CherryOS and OSS
Just about everyone saw that CherryOS went "open source" the other day, but I didn't write about it because I was waiting for the other shoe to drop, I'm working on something larger, and I was dealing with the ponce Brad Gibson over at MacObserver yet again.
Eweek and EPN caught the other shoe, where they basically say to ignore the GNU logo, they'll be releasing CherryOS under an open source license they've created themselves and charging $14.95. Oh, and all the evidence is a pack of lies.
This story is such a non-starter that I'm really kind of bored by this aspect of it. It should be obvious we're in for another round of rhyming history.
Here's how it will go:
- Eventually, CherryOS vOSS will be released... the source will probably be delayed, but it'll be coming eventually.
- Since they're claiming they weren't stealing code, people will be all over it. The source will be a gnarled, tangled mess of stripped out copyrights and obfuscation.
- It'll be obvious they're infringing in multiple ways to anyone with the critical thinking skills above the level of a toaster (or MacObserver).
- The discussion is going to degenerate in a big way over the open source aspect of things, and everyone will be more confused regarding the GPL and other OSS licenses than they were before.
- Brad Gibson, through MacObserver, will continue to be a hack (Let me put it this way; this is a tech 'journalist' who doesn't realize WHOIS data can be false)
If you can't tell, they're becoming really annoying to write about, and really getting up my craw the more I do have to write about them, partly because their immediately bizarre behavior is interrupting my writing about their long-term and continuously bizarre behavior, let alone other things.
Apple should be watching this closely; I'm close to hating hearing about anything that has a fruit in it's name, and I doubt I'm the only one.
One thing I did latch onto over the last few days was the idea of CherryOS opening up their source code at all. There's an idea floating about -- that even I had in my head -- that if someone like Maui-X takes, and then violently violates, GPL code, that they've given up their right to the license and opening it up is now not an option.
Specifically, the GPL says:
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.
It's a bit of a moot point when it comes to CherryOS because if they do have GPL'd code in their product, just throwing it under another license -- especially one that is more limited than the licenses of the code they're using -- is horrifyingly infringing.
However, it's not as though we won't run into this situation again, so I picked up the red phone and asked a lawyer.
When asked whether someone who was found to be infringing the GPL would then be prevented from further using the code, even to include it in an OSS product, Kurt Opsahl of the Electronic Frontier Foundation had this to say:
In a typical license agreement, after termination, one has to negotiate again for the license - for example, if I got a license from you to republish your photo, and you terminated the license because I didn't pay the license fee, we would have to reach another license for the photo before I could publish it.However, the fact that the earlier license terminated would not prevent us from reaching a new license agreement.
Here, however, the GPL license is not individually negotiated. Rather "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions."
So the question would be, whether this provides a license to replace the earlier terminated license.
Basically, it's not a cut-and-dried situation in the hypothetical sense, but in CherryOS's case it probably will be.
Posted by drunkenbatmanApril 08, 2005, at 01:36 AM
Comments (18)
Posted by: Henry Todd at April 8, 2005 07:48 AM
In Britain, when you call a guy a ponce, you are usually suggesting that he is effeminate. These days it can also imply homosexuality.
I too looked it up to see if there were any other definitions that made a little more sense in this context, and was surprised to find that it is also essentially a synonym for "pimp". While that makes more sense in reference to this Brad Gibson fellow, I have never heard "ponce" used in this way.
Perhaps the intention was to insinuate that Mr. Gibson is an effeminate pimp.
Posted by: Kasper Jeppesen at April 8, 2005 08:09 AM
It's not that I don't enjoy reading your posts about cherry os... but isn't it soon time to just ignore them?... most of these kind of "evils" seem to never really die out, they just keep generating new variations on old news. At some point doing as thorough coverage as you do ends up just bringing us repetitive posts on the latest flavor of the the same evil doings.... I just can't help but wonder what other great posts we the readers miss out on when you continously cover the latest cherry os "news" =)
Posted by: Ac0rn at April 8, 2005 08:31 AM
www.urbandictionary.com says "ponce":
"An individual who attempts to fake having intelligence, class, or culture."
AND
"Chiefly British. Someone who procures customers for whores. The English word for Pimp. Although somewhat outdated it is still used but under different meaning;
A camp person, overtly dressed, gay."
AND
"a pedantic idiot"
He also calls him a hack and has "jouranlist" in quotes, perhaps number three. They are all funny but I do wonder what Brad Gibson did that made him come out swinging. I know DB has called them on their CherryOS coverage in the past...
I've never heard of "Brad Gibson" before so now I'm curious about who the ponce is. :-)
Posted by: Adam Chong at April 8, 2005 09:01 AM
Thanks for tracking down the lawyer, that is an interesting aspect I haven't seen investigated. In regards to Brad Gibson... funny, but I don't know who he is. The Mac Observer is in bloglines, but only has 30 subscribers so that's not surprising.
Posted by: Ian Betteridge at April 8, 2005 10:07 AM
Having written several stories for eWeek about CherryOS (Or, as I always mis-type it, "CheeryOS"), I can tell you that this is one of those stories that journalists HATE to write about.
On the one hand, you have overwhealming evidence that Maui is up to no good. On the other hand, you have Maui, cheerfully (and categorically) denying every claim.
By all laws of reason, it's obvious that Maui isn't telling the truth. Yet, as a journalist, you're *reporting* rather than taking sides. So the best you can do is present the evidence, and let readers decide who's right and wrong. I hope that's what I've done in my coverage, so far.
Posted by: Wesley at April 8, 2005 11:54 AM
For a reporter who writes for MacObserver, he seems to know very little about Mac or Windows software...
Maui-X Stream grabbed headlines last year when it announced it was developing CherryOS and would join Virtual PC as only the second commercial available Mac emulator for Windows.
This must come as news to Microsoft as they don't seem to believe their program can emulate a Mac on Windows... they keep saying it virtualizes another Intel-based PC environment. But, hey. The Mac Observer said so, so it must be true.
Posted by: Drunk New Orleans Guy at April 8, 2005 01:29 PM
re: Ian Betteridge
"By all laws of reason, it's obvious that Maui isn't telling the truth. Yet, as a journalist, you're *reporting* rather than taking sides. So the best you can do is present the evidence, and let readers decide who's right and wrong. I hope that's what I've done in my coverage, so far."
GOD DAMN IT! This sort of namby-pamby "journalism" is exactly why the mainstream media is losing credibility faster than Joe Izusu on a coke binge! (gosh, I just dated myself, didn't I?) Don't you understand that true journalism involves a quest for THE TRUTH?
"Journalism" like Mr. Betteridge esposes is why we got suckered into engaging in an illegal war under false pretenses. This is why GWB got re-elected. This is why BS artists like "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" turned into a major "news" story. This is why people think Social Security is going bankrupt. This is why people think Saddam had something to do with 9/11.
As a journalist, part of your JOB is to determine the accuracy of statements and information furnished to you. It's called FACT CHECKING.
If I tell you the sky is green, you need to look out the window and see the blue sky, perhaps get a spectrometer(?) and analyze the sky to prove that it is in fact blue, and get in touch with some sort of atmospheric expert who will confirm (and can back up) that the sky is, in fact, blue. And then in your article, you need to call a spade a spade. Not "New Orleans man says sky is green. Critics disagree. Who can say for sure???" That's a complete abdication of duty. I don't need one person's bullshit followed up by someone else's bullshit without any actual investigation by the JOURNALIST into exactly WTF the TRUTH is!
Posted by: Cap'n Hector at April 8, 2005 02:49 PM
I prefer Oxford's definition of "ponce":
ponce |päns| |pɑns| |pɒns| Brit., informal
noun
a man who lives off a prostitute's earnings.
• derogatory an effeminate man.
verb [ intrans. ]
live off a prostitute's earnings.
• [ trans. ] ask for or obtain (something to which one is not strictly entitled) : I ponced a cigarette off her.
PHRASAL VERBS
ponce around/about behave in a ridiculous, ineffective, or posturing way : I ponced around in front of the mirror.
ponce something up make overly elaborate and unnecessary changes to something in an attempt to improve it.
ORIGIN late 19th cent.: perhaps from the verb pounce 1 .
Posted by: Richard at April 8, 2005 05:45 PM
Mr Betteridge is correct. He said 'present the evidence'. One would assume that that in itself would imply some level of fact checking.
I find it ironic that you cheerly declare the war in Iraq as ilegal. I'm sure you mean 'In my opinion it was ilegal' or something along those lines.
Posted by: Bender Robot at April 8, 2005 07:12 PM
When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail?
Yep, that pretty much summarizes your attitude and writing style...
No need to come back here anymore... John Dvorak makes more sense than you do.
Posted by: eggsnatcher at April 9, 2005 12:34 AM
Yep, that pretty much summarizes your attitude and writing style...No need to come back here anymore... John Dvorak makes more sense than you do.
Brad Gibson, you DO read Drunken Blog!!!! You can use what name you want (bradg60 on AIM thanks to google) your style of writing and trolling speaks for itself.
Posted by: Steve at April 9, 2005 12:41 AM
I'd like to see Maui-X made an example of - is there a precedent where a company has infringed the GPL so flagrantly?
The evidence of all the builds of Cherry Os vs Pear PC should be assembled to show the deceptive path Maui-X has trodden.
I agree that Maui-X should not be able to profit from appropriating other people's code in any way, shape or form - THAT's why it's important that blogs like yours continue to focus attention upon this company. It may be boring/time-consuming and we may all be over it, but for the GPL to have any real teeth in future, precedents must be set NOW - or in six months there'll be another company, another product and a completely reworked code-base.
Posted by: Matt Green at April 9, 2005 02:52 AM
There was an example of a company called "IMBlaze" that took the GAIM source code and tried to make an adware "enhanced" IM client with it. I don't know if they ever got anywhere with it, and the GAIM devs were notified, and presumably took some action against them. Not sure what the outcome was, though their site is still up.
Posted by: Ian Betteridge at April 9, 2005 06:54 AM
"'Journalism'" like Mr. Betteridge esposes is why we got suckered into engaging in an illegal war under false pretenses. This is why GWB got re-elected."
Erm, no. I kind of thought that was because no one actually reported the facts. Or rather, that Fox News et al reported only one side of the story - which is exactly what you seem to be asking me (and other journalists) to do. Except of course, you're happy because it's YOUR side.
Yes, journalism IS about a quest for the truth. And the way to the truth is simple: you present the evidence, you let people decide. You assume that people are smart enough to look at the evidence and make up their own minds. Now looking at every story I've written about CherryOS, the vast majority of the words are presenting the evidence that Maui has been up to no good. However, in every story - where they've not declined to talk to me - I've also put in that they outright deny stealing it. It's up to the reader to decide who's telling the truth, because the point of journalism is to present the evidence WITHOUT TAKING SIDES.
Try looking at the balance of what I've written before you start shouting out of your ass. Or are you more interested in proving you have a big e-peen than "a quest for the truth"?
Posted by: not so sure at April 10, 2005 12:23 AM
"because the point of journalism is to present the evidence WITHOUT TAKING SIDES."
is it really? or is the point of journalism to present the evidence without *appearing* to take sides?
I mean, in some cases (such as this one) its clearly obvious to any passing retarded bunny what is happening, but by attempting to present a *balanced* set of facts (and thus avoid the appearance of taking sides) you actually run the danger of giving far, far more weight to the side that is clearly wrong than it deserves
Ive never read your articles btw so I have no idea whether you actually did this or not :)
sometimes one side is clearly, obviously wrong and every fact available points to this being the case....in that situation you clearly give your readers an unbalanced view when you present both 'sides' as though they are equally valid.
..accepting this means that you do run the risk of creating nothing *but* 'one-sided' journalism, but the only way to avoid that is for you to rely on your own sense of integrity.
Posted by: Lee Welburn at April 10, 2005 10:07 PM
I see there is some evidence that their VX30 video thing has xvid in it and some other stuff.
I really hope these guys go down, I wounder what other products of theirs are full of GPL code.
Posted by: Peter da Silva at April 11, 2005 11:20 AM
you present the evidence, you let people decide.
This is hard to do.
No, hear me out.
Presenting the evidence is hard to do. Some of the information you're given isn't evidence, it's not even facts... like (for example) most of the stuff that SCO has said about Linux, or that the Bush administration has said about WMD in Iraq (whether the war was illegal or not, the evidence they gave for invading before the war has been shown to be pretty much all made up at the request of the White House).
It's hard to do for experts in the field, sometimes, so you can't expect reporters to always get it right. What would be nice, though, would be for them to admit it a bit more often... and pay more attention to experts who tell them when they get it wrong (like, say, Hans Blix... or Dennis Ritchie) BEFORE they've been used unknowingly to support lies in the guise of objectivity.
ponce, had to look that one up. What was it tMO said to rile up the drunk? I think this may very well mark the first article I personally have read where DB gets a little personal... Finally! :)