Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
OS X Operating Systems Businesses Apple

CherryOS Mac Emulator Resurfaces 574

Posted by timothy
from the and-takes-a-deep-breath dept.
Clash writes "Following its initial announcement and subsequent controversy last October, Mac emulator CherryOS has finally been released. Its creator, Arben Kryeziu, found himself in hot water last year amid claims the software was simply stolen from the open source PearPC project. With the code now under public scrutiny, it appears that such allegations are true. According to BetaNews, CherryOS boots up in the exact same manner as PearPC, and its error messages and source files are nearly identical. The emulator also includes MacOnLinuxVideo, which is the same driver used by PearPC to speed up graphics. The CherryOS configuration file also closely mirrors that used by PearPC. Trial download without registration found here."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CherryOS Mac Emulator Resurfaces

Comments Filter:
  • Um. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Capt'n Hector (650760) on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @08:19AM (#11887193)
    Why would this be released? Isn't that sort of... illegal?
    • by muhan (714007) on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @08:47AM (#11887335)
      If cherryos violates GPL, is someone going to actually try to do something about it? Where's the lawsuit? If not, the GPL might as well not exist.
      • by mpe (36238) on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @09:19AM (#11887518)
        If cherryos violates GPL, is someone going to actually try to do something about it? Where's the lawsuit?

        It's up to the copyright holders of the infringed works to take action.

        If not, the GPL might as well not exist.

        A copyright holder failing to take action does not weaken either copyright in general or the copyrights they hold. The only thing it may do is limit the damages the copyright holder can claim if they later sue. On the basis that they allowed the infringement to continue once they became aware of it.
      • by fm6 (162816) on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @03:19PM (#11891816) Homepage Journal
        Where's the lawsuit? If not, the GPL might as well not exist.
        That's the big problem Free Software advocates can't seem to face. They draw up a license that technically guarantees that Free Software remains Free. But suppose somebody ignores that license? The only way to make them stop is to sue them, and that's expensive. I very much doubt that Sebastian Balias has that kind of money.

        Nobody in the tech world seems to grasp that defending your legal rights costs money. Every time Slashdot does a story about another round of Cease and Desist letters [webtechniques.com], we get a ton of posts saying, in effect, "That's obviously lame, people should just ignore them." But the sad fact is, you don't know how lame any legal action is until you've gotten legal advice. Nor can you take legal action without that overpaid guy in the suit.

        Well, if you're very smart and very patient, you can represent yourself in Small Claims Court. But that's not applicable to this kind of issue.

    • Just like piracy? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by bonch (38532) on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @01:28PM (#11890209)
      Illegal, as in copyright infringement? As in piracy?

      I'm confused about the /. position on this.
      • by cduffy (652)
        Whadaya mean, "the /. position"? There is no one /. position.

        The sane position, though, is this:

        CherryOS isn't stolen code, because copyright infringement and theft are two different things. It does, however, contain code which is illegally distributed without a license (since the auther fails to accept and follow the terms of the GPL), hence its authors are evil bastards.
  • GPL (Score:5, Interesting)

    by b0lt (729408) <b0lt@ls.qc.to> on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @08:20AM (#11887200)
    If CherryOS is sued for this, won't this test the GPL furthermore? It might finally get a court to acknowledge that the GPL is not "unconstitutional" (*cough* SCO *cough)

    -b0lt
    • Re:GPL (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Nichotin (794369)
      And what if some crazy court decides that the GPL is invalid? Woldnt CherryOS still be guilty, as they now have no license to redistribute at all?
  • by mosb1000 (710161) <mosb1000@mac.com> on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @08:21AM (#11887205)
    Sounds like some of the people on slashdot are developing respect for intellectual property. Be careful, our willingness to respect property is what makes it real. If too many people start to respect intellectual property, it will become as real as normal property.
    • SOunds a little like Santa Clause One too many people start believing and the next thing you know some fat guy in a bad suit is breaking into your house once a year
    • by FidelCatsro (861135) <fidelcatsro@gmail.TOKYOcom minus city> on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @08:42AM (#11887315) Journal
      OK first off
      IP is broken down into three main areas comenly on slashdot

      1:Patents - Mainly refering to software patents , or the ownership of an idea , most slashdoters are against this and rightly so , as it stiffels freedom

      2: Trademarks - Can be both very usefull on one hand to stop cheap rip offs but also gets abused alot by companys (IE: why pentium is called pentium as intel tried to trademark a number )

      3: copywright : also a two sided blade , abused alot in the DMCA which companys use to stop us enacting our rights to fair use , and used properly in the GNU GPL and Creative commens license which i hope i dont need to explain to people here

      Ok i do dice over the issues , but IP is not just one thing , and in this case its totaly right to complain about people violating IP , its the copyright equivelent of identity theft( well close enough)
      • On your point #3:

        Copyright is bad always. The GPL uses it to tun it around. In no way does Copyright help GPL. The GPL is a tool we use _against_ the aggressive use of copyrights.
        Of course, there are lots of people who use copyright in a non abusive manner. That doesn't mean that copyright laws do work.
        • by QMO (836285) on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @09:31AM (#11887595) Homepage Journal
          Copyright is NOT bad always. I like to read Isaac Asimov, Robert A. Heinlein, Orson Scott Card, Charles Dickens, Anne Perry, Cynthia Voigt, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Weis & Hickman, Louis L'amour, C. S. Forester, P. G. Wodehouse, Roald Dahl, Agatha Christie, , etc.

          All of these authors are(were) prolific (at least in some sense), and wouldn't have been nearly so if no one had been obligated to pay them for use of their writings. Anything that creates this kind of obligation is a copyright of some kind.

          Asimov is a great example. He loved to write. Money wasn't even his main motivation for writing (according to him). He (again, according to him) worked 80 hours/week on writing sometimes. If he had had to keep teaching college chemistry and doing chemistry research (though he never really did that) to support himself and his family he wouldn't have had nearly as much time to write.

          Burroughs is an example of someone that wrote almost solely (probably) for the money. If the money hadn't been there he would have kept looking for (other) work.

          In these cases copyright is a GOOD thing for me, because otherwise I would have been deprived of many of their writings, and that would be a BAD thing.
        • by Raphael (18701) <quinetNO@SPAMgamers.org> on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @10:40AM (#11888191) Homepage Journal

          From my point of view, copyright is good if it is limited, both in time and in scope.

          If I write a book, an essay, a piece of software, or if I create some nice pictures or music, then I don't want to have my work copied by others unless I allow them to do so (the GPL or the Creative Commons licenses are ways to allow that under some conditions).

          I think that it is reasonable to allow authors to protect their original works for a limited amount of time. Most authors expect some kind of tangible or intangible benefits when they publish their works. Copying without permission may deprive them from these benefits, so it is good to have some copyright laws protecting the authors.

          However, these laws should allow fair use and should include a reasonable time limit. By "fair use", I mean having the right to make personal copies (including conversion to other formats - for example converting music or video to Ogg Vorbis or Theora) or to distribute short excerpts of the works. Note that "fair use" does not include distributing copies to your neighbors or to anybody else via the Internet.

  • by aendeuryu (844048) on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @08:22AM (#11887209)
    This is kind of off-topic, but...

    I was always wondering how developers behind BSD-licensed products felt about this whole thing. Before you pounce on me, I know PearPC is a GPLed product, but the way I see it, the risks are pretty similar.

    So, how would BSD developers feel about creating something, having it ripped off, and bandied about by someone else as if it was their own creation, with the original developers getting no credit? Has it happened? Did it cause you to think about switching to GPL, or maybe some other license?
    • How do you think MS services for Unix has been created? It's just a complete OpenBSD ripoff.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @08:28AM (#11887242)
      "So, how would BSD developers feel about creating something, having it ripped off..."

      The fact is that BSD developers are beyond that and the lack of ego is codified into the license. Its a much more 'mature' license in some ways.

      As such, you can't 'rip off' BSD applications as long as you leave the copyright files alone. You don't even have to display them, you have to leave the credits in there somewhere and we are happy.

      This post is licensed under the BSD. I'd prefer that you kept it under BSD, but if you want to edit it and take credit for it, feel free to do so.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @08:32AM (#11887264)
      "So, how would BSD developers feel about creating something, having it ripped off..."

      The fact is that BSD developers are beyond that and the lack of ego is codified into the license. Its a much more 'mature' license in some ways.

      As such, you can't 'rip off' BSD applications as long as you leave the copyright files alone. You don't even have to display them, you have to leave the credits in there somewhere and we are happy.
    • by amonredotorg (807621) on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @08:34AM (#11887273) Homepage

      Let me quote something...

      Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

      1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
      2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

      Which means that they'd still have to credit you.

    • Well, if it happens, it's you fault alone for picking the BSD license in the first place. No, i'm not bashing BSD (i think it's a oss great license) - but you've got to understand it's entirely possible to happen if you choose to use it.

      Having said that, i feel most BSD hackers don't really care much about it - they do it for the love of art, sort of speaking. BSD-licensed code tends to be high quality and used in a lot of places, for some reason (Microsoft TCP/IP stack, f.ex., or atleast it used to).
    • by Otter (3800) on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @09:15AM (#11887494) Journal
      I was always wondering how developers behind BSD-licensed products felt about this whole thing. Before you pounce on me, I know PearPC is a GPLed product, but the way I see it, the risks are pretty similar.

      That's not a risk, it's the point of BSD licensing. Just because "the community" flies into a rage about "taking from 'us' and not giving anything back" doesn't mean the developers feel that way. Why do you think they decided to use those licensing terms?

      • That's not a risk, it's the point of BSD licensing.

        You most certainly cannot use someone elses code under the BSD license and pretend you wrote it, which is what's happened in this case.

        If Pear had been released under the BSD license, the 'developers' of CherryOS would still be in violation of the license by claming they wrote it and that it's an origional work.

        If you don't care if someone takes your work and gets full credit for it, then there is no point in licensing it under the BSD license, just re
    • So, how would BSD developers feel about creating something, having it ripped off, and bandied about by someone else as if it was their own creation, with the original developers getting no credit?

      If they cared they wouldn't have used a licence which allowed it, so your question makes no sense.

      Put another way, it wouldn't have been `ripped off' but `used as intended'.

  • Free publicity. Why? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @08:22AM (#11887213)
    Why is this fraudster getting so much free press? It would be different if the headline read "Stolen code illegally released", but as it is you might think CherryOS is something other than someone elses stolen property.

    At least this time the schmuk has taken the "trouble" of removing all references to PearPC in the binary. Sadly he's too stupid to remember to change the configuration file format, or the hard coded MAC address that PearPC uses for the emulated NIC.
    • Heck with all that stuff. I'm still laughing my ass off that they're claiming Altivec emulation. HAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAA!! I'd LOVE to see you try to emulate Altivec on an x86 chip! 162 128-bit vector instructions. SSE3 doesn't even come close to that. I'm sure it could be done, but it would be slower than an asthmatic turtle. The guy running this company is a total twatwaffle.
  • by jpiggot (800494) on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @08:24AM (#11887223)
    ...in Russia, a new site called "ALLOFPEARPC" is selling the software for mere pennies. Apparently, there's no law against selling it, you know...
  • by Jugalator (259273) on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @08:25AM (#11887224) Journal
    It's said that if you change the line containing prom_bootmethod in the CherryOS configuration file from "auto" to "select", you're supposed to clearly see that it's PearPC. I haven't tried this out myself though, as I already believe in that it's the same thing. There's also word in a Neowin thread that CherryOS has simply upped the screen refresh rate to make it look faster.
  • Not the only one. (Score:5, Informative)

    by eddy (18759) on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @08:37AM (#11887290) Homepage Journal

    I saw that Miranda [miranda-im.org] had been ripped off for (at least) a second time.

    Going to all that trouble just to rip people off and install spyware. It's fucking sad.

    • Hang on, I followed your link.

      I might be a bit behind now, but the messenger in question says the following on their front main page:

      Overview
      Star Messenger is a multi protocol instant messenger client, based on Miranda IM client, designed to be efficient and easy to use.

      Then, JUST below the download link, theres another that says Source files available here.

      Now, there may be other things wrong with it, but at initial glance, that looks just like any other legitimate derivative works, and if they are com
  • It wasn't stolen (Score:2, Insightful)

    by 91degrees (207121)
    The open source community still has it. No loss of property, therefore no theft.

    For people who believe in sharing, GPL zealots are incredibly possesive about intellectual property.
    • Difference is: He's selling it to mass amounts of people, not "stealing" it for personal use.
      • The other problem of course is that he's claiming that HE wrote it. It's not that he's selling other people's work, he's claiming that HE is the creator of the work.
    • Re:It wasn't stolen (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The guy took someone else's work, changed it a little bit, and published it under his own name, without complying with the original authors conditions.

      Whether you call that "stealing", "ripping off", "license violation" or whatever is neither here nor there, what does matter is that it's illegal under copyright law.

      Hope he gets sued to hell.
    • Re:It wasn't stolen (Score:5, Informative)

      by BenjyD (316700) on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @08:52AM (#11887359)
      Theft means taking without permission. The GPL only grants permission to 'take' the licensed source code if you obey certain restrictions. This guy doesn't appear to have met those restrictions, so he has stolen the code.

      The point of the GPL, in case you missed it, is that modifications to the source cannot be kept from the community if the modifier wants to distribute their work. If you want to benefit from GPL code, you have to give back in the form of your modifications.
      • by jdreed1024 (443938)
        Theft means taking without permission.

        But wait, I'm confused. I thought "theft" was actually depriving someone else of the use of something by taking it. I mean, that's why everyone says downloading music isn't stealing, right? So this shouldn't be stealing either. Or is it only theft when it applies to the GPL?

    • by nametaken (610866) on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @08:56AM (#11887385)
      The purpose of the GPL is to keep the code and any contributions open. Its specifically designed to keep people from taking 4 millions hours of your work, tinkering with it a bit, closing the source, and selling it off as your own.

      It really is all about protecting our ability to keep software evolving... not about ego boosts.
    • by orasio (188021)
      You are right. it's not stolen.
      There's no such a thing as "intellectual property".
      Anyhow, it violates the GPL, so it's unethical and a breach of the license they were handed. So they don't have the right to distributed the GPLed code.
      Unauthorized distribution.
      Theft of identity, maybe, they say they are the authors, and they arent.
    • Check my journal [slashdot.org] for thoughts about the GPL.

  • Sound (Score:5, Funny)

    by Shinaku (757671) on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @08:39AM (#11887302) Homepage
    Sound. There is no sound support on this version. We will be releasing an update that will include sound capabilities as soon as it becomes available.

    As soon as it becomes available in PearPC?
    • Maybe the PearPC sound system can have an obscure "bug" in it - not something that could occur in normal development, but something that would 100% prove (that's if the proof of the obscure variable name being identical between the two pieces of software isn't enough) that CherryOS is definatly based from the GPL'd PearPC code.
      • Re:Sound (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Krach42 (227798)
        We don't have to put obscure bugs in the code to make sure it's ours. A simple strings analysis is sufficient.
  • by Pan T. Hose (707794) on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @08:44AM (#11887323) Homepage Journal
    I think that comparing Mac and CherryOS is basically comparing apples and pears.
  • Wired link (Score:5, Informative)

    by blanks (108019) on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @08:47AM (#11887336) Homepage Journal
    Found a good link with info from both cherryos developers and pearlpc developers. here [wired.com]
  • by blanks (108019) on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @08:50AM (#11887350) Homepage Journal
    Kryeziu said he's under unfair scrutiny because people refuse to believe the product is real.

    "If it isn't, it will ruin my reputation," he said. "I will end up as a bartender. I do not want to be a bartender."

    I guess being a theif is better then slinging booze.
  • by erroneus (253617) on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @08:55AM (#11887379) Homepage
    I don't know about any of that. I think it's more of "someone's taking from our community" is the feeling. Either this guy is a moron or someone bigger and darker is out there funding this guy's legal defense.

    It should be pretty obvious that this guy will have legal action taken against him at any moment. He has no reputation as a business owner that I can tell so he has nothing to lose. But this case would have interesting value to those businesses out there who have and who would use GPL code in their stuff. I don't think I'm being paranoid or dramatic when I suggest the possibility is there. After all, isn't it Microsoft that ultimately funded SCO's legal machine? Or at least partly?

    It will be interesting to see how this plays out, and I know that no one could disagree with that.
  • by Ulric (531205) on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @08:57AM (#11887394) Homepage
    If this is in fact based on another GPL program, which seems to be the case, and no source is provided, that is a violation of the GPL. Quoting:
    2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

    a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

    b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

    c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

    You must not pretend that it's the original code. You must provide source. You must tell the users their rights.

    Note that there is no requirement to credit the original authors, which some people seem to believe.

    • The problem is not with them complying with the GPL. They are saying that it does not contain any GPL code, or related to pearPC at all.

      If they would just admit that it does have GPL'ed code in the application, that would be a different story.
  • by fr1kk (810571)
    This is an excerpt i found interesting from the wired article about CherryOS (OCT 2004):
    Kryeziu said CherryOS runs to 36,000 lines of code and was inspired by open-source Mac emulator PearPC, but is not in any way based on it.
    "There's a big difference," he said. "They are way slow."

    Yeah... way slow and identical to CherryOS(?)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @09:09AM (#11887452)
    This guy is a serial GPL abuser:

    VX30 ad stats is a rip of phpadsnew [phpadsnew.com].

    VX30 itself is nothing more than a wrapper for mpeg1 and Ogg, ripped from Jorbis [jcraft.com]

    Some people have no shame...
  • Stolen? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by KJE (640748) <ken@kje.ca> on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @09:13AM (#11887479) Homepage
    Ok, stolen? We can't have it both ways. If it isn't stealing music, but copyright infringment instead, how is this any different? Just cause it's not the **AA being ripped off it's stealing now? Gimme a break.
    • Re:Stolen? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by infolib (618234) on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @09:42AM (#11887681)
      Ok, stolen? We can't have it both ways.

      Yes we can. "We" are the several hundred thousand slashdot readers, not some hivemind, and people might use words differently. Now, if you could find a single person being inconsistent you'd be welcome to attack.

    • Re:Stolen? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by donscarletti (569232)
      Stealing is about wrongful changing of ownership. When one steals a toaster from a department store, that toaster in effect ceases to be the property of the store and wrongfully becomes property of the theif, and there are laws to return ownership back to the rightful party.

      When someone has intelectual property, they own the rights to it, they get the soul ability to control distribution, claim authorship and other rights.

      If someone makes a copy of it, they breech the distribution rights of the original a

      • Insightful, my arse. (Score:5, Informative)

        by Rufus88 (748752) on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @11:03AM (#11888428)
        Stealing is about wrongful changing of ownership. When one steals a toaster from a department store, that toaster in effect ceases to be the property of the store and wrongfully becomes property of the theif, and there are laws to return ownership back to the rightful party.

        This is a contradiction in terms. A stolen toaster does not become the property of the theif. If it did, it wouldn't be stolen, nor would the store have a right to have it returned. It's still the store's property. It's just that the thief has taken unlawful posession of the toaster. If you're going to be commenting on the subtleties and nuances of property law, you should at least use basic terminology correctly.

        they get the soul ability

        Let's keep religion out of this, ok?

        However when they modify it, rebrand it and repackage it they are claiming those rights that are in effect the intelectual property. They are claiming distribution rights and claiming authorship.

        Yeah, but they didn't remove anything tangible from the posession of the "rightful owners", which is always the distinction that music piracy apologists use when they cry "copyright infringement is NOT theft!".

        What would be equivilant is taking a good, but little known song, then putting it onto a CD and claiming that it is mine

        No, that's plagiarism.

        The grandparent is correct. What they did is copyright infringement, and is every bit as much a theft, nor more and no less, than music piracy.

  • Review (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mr_Silver (213637) on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @11:45AM (#11888909)
    This guy [smashsworld.com] ran it and seems to think it's just a vb wrapper to the PearPC application. To quote:
    I immediately was suspicious of the software when I noticed it was installing various OCX files and other Visual Basic dependencies, and upon inspection of the software's installation directory, it functions as follows: There's an EXE file called MainCherryOS.exe, which is the VB App they're using as a 'wrapper' to give their PearPC 'booty', if you will (joke), a Virtual PC-like feel. Normally, PearPC needs to be compiled and run from the command-line. Their wrapper then takes the output from PearPC and displays it as if it were actually being generated by MainCherryOS.exe! A creative solution, but I'm not impressed.
    Very interesting.
  • by That's Unpossible! (722232) * on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @11:51AM (#11888995)
    Maybe CherryOS is just emulating PearOS.
  • Smoking Gun (Score:3, Informative)

    by canadacow (715256) on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @01:04PM (#11889860)
    A few minutes of hex searching revealed that Arben was not diligent enough in removing the embedded images from PearPC's code. In CherryOS.exe, at address hex 0xF9140, you'll find a PearPC gif (see attached link) that is the ChangeCD image used in PearPC (in the stable build I have, at address 0xA6330) (see second attached link). Any questions?

    http://66.42.197.91/FromPearPC.gif/ [66.42.197.91]

    http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/screenshots/osx_inst all.png/ [sourceforge.net]

"Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company." -- Mark Twain

Working...