PearPC Trying to Sue CherryOS 690
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. "
GPL test. (Score:4, Interesting)
coders, continue prepping releases. the point of open source is that things never get stale. if cherryOS is a ripoff today, ain't nothin' stoppin' PearOS from doing another point release in upgrade, and surfing their stupid PR blunder into fame...
Re:Let's all hear it folks (Score:1, Interesting)
Can't encourage people to help enough... (Score:5, Interesting)
So if you are a PearPC supporter... I would suggest lending any help you can...
and if not... then as a supporter of the GPL any help you can is needed as well.
Re:Another reason why IP expansionists suck (Score:0, Interesting)
They stole the PearPC developers' code
No they didn't. They committed copyright infringement and they are plagiarists. They are not thieves.
Silly (Score:4, Interesting)
Since it's a blatant copy you should be able to get 100% of profits and force them to take it off the market.
Though Evil I don't understand why they should be taking donations from nice stupid people, rather than taking the money from people who buy open source software, questionably nice stupid people.
I mean aren't lawsuits supposed to MAKE MONEY?
Let people invest in the lawsuit
Re:In all respect (Score:5, Interesting)
No he isn't doing that. The copying rights for PearPC that the CherryOS people obtained through the GPL license were terminated under section 4 of the GPL:
This came up once before when Stallman told everybody that the KDE developers needed to ask forgiveness in order to use GPLed code (after Trolltech GPLed Qt in an attempt to solve the licensing issue). The KDE developers' response was "no, we just need to download another copy to get a new license". The termination of rights is clearly valid, but whether you can obtain new ones simply by downloading the GPLed software again or not is probably a grey area that would need to be addressed by a court.
OSS PIRACY! (Score:1, Interesting)
As we have already seen [slashdot.org], the GPL is under attack from evil forces known as "pirates." These shadowy folk silently steal source code and violate the GPL, infringing on the rights of GPL authors. They are nothing more than thieves getting a free ride off the work of others, and I for one am disgusted at the idea of it. As you can see in the previous article, clearly Slashdot is also sickened by the idea of copyright infringement and piracy.
Some have even called for a lawsuit against these pirate thieves. Suing individual infringers has always been a position that Slashdot and its readership has supported, so it's only fair that the original GPL authors protect their rights and safeguard their material from being stolen in the future. I think we should all support any lawsuits against these infringers to protect the rights of GPL authors everywhere.
I appluad Slashdot and its readers for always taking a proactive stance against piracy and copyright infringement in general, and I would like to join the cause against this "source code theft." Piracy is a major threat facing OSS today.
Re:Let's all hear it folks (Score:1, Interesting)
The money-making issue is a red herring. It's irrelevant.
That is your opinion. If somebody judges it to be relevant, then there is no hypocrisy in judging the two actions differently.
Suggestion: Get Maui X-Stream to sue you (Score:5, Interesting)
They walked away from the deal, started selling a different product under that name, but claimed our performance numbers (this was a fire supression chemical), and even quoted our test results, for a totally dissimilar product!
One of our legal staff advised us, "It's going to be a terrible pain to sue them. Rather, continue selling your products, use the same marketing literature, and 'copy-cat' them right back. Force them to sue you, if they dare."
The PearPC community should do this to CherryOS. Create a gui, that matches CherryOS exactly.
Release it as CherryOS Plus. Even use the same name. If they have the balls to take you to court, lots of interesting things will have to be revealed in discovery.
It'll cost you the same amount in lawyer fees, but it'll cost them much more. (Easier to defend, especially in a GPL question, where discovery will reveal the code).
Re:Let's all hear it folks (Score:1, Interesting)
You are so disingenuous it isn't even funny. Every time you trot out this chimera it makes you look like and confirms you as the idiot you are.
The point that you and your ilk miss is that if there were no IP laws then the GPL is NO LONGER NECESSARY. Let me emphasize that point: THE GPL IS ONLY NECESSARY IN THE CURRENT CLIMATE OF COPYRIGHT LAW THAT WE HAVE NOW.
Also, since you seem to be mentally challenged when it comes to this concept, let me also emphasize: PEOPLE WHO WANT THE GPL TO BE RESPECTED GENERALLY RESPECT COPYRIGHT LAW. That's right--there is no hypocrisy, other than in the straw man that you continually trot out to "prove" your nonsensical point.
Oh, and by the way, if you hate the GPL so much, just realize this--if you don't like the GPL, you don't have to accept it and then YOU ARE BOUND BY REGULAR COPYRIGHT LAWS. That's right: THE GPL GIVES YOU MORE RIGHTS THAN YOU HAVE UNDER COPYRIGHT LAW. Don't like it? Don't use it.
Look to COS for the real evidence (Score:5, Interesting)
the link even includes reference to the software used for the comparison.
The test was conducted using UltraCompare, a standard tool for application comparison. The test used CherryOS 1.2 and PPC 0.4 Pre as the basis for comparison. The UltraCompare test works by running through every possible process of the application. The results show the matching number of bytes and gives a consensus on whether the core architectures of the two products are the Same, Similiar or Different. As you will see from the results below, CherryOS and PearPC are radically different products.
apparently running "diff pearPC.exe cherryOS.exe" is all you need to do.
ironically, the screenshot included on the page appears to me to be more evidence that they include similarities. something that, in the binary, is even more damning.
and no, the UltraCompare site shows no evidence that it can "[run] through every process of the application"
Re:Evidence is pretty overwhelming (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Remember folks! (Score:3, Interesting)
Even ignoring copyright, by claiming their product isn't based on PearPC they are committing fraud.
Re:In all respect (Score:4, Interesting)
Trolling? Can't tell.
How is a company that decides to release a commercial product that obviously just lifts wholesale the work of a GPLed project, then makes dramatically exaggerated claims about the performance of their "product", and finally when confronted with their misdeeds with overwhelming evidence proclaims their innocence and basically says "get lost" to the rightful owners of the code in question ... how is any of that good for the users?
I think users ultimatly win if the pearPC people can prevent these unethical hucksters from ever "releasing a product" again.
But that's just me.
Re:License agreement (Score:3, Interesting)
Are People REALLY This Stupid? (Score:5, Interesting)
The most striking piece of this article, for me, was the comment that when a PearOS developer tried to contact someone at the offending company's offices, they were just dismissed summarily with a "go talk to an attorney" response.
In recent months I have dealt with someone who gave me two similar responses (not related to the GPL, but a bounced check). First he asked "well, since you've got my address, why don't you just come out here and arrest me?" Next in an online conversation he suggested I take his firm "I'll never honor that check" answer to the district attorney. Then, when he got the certified letter from me trying to resolve the problem without involving a court, he messaged me online inviting me to file the suit, even offering to give me a list of lawyers to consult.
I'm amazed people still bluff like this -- he says "go on, then, sue me!" ... it's a no brainer to respond "um, okay, here's the suit" (I filed suit March 1, and take him to small claims April 11).
This CherryOS thing is clear-cut. It's as much a no-brainer as a bounced check small claims case is. The people working at this company have to know this. There's no conceivable way every person at that company (particularly the legal team, if it exists :) could honestly believe they have a unique, new product. There's no conceivable way this guy I'm suing can "win" the case -- a bounced check is actionable by itself regardless of circumstance (not that there are any).
There are only three possibilities in both these instances: 1) they're hoping we won't call their bluffs by actually filing suit, 2) they actually honestly think some magic loophole will save them, or 3) they really are as stupid as they seem.
Actually, I suppose there's a fourth option: they never plan to pay a judgment when they lose. It's easy for me; sell the judgment to a collection agency for 70% of its value, move on (punitive damages will still make it worth the trouble and the cut). For PearOS, it might be harder. If they actually win a judgment, there could be an appeal process (probably will be), and by the time that's over with, even when PearOS emerges triumphant, there won't be money left in the defendant company (or it'll just file for bankruptcy) to take. Hurrah, justice is served, or something.
I don't really know how to pick the most likely outcome here except, I suppose, to just wait and see.
Re:Remember folks! (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway inability to make a living at it hasn't stopped great art. Picasso died a poor man and so did thousands of other great artists and musicians. Sure britney spears is rich but charlie parker died destitute. Maybe something wrong with this picture.