Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 28th Oct 2009 14:09 UTC, submitted by Cytor
Hardware, Embedded Systems 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.
Thread beginning with comment 391613
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Is this really noncompliance?
by sbergman27 on Wed 28th Oct 2009 17:04 UTC
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

I don't pay a huge amount of attention to Psystar. I generally approve of what they do. But I have no great interest in running MacOSX myself.

But... Psystar announced this product 6 days ago. Right? Has anyone actually requested the source and been refused? If the source was requested 6 days ago and hasn't been provided yet, it that noncompliance? If I request the source right now and get it an hour later... would that be 1 hour of noncompliace? Requiring formal "forgiveness" be given by the original copyright holder and all that crap before things are put back to rights?

Or have some OSNews readers decided to grab their pitchforks and storm the castle prematurely... yet again? It's not like the issue of delayed source code availability doesn't arise at least weekly, accompanied by much frothing at the mouth by certain OSNews readers.

I'm going to watch and wait a bit before screaming out my opinion on the matter.

Edited 2009-10-28 17:09 UTC

Reply Score: 6

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Yup, same here, as said in the article.

Then again, it is also a breach of the APSL if you do not include a copy of the license with the software in question - I have my copy of Rebel EFI, and as far as I can tell, there's no copy of the license. That in and of itself is already a breach of the license.

That is, assuming Netkas is right, and in all honesty, there's little reason to doubt him. He knows what he's talking about.

Reply Parent Score: 3

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Then again, it is also a breach of the APSL if you do not include a copy of the license with the software in question - I have my copy of Rebel EFI, and as far as I can tell, there's no copy of the license.

Odd that Psystar would be so reckless while in the middle of a nasty court case with Apple. It has been claimed that they are "scum bags". And yet, this is more suggestive of their being "stupid", which is a different thing, entirely.

I can't help but feel that there is more to this story than currently meets the eye.

So I will continue to watch and wait.

P.S. It is amusing to consider the possibility that Apple, or a rogue Apple employee or fan, hacked Psystar's site and planted the download there, unbeknownst to them. In the bizarre world of the Apple-Psystar conflict, that would not be entirely beyond the pale. ;-)

Edited 2009-10-28 17:34 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

At least for the GPL, as far as I know, and with various other disclaimers, you're not only required to make source available when requested, but you're also required to preserve the license notification, and present it when the program is run. If Psystar is using GPL'ed code and not reproducing the GPL license at some stage, they're in violation already, even if they haven't denied a code-request yet. Now, the APL may be different, that I don't know.

Reply Parent Score: 2