Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 28th Oct 2009 14:09 UTC, submitted by Cytor
Permalink for comment 391702
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
Ehem... the license this thing is under is APSL, not GPL. But more importantly, the article provides no proof that Pystar rejected any request for the source code. In fact, the article provided no proof of anything at the time of was written.
"
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.
Given that Thom even said that, I don't understand how you can call this "speculative" with any degree of sincerity. "
This does not make the article any less speculative, but simply reinforces the fact that Thom had no conclusive proof of anything when he wrote the article, something that he admits himself with his own words in several other passages of the article.