When Psystar announced it Rebel EFI package, the company was quickly accused of simply taking open source code, repackaging it, and selling it for USD 50. While selling open source code is not a problem, not making the source code available if the license demands it is. Netkas, famous OSX86 hacker, and a Russian site are now claiming they have found the smoking gun.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-06-29
Like I said above (and if you would've cared to read the comments, instead of starting the baseless attacks right away, you would've seen it), this product is available to everyone, and as such, all you need to do to be entitled to the source code is to download the free copy they offer on their website.
And as the article CLEARLY mentions, we need to wait for someone to actually request said code first, and see what they do.
No need to buy anything.
Edited 2009-10-28 17:01 UTC
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.
Member since:2009-10-17
Member since:2006-07-14
What news source would you compare OSNews to? When doing an investigative report, there are always more questions than answers. In areas where technology intersects with the law, determining fault is very difficult thing to do in any case. Furthermore, License violations are not often admitted to by companies, unless they are publicly shamed by enough journalists and customers. OSnews is reporting that there is some evidince for believe there may have been a violation. Hopefully, this will encourage others to dig further to find more evidience as well as encourage a response from the alleged infringer pystar.
Also, anyone doubt OSNews' editorial independence from its advertisers now? Pystar does advertise on the site, but as this article ( and your comment) indicates, they have been shown no mercy or preferential treatment.
Member since:2005-10-17
I am sorry, but you can't claim to be doing instigative journalism by building a case from a few posts in a language that you don't even understand and then making numerous assumptions and/or posing what if scenarios that may or may not happen. That's the exact definition of being speculative.
Member since:
2005-10-17
Neither the APSL nor the GPL say "you must make all source available to everyone on your web site".
Because every once and then OSNews likes to take the path of speculative (rather than fact-based) journalism, probably because it wins them the most page views.