Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 28th Oct 2009 14:09 UTC, submitted by Cytor
Permalink for comment 391615
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.





Member since:
2005-10-17
Not talking about the comments, but what you wrote in the article. These are your own words:
Assuming Netkas is right, this is of course a very bad thing. EULAs can fall off a cliff for all I care, but an open source license which covers distribution is a completely different thing, as any open source advocate and anyone with common sense will tell you. Breaking them constitutes a breach of copyright, which is a serious offence.
I'm not about ready to crucify Psystar just yet - first, let's await their response to this matter, as they might theoretically provide the source code upon request. Second, we do need more evidence (or someone needs to properly translate the Russian page). In any case, it doesn't look good.
If that's not speculative, then pigs fly. Cheap shot Thom, really.