PearPC Trying to Sue CherryOS

Varg Vikernes writes "PearPC developers are taking in donations to sue Maui X-Stream, the developers of the MAC emulator software CherryOS. There have been allegations that CherryOS is nothing more than PearPC code, which is open-source, but with a GUI attached to it. One of the PearPC developers tried to get in contact with someone from Maui X-Stream, but eventually were told to "speak with an Attorney" about the allegations. "

Evidence is pretty overwhelming

[daveschroeder]

It might be worthwhile mentioning that CherryOS (PearPC) is not a "MAC" (sic) emulator, but rather a general PowerPC architecture and motherboard emulator. PearPC presents itself as such. However, CherryOS markets and specifically targets itself at Mac OS X. Unfortunately, Apple's Mac OS X license agreement [apple.com] specifically states it can only be installed on an Apple-branded computer. Aside from the PearPC issues, CherryOS is a commercial product actively encouraging its users to break Apple's Mac OS X license agreement. And yes, this license agreement is binding: that's why no one makes clones. (And no, Apple "ROMs" are no longer required. Haven't been for ages.)

Funnily enough, Maui X-Stream president Jim Kartes said:

We are building an emulator like they are that uses Mac language. PearPC uses Mac language and next thing you know, they say we are using their code. This is a totally different architecture.

This comment makes no sense. "PearPC uses Mac language" has no meaning, and is, if anything, indicative of the fact that this company does not fundamentally understand the operation of innards of their product, which isn't surprising, since they didn't create it. PearPC is essentially a PowerPC motherboard emulator, which emulates a PowerPC processor, and various necessary elements of a PowerPC motherboard. I think what Kartes is trying to claim is that because PearPC and CherryOS do the same thing, it's no surprise that they'd appear similar. This claim is absurd, because the evidence is overwhelming that CherryOS is using PearPC as the emulation engine. CherryOS is essentially a graphical wrapper for PearPC, which does nothing more than pass instructions to PearPC and execute PearPC within itself. It tries to conceal, rather poorly, that PearPC is what's running underneath. Aside from the proof of very unique shared strings and symbols above, CherryOS also shares PearPC's featureset, or lack thereof in the case of support for sound and networking, and even PearPC's specific bugs. In sum, any claim that CherryOS and PearPC would share unique strings, variable names, and symbols simply because they're both emulators is ridiculous. Also, saying "Mac language" is really irrelevant because, aside from not making sense, PearPC (and CherryOS) doesn't have anything to do with the Mac or "Mac language". It's a *PowerPC* emulator. The fact that a Mac operating system runs on it is incidental; PearPC (and CherryOS) doesn't contain or use anything that could be referred to as "Mac language".

eWeek has a general overview of the situation:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1775386,00.as p [eweek.com]

Below is a comprehensive collection of evidence, which runs the gamut from CherryOS including original PearPC graphics, extremely unique strings and error messages, debug code from PearPC, the same unique MAC address as PearPC's default network adapter (of which there are approximately 184884258895036416 different combinations), shared specific functionality, including bugs, and so on, not to mention code from other GPL projects:

http://www.ht-technology.com/cherryos-pearpc/cherr yos-pearpc.html [ht-technology.com]

http://www.drunkenblog.com/drunkenblog-archives/00 0501.html [drunkenblog.com]
http://www.drunkenblog.com/drunkenblog-archives/00 0503.html [drunkenblog.com]
http://www.drunkenblog.com/drunkenblog-archives/00 0504.html [drunkenblog.com]
http://www.drunkenblog.com/drunkenblog-archives/00 0507.html [drunkenblog.com]

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Go for the gonads

[FidelCatsro]

Time and Time again The pearPC team has shown evidence of the inclusion of their GPL licensed code in the code of CherryOS , What has CherryOS done,,Well they have stuck two middle fingers up and said "prove it" .
The reason we use the GPL for our(as in gpl users, im not on the pearpc team) code is that we strongly belive in the principles of copyleft , keeping the code free .
I can't 100% say that the PearPC team are right on this , though all the evidence i have seen has supported my belife that they are.
The GPL needs legal victorys , and it needs the defense of its spirit to remain valid .
I shall donate my 10 as soon as i can as i understand how agrevating it can be to have others claim your hard work as their own .

Please no trolls about how the GPL allows this , The gpl allows comerical software based on the license however it makes dammed sure that you release the changes and keep the code free

Re:Grrrrr....

[Ghetto_D]

As previously stated, neither are MAC or Mac emulators, but PowerPC emulators.

Just busting your nuts, or pears...or cherries.

Maybe offtopic but...

[northcat]

...take a look at this [blender.org]. [In Internet time it's kinda old, March 16.]

Re:In all respect

[gnuadam]

Not retroactively, the GPL has a provision that says if you violate it, it permanently terminates the license. Since they violated the license, it's terminated. They have no valid license to distribute PearPC at all now. Even if they belatedly decided to comply with the terms of the GPL. It's too late.

allegations

[jericho4.0]

allegations!? Bullshit! They ripped of code and there's no argument about it, so can we please stop debating this and nail them to a wall, thank you.

be proud to help

[Stanneh]

i dont really know why i feel so strongl yabout this situation i have followed it i just feel somethings so rotten here i am obliged to help. i have no use for pear pc but we all have a use of the gpl and protecting it. tried donating the link is down i will eventually get my donation in and i beg anyone who cares to do the same.

Re:Can't encourage people to help enough...

[rogabean]

Just to add on a few extra's: PearPC community site [pearpc.net] direct link to the discussion there on CherryOS (LONG thread) [pearpc.net] The donation page for PearPC's legal fund [dnsalias.net]

Re:Evidence is pretty overwhelming

[alienw]

And yes, this license agreement is binding: that's why no one makes clones.

I really doubt Apple has the right to restrict installation of their OS to their brand of computers. They sell it as a separate product, not as a part of the computer. Therefore, this action would most likely constitute illegal product tying under antitrust law if the market for Mac-compatible hardware is big enough. This is most likely the reason they refer to the computers using a strange phrase like "Apple-labeled" instead of something more specific. Read this [bccmeteorites.com] for a short description of some antitrust laws.

Re:License agreement

[daveschroeder]

The reason there are no clones is because Apple won't sell OS X in a form that can be easily installed in a production environment. It would be uneconomical for a clone maker to buy boxes of OS X to get the install CDs and license documents.

No. The reason there are no clones is because they'd get the living shit sued out of them, they'd have an injunction slapped against them halting all sales of their product, and they be out of business in months.

And Mac OS X can be imaged and configured for distribution easily in a variety of ways. They wouldn't have to physically open each Mac OS X retail box to install on machines; Mac OS X install CDs are identical. They would make one image to deploy on all of their machines' hard drives; this is painfully simple and is done on an extremely widespread basis in enterprise and academic environments that have large Mac OS X deployments. If the license agreement really weren't an issue, they could just include a shrinkwrap copy of Mac OS X with each machine.

The fact of the matter is that signatures are not required to have binding contracts (e.g., credit card receipts that you do not have to sign even when you're standing right there, electronic signing and filing of federal and state tax returns, etc.). So if you want to get on the "EULAs are not binding" kick, go for it.

Re:Evidence is pretty overwhelming

[q-the-impaler]

Well, he does brandish the *. I wouldn't think it would give you that much time to write, though.

distinction between using and distributing GPL cod

[free2]

In the GPL there is a HUGE distinction between using and distributing GPL covered code.
You can use all that you want.
But if you distribute GPL code like CherryOS, here are GPL requirements that are not met by CherryOS
- you have to distribute the source of the GPL code, the full text of the GPL license, and a full acknoledgement of the authors.
- if you distribute, along with the GPL code a work that is dependant on that code, you have to distribute the whole work under the GPL terms.

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html [gnu.org]

Re:In all respect

[Foolomon]

From the perspective of downloading the binaries, then you may be right: downloading a new copy of the binaries would probably give you a new license.

However, the source code may be (IMHO) treated differently since it, in and of itself, cannot be executed directly. Instead, it is used to generate the binaries which are then executed. Therefore, any and all copies of the source code should be considered one in the same and therefore subject to one granted license per entity.

In other words, if their GPL rights to the source code were revoked once it may very well be permanent.

Re:The GPL needs court cases

[Too Much Noise]

It's not very likely that this particular part would be ruled invalid:

5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works.

Thus if the license is invalid in part (cannot restrict rights in a certain manner) those rights aren't granted at all and distribution of GPL-ed software without agreeing to GPL would still fail under copyright infringement. Explicitly:

7. [...] If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.

Re:Silly

[nsayer]

See, letting CherryOS continue to violate the copyright once PearPC knows about the violation could cause Pear to lose the copyright altogether.

That is true of trademarks, not copyrights or patents. Copyrights and patents cannot be "lost" in the way you describe (during their lifetimes, at least).

Re:Evidence is pretty overwhelming

[iwan-nl]

Your theory might be correct [slashdot.org].

Re:Evidence is pretty overwhelming

[kers]

As a subscriber you you get 15 minutes "ahead" of regular viewers, if you check your rss-stream often you too could write such a well done comment and get it up fast :) And you also support /. - wich is a nice thing in it self :)

This company needs better advice

[Random BedHead Ed]

I just don't get it - who is advising Maui X-Stream? Why would the company be so dumb as to do this? Complying wouldn't hurt them at all - in fact, it could help them, and save them money as well.

Consider: they could easily go the Apple route and built a proprietary GUI for Pear PC, while releasing their modified PearPC under the GPL and contributing their changes upstream to the original project. All this would require would be for them to post the source code for their modified PearPC on their site. Apple took this development approach with OS X (FreeBSD) and Safari (Konqueror). Probably as many people would buy CherryOS - no sales lost. But the PearPC developers would be pleased instead of litigious because they'd get development support from a company. And the company would be on friendly terms with the project, so they'd be able to work together to get the features they need for CherryOS implemented in the core project. Those features would be carried on in future versions of PearPC, ensuring that everyone has the same updates - in other words, it would be as if Maui X-Stream has more developers, without having to pay them. Money saved. Everyone happy.

Whoever told the PearPC folks to "speak with an Attorney" should be given his or her pink slip. The company is throwing out an opportunity to save money on development, and at the same time it is steering toward a long lawsuit they'll likely lose. Where do I sign up to be their strategic consultant? I never would have thought it, but I guess I'm qualified.

Bonch knows all about piracy

[whoever57]

I encourage readers to check out Bonch's first submission on /. -- go to the botton of Bonch's user page [slashdot.org] and then click on the story that Bonch sumitted regarding some movie [slashdot.org].

Note the updated text:

Update: 06/30 15:42 GMT by T: This article has been pulled; the Spider-Man 2 review which appeared here was reposted without credit or permission from chud. (Read it in its original context.) We welcome original feature-length articles, but not plagiarism.

Re:Evidence is pretty overwhelming

[haagmm]

but they are not comiting a crime. Well, INAL, but i dont belive the DMCA would hold weight here. As far as the EULA, they do not distribute OSX, nor do as far as anyone can prove use it. Since they emulate the hardware of the power pc and the motherboard, they could just as easily test it with something like yellowdog, or any other PowerPC based Free Operating System. They could even be running Darwin, the OSX Kernal that is released under a Free License. OSX is just one of the options for an operating system on a PowerPC and Apple Motherboard based computer.

The Kazaa case was very differnt, Kazaa Light was a hacked version of kazaa with fake cydoor dll's so when ever kazaa called the cydoor dll to do its evil stuff nothing happened. In that case KL was very clearly violating Kazaa's distrobution Liscenses.

after-the-sale conditions

[The Monster]

The fact of the matter is that signatures are not required to have binding contracts.

IANAL (But I watched The Paper Chase and learned this from Prof. Kingsfield))

The elements of contract are:

1. Offer
2. Acceptance
3. Consideration

So, if I walk into a retailer and they offer OS X under terms that I am willing to accept, and I give them the amount of money (consideration) they asked for, when we have a contract. Any additional terms or conditions that the seller wishes to assert after I've agreed to the stated terms of the sale are completely unenforceable.

So if you want to get on the "EULAs are not binding" kick, go for it.

Suppose someone were to purchase a Chevy floormat from a dealer, then when they go to add Calvin urinating on the logo and put it in their Ford pickup, they find a GM EULA that says they can't use it that way. I can't imagine an attorney that would prosecute that one.

I guess you didn't see this bit of news

[Solandri]

A California jury found against Toshiba, awarding $465.4 million in damages [dpreview.com] to Lexar.

GPL is Not Per-Copy

[HopeOS]

For what its worth, the license is not a per-copy ticket. If you redistribute the code without explicit permission of the author you are technically violating copyright law. The GPL is an affirmative defense against that charge. If you violate the GPL, it is void, and therefore not a defense; hence, you must stop distributing.

-HopeOS

Google cache

[ICECommander]

Google cache (hard to read) [64.233.167.104]