Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
OS X Operating Systems Businesses Apple

CherryOS Not All It's Cracked Up To Be 581

CherryBS writes "The CherryOS emulator, claiming that it could seamlessly run Mac OS X at 80% the speed of the host computer on standard x86 hardware (covered here previously), has created some controversy about stolen code. It turns out that CherryOS's emulation engine is nothing more than that of PearPC, an open source GPL project to create a PowerPC motheboard emulator." Read on for more details.

CherryBS continues "PearPC developers who have seen CherryOS have confirmed it is a fraud, while others remaining anonymous have posted the 'strings' output that CherryOS and PearPC share, showing many function names, warning/informational message strings that exist verbatim in PearPC. Additionally, now-pulled screenshots of CherryOS, mirrored in the long thread at pearpc.net, show CherryOS's boot process revealing variable names and missing or incorrectly emulated hardware in such a way as to be specific to PearPC. Arben Kryeziu, the developer of CherryOS, claims that no code has been taken from PearPC whatsoever, and that he will release a trial version this week. However, with the amount of deception on the part of the company, and considering this wouldn't be the first time he's violated the GPL, it's hard to believe they're telling the truth. Additionally, Kryeziu now claims the "trial" may "disable modules like sound or drag and drop"...likely because PearPC itself does not support such features. To further add to the tale, someone who was likely Arben was specifically asking for video server load testing for their vx30.com video codec/server product, even specifically mentioning slashdot as a great candidate, and in the days following the CherryOS story unfolding, went back and deleted the posts. The first day, all that was left online were two videos, one of which was subsequently removed because of PearPC-specific strings in the boot process shown in the video..."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CherryOS Not All It's Cracked Up To Be

Comments Filter:
  • What a surprise (Score:3, Interesting)

    by __aavhli5779 ( 690619 ) * on Monday October 18, 2004 @04:48PM (#10559671) Journal
    The other day, when I first saw mention of 'CherryOS', the first thing that came to mind was "I bet they're using PearPC code without attribution.". A full-featured PPC emulator (an incredibly difificult accomplishment) coming out so soon after another?

    Glad to see that my fears were vindicated. DIE, HOARDER SCUM.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 18, 2004 @04:50PM (#10559697)
      The difference between PearPc and CherryOs is that Cherry has personal info about hundreds (thousands?) of users who filled their contact form.
      • by Lev13than ( 581686 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @05:14PM (#10559900) Homepage
        The difference between PearPc and CherryOs is that Cherry has personal info about hundreds (thousands?) of users who filled their contact form.

        ...who are now about to get an email from confirmation@apple-security-totallylegit.com asking them to confirm their credit card information [slashdot.org] in order to "ensure that their version of MacOS is fully cross-platform compliant".
      • Phish and chips? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by cheeseguy ( 149092 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @05:24PM (#10559973)
        Now this is what I call one sophisticated phishing scheme. They managed to get otherwise smart people knowledgeable about technology to hand over their personal info in the hopes of getting something most of them would admit sounds too good to be true. I wonder how many of the same people responded to the "email veerification request" messages claiming to be credit card companies. In my mind any company that has not proven anything in the real world is sure as sh*t not getting anything from me. I'd be curious how many people actually signed up on their website for the pre-release of the software.
    • Re:What a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)

      by UrgleHoth ( 50415 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @05:12PM (#10559887) Homepage
      Too bad the mass [wired.com] media [yahoo.com] did not think of that when given the press release. No, instead, they just blindly passed it on to news consumers. This is a real problem with our media sources. Journalists do not do their jobs. Do you think any of them will learn from this? Nah, me neither.
      • by CatOne ( 655161 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @05:27PM (#10559989)
        They're supposed to do a source code diff for a press release?

        Ummm... no.
      • Re:What a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Dr. Dew ( 219113 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @05:49PM (#10560159) Homepage

        The Yahoo printing of the press release is not a bad thing. It's clearly marked as a press release. If you want to pay your $600 to BusinessWire, you too can post a press release announcing that "monkeys will shoot out of my nether eye in my office at midnight tonight." Yahoo will pick it up and run it in its financial news section, because that's what it does with press releases as they come along the wire.

        This is a good thing - pre-Web, getting your hands on a company's press releases was more time consuming and sometimes expensive. I prefer being able to research what a company says about itself. Of course, believing what a company says about itself is another matter, but why would a person read something marked "press release" without a skeptical eye?

        Did you know, for example, that the people quoted in press releases generally don't say what they're quoted as saying? No indeed, even if multiple companies are involved, a marcom person wrote the thing, ran it by someone else's marcom person, got approval, and put it out on the wire. In some cases, the quoted person doesn't even know they've been quoted. "I'm very excited about the prospect of monkeys flying out of UrgleHoth's nether eye," said Dr. Dew. "I'm just glad they're not going to fly out of mine."

        And I'm puzzled what your problem is with the Wired piece. The writer clearly states the claims as "claims" - so carefully, in fact, that I was more skeptical after reading it than I was before.

        That said, I wouldn't complain if news sources did a better job aggregating related stories so that it's as easy to find out that someone's a pathological liar as it is to find out whatever they said before it was verified as a lie.

      • Re:What a surprise (Score:5, Informative)

        by CommanderData ( 782739 ) * <kevinhi@y[ ]o.com ['aho' in gap]> on Monday October 18, 2004 @06:07PM (#10560289)
        To give Wired a bit of credit, they actually continued to follow the story (including trying out a copy of CherryOS and then investigating and assisting in proving the fraud claims). See the article posted today [wired.com].
      • Once upon a time.. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Mr2cents ( 323101 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @06:18PM (#10560351)
        There once was a time when journalists asked questions instead of quoting press releases..
      • Re:What a surprise (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Spoing ( 152917 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @06:23PM (#10560379) Homepage
        1. Too bad the mass media did not think of that when given the press release. No, instead, they just blindly passed it on to news consumers. This is a real problem with our media sources. Journalists do not do their jobs. Do you think any of them will learn from this? Nah, me neither.

        Yep, I lost that illusion years ago!

        Press releases make up a large chunk of the tech 'news' being 'reported'. I know this since I've seen it happen with the press releases a company I used to work for sent out. (Guestimate: small blurbs nearly 100% company content, medium ones over 50%, large articles much less. Typically, the larger the subject, the less corporate content.)

        In the case of CherryOS, I'd guess most everything posted was corporate content. Now that there is a scandal, you'll see some 'scoop' articles here and there...with lost of corporate content.

        Press releases are very effective for both reporters and companies; the reporter can meet deadlines with something to show while the company benifits from a '3rd party' saying what they wrote. My experience is that a typical 'report' that at worst the press release is printed verbatim with some paragraphs chopped for space, though many more are only 20% non-company provided content.

        Why bother reading tech rags when most is not original or is overly sensationalized? (Ex: Ziff pubs.)

        • Re:What a surprise (Score:5, Informative)

          by HughsOnFirst ( 174255 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:49PM (#10561464)
          I worked at a small software company that made an corporate email management program. We sent out a press release with screen shots of a very colorful GUI that we abandoned before we ever got actual working code. Months later we sent out copies to various PC magazines to review. A bit later we won some sort of comparison test ( I think we had a longer list of features than anyone else , thus more bullet points ) including praise for how easy it was to install.
          The funny thing was, the installation instructions were something like 1. Install IBM DB2. 2. click on install icon and wait for authorization key window to open. 3. Call xyz-tech for an install key.
          At that point we would talk them through some godawfull install and configuration process that could go on for days. But the reviewer never called, never got a key, and presumably never installed it, and the review was illustrated with the press release screen shots.

          • Re:What a surprise (Score:4, Informative)

            by shippo ( 166521 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @05:00AM (#10563186)
            Well, I worked for a software house that developed a web-based collaboration program, which, due to very browser-centric Javascript coding, would only work on IE 4.0 (it was some time ago). I was responsible for testing and supporting this thing.

            They released press releases to various UK trade magazines claiming various apects about this product, many of which were clearly not true. One was a list of client platforms that the product ran on, and this included various Windows, Mac and UNIX browser clients that had not been officially tested in any way. All were simply fabricated. Other claims about the product, such as the list of platforms that the server ran on, were equally false and untested, and due to a certain core third-party library only being available as a Windows DLL at the time, not possible to implement for at least another 6 months, if at all.

            All the UK press printed the release notes without one even bothering to review the software.

            I walked out of the company in disgust a few days later. They ceased trading a year or two later, after concentrating exclusively on the product at the expense of other core revenue streams.
    • by dmitrygr ( 736758 ) <dmitrygr@gmail.com> on Monday October 18, 2004 @05:18PM (#10559933) Homepage
      Well lets slashdot them to add to their problems...
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 18, 2004 @05:25PM (#10559977)
      The other day, when I first saw mention of 'CherryOS', the first thing that came to mind was "I bet they're using PearPC code without attribution.". A full-featured PPC emulator (an incredibly difificult accomplishment) coming out so soon after another?


      Serves the PearPC right for giving away their source code then! WTF did they expect would happen? Sheesh, if you don't want someone to borrow your code for another project then DON'T GIVE AWAY THE SOURCE CODE.

    • by Mulletproof ( 513805 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @06:16PM (#10560341) Homepage Journal
      When did we start modding "I told you so" posts insightful again? Maybe if there was some content, or even a link to an "I told you so" post, but this? BTW, I remember thinking to myself "Wow, the Ge6600 is going to be a great budget graphics card" when I first heard about it.

      Glad to see my expectations were maintained. Mod me up, please.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 18, 2004 @04:49PM (#10559676)
    ...popped the cherry!
  • Really... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by evilmuffins ( 631482 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @04:49PM (#10559680)
    Did anyone think it would be anything differnt? This reminds me of whenever some new console comes out, there is always some miricle emulator coming out soon that will play every game for it perfectly.
  • So... (Score:5, Funny)

    by grunt107 ( 739510 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @04:49PM (#10559683)
    Something's a little rotten w/that Cherry? That's the pits!!!
  • read the thread (Score:5, Informative)

    by jhendow ( 448473 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @04:49PM (#10559684)
    read the mirrored thread. it's well worth the time to examine it.
  • by FyRE666 ( 263011 ) * on Monday October 18, 2004 @04:50PM (#10559698) Homepage
    Let's check the facts here - this guy claims to have written a mac emulator that runs at 80% native speed, all by himself... in 4 months?!! He's either a frickin' genius, or he's "embraced" some code from somewhere - and I think we all know where...
  • Whew (Score:5, Funny)

    by OverlordQ ( 264228 ) * on Monday October 18, 2004 @04:50PM (#10559699) Journal
    Glad i didn't take this guy [slashdot.org] up on his bet.
  • legality (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anubis350 ( 772791 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @04:51PM (#10559703)
    while IANAL, is this necessarily illegal?? if he makes the source code for pearpc downloadable/packaged with with cherry and acknowlodges somewhere in the eula that its pearpc rebranded than while he has morally been an asshole he hasnt violated the gpl, has he?
    • Re:legality (Score:5, Informative)

      by AuMatar ( 183847 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @05:00PM (#10559791)
      He'd have to make any and all changes he made to PearPC (including any anti-copying code or the like) available as well. But yes, rebranding GPL code and claiming it as your own, so long as you redistribute it as GPL is totally legal. I don't htink thats what he's doing though (I don't think he released code).
      • Re:legality (Score:5, Informative)

        by at_18 ( 224304 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @05:04PM (#10559823) Journal
        You can rebrand it, but you cannot claim it as your own. You must list the original authors of the code.
        • Re:legality (Score:5, Informative)

          by jsebrech ( 525647 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @05:10PM (#10559874)
          You can rebrand it, but you cannot claim it as your own. You must list the original authors of the code.

          You're thinking of the old-style bsd license. The GPL does not require listing the original authors. I just reread the license again, and it seems it does allow taking someone else's gpl'd program and claiming it is entirely your own.
          • Re:legality (Score:5, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 18, 2004 @05:44PM (#10560128)

            The GPL does not require listing the original authors.

            That is only true technically.

            1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty

            So no, you don't have to list the original authors, but you do have to list the copyright holders. In most cases these are the one and the same, so while you are technically correct, in practice you are almost always wrong.

            (Before anybody tries to redefine "appropriate copyright notice", please point out where the GPL transfers copyright. Hint: it doesn't.)


            • "...so while you are technically correct, in practice you are almost always wrong."

              Sounds like something a fortune cookie would say to me.
              It's the story of my life!

  • What a moron (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ShatteredDream ( 636520 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @04:51PM (#10559706) Homepage
    You know, it's one thing for a corporate guy to think that he can get away with this. It's quite another for an open source developer to pilfer and another open source developer's code, release his "modifications" online and claim it's his. The CherryOS guy(s) better watch out, they may find themselves next in line for a darwin award for being that stupid.

    I mean seriously... this is about as bright as murdering your neighbor in your front lawn in the middle of the day and stretching their corpse out on a lawn chair in your yard while you cut the grass...
  • Stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FiReaNGeL ( 312636 ) <.moc.liamtoh. .ta. .l3gnaerif.> on Monday October 18, 2004 @04:51PM (#10559709) Homepage
    The first day, all that was left online were two videos, one of which was subsequently removed because of PearPC-specific strings in the boot process shown in the video..."

    Heh. If they can't even cover their tracks THIS BAD, no wonder they got catched (which is a good thing).
    Now I wonder... are all GPL violators this clumsy? Probably not... you know the saying, for every thief you catch, hundreds still run free.
    • by archen ( 447353 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @05:15PM (#10559908)
      If they can't even cover their tracks THIS BAD, no wonder they got catched

      I think I just saw the head of a grammar nazi explode.
      • by pjt33 ( 739471 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @05:58PM (#10560233)
        We grammar Nazis aren't all mean-spirited pedants unable to make allowances for foreigners, and the use of "catched" rather than "caught" is a clear indication that the grandparent post wasn't written by a native English speaker. Do you, on the other hand, have any excuse for failing to capitalise "Nazi", or must our collective wrath descend on you?
    • Re:Stupidity (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Valdar729 ( 739092 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @05:50PM (#10560171)
      I used to work for a company that violated the license of an open source piece of software. They stole the code verbatim and I didn't realize this until I had left the company and was searching for an open source alternative to their software. I stumbled across the open source version and though "Hey, they use the same variable and function names as us...hey, they use the same headers...hey, they use the same conversion arrays...hey, we stole their product!"

      Unfortunately, they are making millions of dollars off of this open source software and the original author isn't seeing a penny. I feel bad, but I am one of two people who actually saw the source code (the other being the owner of the company).

      If I said anything the company would instantly know who snitched on them and I'm not going to deal with those repurcussions.

      They kept good tabs on making sure no one else could figure out they stole open source code and they continue to make large amounts of money on it today. So yes, not everyone is as clumsy as this person is.
      • Re:Stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)

        by stevey ( 64018 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @06:00PM (#10560252) Homepage

        Explain the situation to the FSF and somebody would probably approach them.

        If the code is similar chances are symbol table information / exports in DLLs etc would allow binary comparisons to be used to establish a connection.

        That way source wouldn't need to be visible and you'd be clean.

        Failing that tip off the author - if you don't work there anymore and you feel bad why keep quiet, and then tell the world anonymously?

        • Re:Stupidity (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Valdar729 ( 739092 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @06:54PM (#10560573)
          I kept quite and tell people anonymously because I feel bad, rather than not telling anyone at all. And if I did tell someone my previous company had no problems with sueing people for any reason. But I'll take your advice about the FSF and try to contact them about it.

          Problem is the original source was for unix x-windows and the company I worked for ported it to windows for ActiveX and .Net. I'm not sure how comparisons can be made across platforms like that since dll symbols well...didn't exist in the original application.
          • Re:Stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)

            by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Monday October 18, 2004 @07:16PM (#10560718) Homepage Journal
            If there are bugs in the original source it should be possible to test for bug-for-bug compatibility.

            You could at least mention the free product in question without outing your former company.

            If you have any money a lawyer might be worth talking to. Whistleblower protection acts and anti-SLAPP protections might be worth looking at. You might be a co-conspirator if you don't come forward. Best to get real legal advice. Should cost you $300 for a couple hours.
  • Choice Quote (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dhoonlee ( 758528 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @04:53PM (#10559715)
    Sebastian Ballas, PearPC's lead developer, said a screenshot of CherryOS shows a variable named "SPIRO MULTIMAX 3000," a nonsensical term Ballas claims to have invented for use in PearPC.

    "It is absolutely unlikely that someone uses exactly this name for the same purpose," he said. "The way he (Kryeziu) is lying is making me angry."


    When told that variables with the same names had been found in both CherryOS and PearPC, Kryeziu said programming logic often leads to variables and functions with similar, or identical, names.

    "There are some functionalities that can only be done a certain way," he said. "Names are going to be similar or identical because there are only certain ways to do things."

    BUAHAHHAHAAHHAHHAHA
    • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) * on Monday October 18, 2004 @05:21PM (#10559959)
      When I'm thinking of variable names my mind often turns to thoughts of Spiro Agnew. And then of course, he was developing Cherry OS so thoughts immediatley turn to the movie Cherry 2000 and if a sequel (obviosuly named Cherry 3000) would be released.

      Then you come to the thought that this method is muti to the max, and out pops SPIRO MULTIMAX 3000 right in the middle of your code. I must have that happen several times a day myself, and I don't even work with code that has anything to do with cherries - I just find them a tasty snack.
    • by KH ( 28388 )
      My favorite quote is thus:


      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.""


      That's a great insult to bartenders all over the world. What's wrong with being a bartender? Besides, being a bartender would get one laid 1,000 times more than being a programmer.
    • by DrSbaitso ( 93553 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @10:20PM (#10561728)
      Ironic - that's almost the exact same response that many of the cheaters caught by Lou Bloomfield from my school, the University of Virginia, gave when accused of cheating. "Lots of papers are about the same topic, and there are only so many ways to describe [why the sky is blue/the photoelectric effect/whatever the paper was about]; THAT's why my paper uses the exact same words as my frat brother Tommy's."

      I'm too lazy to dig out the slashdot story about the incident, but I do find another instance of denial in the face of obvious plagiarism amusing.
  • Heh (Score:5, Informative)

    by NetNifty ( 796376 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @04:53PM (#10559720) Homepage
    Seems like the slashdotters in this thread [slashdot.org] figured this out first.
  • "Stolen" code? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by IntelliTubbie ( 29947 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @04:53PM (#10559724)
    It's not theft, it's copyright infringement! At least, that's what we say about music and movies ... why should the party line be any different for GPLed code?

    Cheers,
    IT
    • Re:"Stolen" code? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 18, 2004 @04:56PM (#10559754)
      Downloaders don't pass the music/movies off as their own work. There is a difference although God knows what the legal difference would be.
    • Re:"Stolen" code? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jrockway ( 229604 ) *
      I would use the word "plagiarism". Whether or not it's illegal, I don't know... but it doesn't seem very ethical to take someone else's work and pass it off as your own.

      File traders don't claim they made the movie, they just made a copy of it. Again, I don't know whether or not it's illegal, but I don't feel bad about it. Oh no, the starving execs can't get a new Jaguar. Cry cry cry...
  • by kerrle ( 810808 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @04:54PM (#10559729) Journal
    Why would anyone annouce this without having the product? I'm not saying that they do or don't have a product, I'm just completely blown away when people announce products that don't exist and expect to somehow profit from them.
  • The clues (Score:5, Interesting)

    by saddino ( 183491 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @04:54PM (#10559732)
    to the ripoff were so overwhelming, that its amazing they managed to scam so many news organizations. From almost identical function key hints in the title bar, to similar boot strings to the ridiculous idea of someone "getting tired of carrying two laptops" and writing CherryOS as a work-around, can anyone, really, truly be surprised?
  • by ccharles ( 799761 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @04:56PM (#10559755)
    From TFSummary:

    CherryBS continues
  • by Dorsai65 ( 804760 ) <[dkmerriman] [at] [gmail.com]> on Monday October 18, 2004 @04:58PM (#10559771) Homepage Journal
    he may lose his Cherry - say, in prison?
  • by k4_pacific ( 736911 ) <k4_pacific@yahoo . c om> on Monday October 18, 2004 @05:01PM (#10559797) Homepage Journal
    Allegations are surfacing that "Windows 2000" which runs at 80% the speed of Windows NT on the X86 platform, is in fact not built on top of an X86 emulator and runs directly on the hardware.
  • by adzoox ( 615327 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @05:03PM (#10559815) Journal
    I did an article on my jackwhispers website [jackwhispers.com] about this.

    I was one of the first to point this out and MANY of the PearPC forums respondents replied to me in email and told me about all the links within this article. (One of them is quite startling - about Arben having downloaded PearPC)

    There are a few other insights at the link above.

    Sorry to whore my own site, but I almost think it should be linked here too because I added a little political UNcorrectness to the mix.

    Why the Cherry or The Pear May Be Apple's Next Lemon
  • by goates ( 412876 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @05:05PM (#10559831)
    I like this quote:

    "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."

    Can I get mine shaken, not stirred?
    • Re:I need a drink (Score:3, Informative)

      by JofCoRe ( 315438 )
      This was one of my favorites:

      Kryeziu said the CherryOS site was often unresponsive because of attacks from crackers and traffic. The site was unavailable most of Thursday because a cracker changed administrator passwords and key settings, he said.

      "It's getting hacked like crazy," he said


      So they're admitting that they don't know how to secure their web server very well then? Cuz I've run a number of web servers, and it's really not that hard to keep them from "getting hacked like crazy".
      <obligator
  • by wsock32.dll ( 316857 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @05:09PM (#10559868)
    From now on every piece of code I write is going to have a variable named SPIRO MULTIMAX 3000!
  • Text of debunking (Score:5, Informative)

    by LittleLebowskiUrbanA ( 619114 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @05:09PM (#10559872) Homepage Journal
    All,

    To see the update from October 16th, click here.

    To see the update from October 17th, click here.

    I did a little investigating on CherryOS and I made several startling discoveries beyond its amazing similarity to PearPC. First, the individual who first posted on [H]ard|Forum about being given a "beta" test of CherryOS (that is, Dag33k), is in fact the same person as the alleged author of CherryOS, Arben Kryeziu. Interestingly, on HardForum Dag33k posted a link to the developer's response (alias: ArbenK) on the PearPC form. I have pretty sufficient evidence to suggest that these two people are one in the same. Look at the registration dates for Dag33k's account and Sourceforge's account for ArbenK. Coincidence?

    HardForum's user information:

    Sourceforge's user information:

    Both dates, of course, are 2003-05-05.

    Things get even more interesting, when we trap Arben Kryeziu in another lie. On the PearPC forum, he claims he doesn't speak any Albanian, as we see here:

    But then strangely, earlier this year Arben (same screen name: arbishco) posted an Albanian translation for PJ IRC.

    Now the shit really hits the fan. I started searching though his network of sites starting from bumpnetworks.com and found something even more interesting. If he's ripping off PearPC and violating the GPL, this is not the first time he's violated the GPL. On his bumpnetworks.com site, he has a link to piece of software he claims to have written, PdfConv (Link to image of description on website).

    Now, as you'll see in the circled text, he claims it's based on Xpdf and VeryPDF. I went to VeryPDF and found their application PDF2HTML. Sure enough the product was GPL licensed and the source code is freely available (As seen in the following image). I downloaded trials of both to see how much different PdfConf was from PDF2HTML.

    To Arben's credit, the interface is different from PDF2HTML, but identical in all other functions. The output from the same PDF file was almost identical. The only difference was that he took the time to remove the copyright notices from the generated html files. (As seen in this example graphical diff produced by WinMerge.) His output is on the left, PDF2HTML's output is on the right. Notice the only difference is the removal of the copyright notice.

    I don't know if Arben changed any of PDF2HTML's code, but if he did, I'm not very confident he respected the GPL. From this, I have pretty good reason he is again disrespecting the GPL by pawning PearPC off as his own application. Finally, to summarize some other troublesome aspects regarding Arben, I found this slashdot post:

    Sorry for all the inline images. I found this detective work fascinating, and I think its clear that Arben is perpetrating a fraud and that he personally has no respect for the GPL.

    October 16th update:

    I sent an email to Arben with a link to this page and a request to honor PearPC's GPL. This is the response I received:

    From: CherryOS Team [mailto:mail@cherryos.com]
    Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 3:18 AM
    To: 'Dean Beeler'
    Subject: RE: PearPC is GPL (via Web form)

    Hi Dean,

    I am already talking to the PearPC.net webmaster, he will receive the trial as one of the first - because he treated us with respect and an open mind. I will let PearPC test the @#$@ out of CherryOS so you guys can try to prove your points. As you can see I have another product called www.vx30.com, and believe me I am not a person who wants to loose all his reputation. If you contact VeryPDF and ask them about our relationship - he will tell you that there was never one problem and I respected his rights and requests as soon they where submitted to me. I even can send you the communication between us.

    I will and am respecting the PearPC GPL and the PearPC community! If people wont like the CherryOS emulation, then trash me then. If people don't want to purchase, they can use
  • by hubertf ( 124995 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @05:13PM (#10559898) Homepage Journal
    See here [feyrer.de] for details on another Open Source license violation. In this case, the copyright holder's name and license was removed against the license. Rumours say that latest versions of the software are still based on the ripped-off version.



    - Hubert

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 18, 2004 @05:15PM (#10559906)
    As a business owner, this just confirms what I've always felt about the GPL: it is anti-capitalist and prevents people from owning their own property. Who knows how much or how little code may have been taken; it could just be a few trivial routines. Nonetheless, the viral GPL license means that the many improvements this man has no doubt made no longer belong to him, but instead must be forced into the public domain under the provision's of the GPL. I'll never license my code under the GPL, and I encourage everyone who cares about freedom to do the same.
  • by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @05:18PM (#10559929) Journal
    that SCO or MS will shortly come out backing Cherry and offering to fund it as well?
  • by DeepFried ( 644194 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @05:18PM (#10559935) Homepage
    I wish there was a /.TV channel so that this would play out in a 60minutes style camera ambush on this guy.

    We have seen the forum equivalent of that ambush but it is just not the same as watching this guy squirm as he is caught in his many lies.

    DF
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 18, 2004 @05:28PM (#10559991)
    Technology with Aloha [wistechnology.com], some how I find that he is not quite the genius that everyone makes him out to be. He single handly, by himself, created his own video/audio codecs.

    Does anyone else some how find that his VX30 might be a rip off of the ogg theora java port. The fact that its listed on this site [videotechnology.com], right next to the java port of ogg theora is fishy..

  • by Featureless ( 599963 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @05:28PM (#10559994) Journal
    I hate to say this, but I am starting to see a pattern here.
    1. Find successful, interesting, or promising open-source/free-software product.
    2. Steal that product's code.
    3. Get your "new" commercial/pseudo-commercial/"subscription coerced" project covered on Slashdot
    4. Profit!!!!
    And the sick fact is, this moneymaking scheme works. How much money do you think "CherryOS" has made since /. linked to it? Not much by some standards, but certainly something! Now, how much did they spend to make it? How much profit?
  • by Mr. Cancelled ( 572486 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @05:32PM (#10560023)
    And I'm not a die-hard "Everything must be by the book!" type-a guy, but what's to prevent some a-hole, which this Arben does appear to be shaping up as, from abusing the hell outta the GPL by copying, stealing, and selling the source of a GPL project as their own?

    Yes, we do have the world-renowned "Slashdot Effect", which may cost him or her a little with their hosting company, but what other ramifications does the average GPLer hope for in cases such as this (profiting from GPL'd code without giving credit or $$ to the actual creators)?

    I suppose that if the problem were big enough, one might hope for some support from the EFF [eff.org], and perhaps there's some other well-intending lawyers for the bigger GPL cases, but I see little to actually deal with some of guys like this. If I call up his local police, they'll be laughing at me all the way to the donut shop, not running over to arrest him and charge him with violating the GPL.

    And the worst part of this, in my view, is that the average consumer isn't a geek, and so losers like this can still make money off them since they aren't privy to this "elite geek knowledge", as we obviously are. You and me can laugh tomorrow about how CherryOS is appearing to be every bit the fake that we all thought it was last week when it hit the boards, but the average guy who just wants to run that cool OSX on his $300 PC isn't going to be privy to this kinda news. So ol' Arben's still likely to make a nice bit of money off these people before disapearing with some easy cash (potentially, of course - There's no smoking gun showing that CherryOS is a fake yet to my knowledge).

    So other than losing a few potential sales to us geeks, and getting a bad rap in the nerd pools around the world, is that all this guy can expect? Certainly the average GPL code writer's not going to have the knowhow or money to go after an anonymous name who could be anywhere in the world.

    Does this kinda thing happen a lot? I can see where someone could likely get away with this and make some nice cash if they were to avoid very visible, and geeky products such as this. I mean... If I'm writing closed-source IVR software in Russia, and I just repackage a bunch of open source code as my own, what's the odds that anyone would notice? Now... Stealing a product as new, and with as big of "WOW" factor as PearPC takes some big balls, or a lot of stupidity, but for a lot of smaller, or less public projects, it wouldn't surprise me to find this was happening more often than people want to know about.

    And for that matter, what's to prevent all the entepreneurs(sp?) out there reading this story from doing this? I can see at least one Slashdot reader going "It's just the GPL, and it looks like it's easy money! I'll just register me a fake domain, erase some copyrights and come up with a logo, and voila! I'm ready to start selling me my new Internet browser "FireWolf" for a nice profit"?

    Sorry if this is a well known thing... I tend to avoid philosophic discussions on the GPL as often it's a lot of flaming, and little real knowledge, but this is a question I've always wondered, yet have never seen definatively answered.
  • Deja Vue? (Score:5, Informative)

    by stevey ( 64018 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @05:34PM (#10560049) Homepage

    The first thing I thought when I read the original /. story was that it sounded like Project David [wikipedia.org] all over again.

    Project David was allegedly an entirely new way of running Windows applications on Linux, covered on slashdot here [slashdot.org] which was suspiciously similar to the Wine project...

  • by h00manist ( 800926 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @06:54PM (#10560572) Journal

    this all brings to question: how many closed source companies live only from ripping off open source? hiding the traces, adding some stuff, releasing wondrously written self-serving press releases, where they denigrate open source and claim their own 'ingenuity and briliiance'?

    who's really checking on them?


    ----------------
  • by Specks ( 798579 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @08:07PM (#10560956)
    Wired - Sebastian Ballas, PearPC's lead developer, said a screenshot of CherryOS shows a variable named "SPIRO MULTIMAX 3000," a nonsensical term Ballas claims to have invented for use in PearPC.

    "It is absolutely unlikely that someone uses exactly this name for the same purpose," he said. "The way he (Kryeziu) is lying is making me angry."

    When told that variables with the same names had been found in both CherryOS and PearPC, Kryeziu said programming logic often leads to variables and functions with similar, or identical, names. "There are some functionalities that can only be done a certain way," he (Arben) said. "Names are going to be similar or identical because there are only certain ways to do things."
    Arben should be in politics. He went around that accusation with the deftness of a Senator. There's more than one way to name a variable and its doubtfull that he could have come up with the same "nonsensical" term as Ballas did for the same thing. This alone makes it obvious that the code in CherryOS was taken from PearOS. Now that Arben has been alerted to the fact that everyone knows he'll probably chenge the names of the functions. It's easy for someone to change the function names in a program, its called search and replace.

  • "Way slow" (Score:5, Funny)

    by Trejkaz ( 615352 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @08:41PM (#10561148) Homepage
    Favourite quote (paraphrased?) from a recent article: "Cherry OS is nothing like PearPC. PearPC is way slow."
  • by Cereal Box ( 4286 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @10:40PM (#10561853)
    OK, let's see if I can keep my Slashdot double standards straight here:

    1. Digital information, such as music and movie files, are nothing but a sequence of bits that can be infinitely reproduced without degradation. Therefore, you can't "steal" said files, only duplicate them. No one gets hurt, right?
    2. Source code is nothing but a sequence of bits that can be infinitely reproduced without degradation, so you can't "steal" source code either, right?


    It's funny that point number two is just as true as point number one, but everyone on Slashdot seems to forget that when someone "steals" open source code. Well, I say if the music companies get no sympathy for people "stealing" their music, then open source coders deserve no sympathy for people "stealing" their code. "Get a better business model", right?

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (10) Sorry, but that's too useful.

Working...