful)
It was so simple and easy, I don't know why they didn't Open Source Cherry OS from the begining.
How nice of them (Score:1, Insightful)
Delay Tactic (Score:3, Insightful)
Ummm... (Score:3, Insightful)
*scratches head*
Oh well, I guess they finally realized, if you can't beat them, join them.
This whole CherryOS thing has been completely stupid. Why do people think they can slap a different name on something and sell it, when it's already free?
Still violating GPL? (Score:5, Insightful)
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. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
Does this mean that CherryOS has already lost their license to use the source code from PearPC?
Re:Still violating GPL? (Score:1, Insightful)
Can they do this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:how lies work... (Score:1, Insightful)
Don't let it get away so easily (Score:5, Insightful)
The moment you see their words "popular demand" you know they're STILL trying to lie and get away with something.
I know what will happen! (Score:2, Insightful)
Ìt will ressemvle at a simple SDK so that software developers could somehow use some part of CherryOS.
If CherryOS was really programmed by XMS (Which I REALLY doubt), then a company would never just abandon a project like that. You don't abandon a program that you've used a lot of time and money to program.
Time will tell...
Time will tell...
OMFG! (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Nothing to see. (Score:5, Insightful)
At the very least, it must include an admission of guilt and a formal apology, or some form of other punitive measures.
It seems they can *totally* get away with it now, and nobody will even know they did something wrong.
Don't let it happen.
Re:It's Easy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's Easy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Can they do this? (Score:2, Insightful)
copyright infingment != theft (Score:5, Insightful)
Move along, the parent is nothing but a TROLL!
Re:It's Easy (Score:2, Insightful)
CherryOS "Inventor" can't even ... (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:CherryOS "Inventor" can't even ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's Easy (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is why Red Hat crashed and burned all those years ago.
Obviously.
Re:copyright infingment != theft (Score:2, Insightful)
Copyright infringement is theft in the sense that you're robbing the copyright holder of any rewards he should have received under the license he chose, be it monetary or just warm feelings.
Re:Nothing to see. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How nice of them (Score:3, Insightful)
overwhelming demand (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, they've already lost their rights to distribute under the GPL (once you've violated the GPL, you lose all distibution rights, even if you come clean), so the PearPC folks could still legally enjoin them from distributing even in open source form.
A charitable view... (Score:5, Insightful)
This guy tries like hell to build the project, but gets stymied by some stuff. So he downloads PearPC and tries to figure out what he's doing wrong.
Eventually, he figures out that what he did wrong was promise something that nobody could deliver, so he panics and starts mucking around in PearPC to conceal its origin.
When the deadline hits, he sends them his "obfuscated" version of PearPC and collects his check. He runs off into the night hoping nobody ever finds out.
Meanwhile, the completely innocent company puts this project up for sale. The open source community raises hell. The company goes "OMG! WTF?" and yanks it off the market.
After some examination, the company decides that the only possible way to recover from this (according to their lawyers) is to GPL the project. Since it qualifies as a work made for hire, they own all the rights to the non-PearPC code, so they can license *that* however they like.
Just playing devil's advocate. Maybe the big bad company isn't the villain here; maybe it's just one crappy little ass-hat developer.
Re:Still violating GPL? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A charitable view... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:oh please (Score:1, Insightful)
Ego problem? His intention is to get attention to sell his product, and it's working perfectly so far. I just wish he would've provided the source from the start.
Re:Still violating GPL? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:copyright infingment != theft (Score:3, Insightful)
No matter how you feel about either issue, if you don't realize that the two are different, you are a potzer. It's pretty obvious. Let's go through a little thought experiment shall we? Let's say you have a band and you make an album, then I steal the original master that represents your studio time and so on. This is theft, I have deprived you of something. Now, let's say instead, I work at the studio, and I just make a copy of the master, and then distribute it around the internet. Let's say that this costs you more sales than it generates - a dubious proposition that no one has ever sufficiently managed to prove, but we'll work with it - therefore I have devalued your work through copyright infringement but since I have not deprived you of the item, I have NOT stolen it. If I have stolen anything I have stolen your profits by depriving you of some of them. We call these damages, and you may sue for them in court based on the fact that I illegally copied your copyrighted material.
I have NOT robbed the copyright holder of work they have done. The result of that work is still right in front of them. What I have done is devalued the media, in terms of commercial value. There are, of course, other things to value about music, and I have affected none of them. Whether it is more noble to produce music for money or for the joy of production or to make others happy is a discussion for another thread.
Re:Even funnier... (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously, as PearPC is GPL, legally CherryOS would have to be GPL, so I could be on an entirely wrong track here, but is there a form of open source license that prohibits forking?
Re:A charitable view... (Score:4, Insightful)
So, we have a company that was founded by a guy who is known to have blatantly disregarded the GPL in the past, that from all apearances has no employees except the two founders, whose two main commercial products show substantial evidence of consisting mainly of code taken from open source projects.
you may wish to give 'the company' the benefit of the doubt regarding their intentions in this mess, but if you do, just remember, they are not the victim of some 'fly by night' contractor, but of one of their own founders.
Re:copyright infingment != theft (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact remains that theft is stealing, and using someone's intellectual property without permission isn't stealing, because it doesn't deprive anyone of anything - this deprivation is central to the concept of theft in both legal terms, and linguistic ones. It might be wrong, but IT IS NOT THEFT and no amount of wishing will make it so. Some amount of voting could, though, I suppose.
Re:Even funnier... (Score:3, Insightful)
Prohibiting forking is against the spirit of the GPL. Part of the beauty of open source is that you CAN fork a project to give it your unique features... but you have to allow access to your changes to GPL code to the original author, so they can incoroporate them if they like them. Sometimes what begins as a fork overtakes the original project. This is what makes open source projects greater than the individual that started them. I for one, would not contribute to an "open source" project that prohibited forking. The owner/maintainer could just stop development and the project would be dead, nullifying your contributions.
Re:copyright infingment != theft (Score:3, Insightful)
Damn, you are stupid. Let's go over this one more time, and then I will wash my hands of you. If you take my car, it is my physical property. You have deprived me of it. It doesn't matter if you bring it back, you still stole it. It's a stupid example.
If you copy my CD, you have not deprived me of it. Period. That's all there is to it. It's not theft.
So I should follow laws, no matter how ridiculous, simply because they are the law? You are doubly an idiot. Ever hear of civil disobedience? It's not actually necessary to be arrested for what you believe in, in order to commit it. Even if you don't want to use that term, the fact is that there is no particular reason to follow a stupid law other than the threat of punishment.
The fact that you suggest otherwise implies strongly that you are the moron I believe you are.
Sure, it's better to get the law overturned, but the entire system is corrupt, so I don't believe I would receive anything like justice. Thus, why bother?
I do not feel that I have any natural responsibility to follow unjust laws. You can follow them if you like.