Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 28th Oct 2009 14:09 UTC, submitted by Cytor
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 391615
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-06-29
Well, there is enough reason to speculate! If the one of the main OSX86 hackers claims his open source code can be found in the Rebel EFI package, and shows proof to boot, then that is something serious - he's not just some random forum poster.
However, as my article clearly states, I am NOT ready to crucify Psystar just yet - we need more evidence, and we need to wait for a response from Psystar.
There is nothing over-the-top or sensationalist here.
Member since:2005-10-17
Well, there is enough reason to speculate! If the one of the main OSX86 hackers claims his open source code can be found in the Rebel EFI package, and shows proof to boot, then that is something serious - he's not just some random forum poster.
However, as my article clearly states, I am NOT ready to crucify Psystar just yet - we need more evidence, and we need to wait for a response from Psystar.
However, as my article clearly states, I am NOT ready to crucify Psystar just yet - we need more evidence, and we need to wait for a response from Psystar.
Indeed, there is nothing inaccurate in what you say. The nature of the post is merely speculative though, and that's the only point that I made in my *alleged* attack.
There is nothing over-the-top or sensationalist here.
I wasn't talking about sensationalism, but since you bring it up, here is my take. By definition, a teaser is (obviously) meant to grab the reader's attention, and you are good at writing them in a way that it makes you want to click on that "Read More" link. But when a teaser uses not well understood sources to infer assertions that the body of the article cannot substantiate but only speculate about, it then becomes sensationalist. One could argue that you are just too good at writing teasers...
Member since:2009-02-19
It's not; he's absolutely right. If Psystar doesn't provide source upon request, then we have a GPL violation. While actually getting a conviction in court against Psystar is another step you'd have to take, I'd say that, if they're distributing a binary built from (possibly modified) Open Source'ed code without providing source on request, then they are obviously and unambiguously violating the GPL.
And do note the last paragraph you copied:
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.
Member since:2005-10-17
It's not; he's absolutely right. If Psystar doesn't provide source upon request, then we have a GPL violation. While actually getting a conviction in court against Psystar is another step you'd have to take, I'd say that, if they're distributing a binary built from (possibly modified) Open Source'ed code without providing source on request, then they are obviously and unambiguously violating the GPL.
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.
And do note the last paragraph you copied:
"
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.
"
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.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
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.