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 391674
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by tylerdurden on Wed 28th Oct 2009 22:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
tylerdurden
Member since:
2009-03-17

This company hasn't put jack squat on the line, they are trying to make money from other people's work: Apple and the OSX86 community namely.

Trying to turn that into some sort of valiant effort is mighty disingenuous, at best.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by ferrels on Wed 28th Oct 2009 23:12 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
ferrels Member since:
2006-08-15

Uh, that's what EVERY company does....makes money off the work of others, whether by those directly employed by them, thru licensing, theft of trade secrets or research and development.

All Pystar has done is to take an OSS bootloader, made it easier to use than the OSS version and charged a fee for it. More power to them. There have been plenty of companies who've used this same model to market their own flavor of Linux but I don't hear you Apple Fanboys whining about that!

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai
by darknexus on Wed 28th Oct 2009 23:34 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Certainly, butnux vendors didn't try to cover it up and further provided the source for all components they were required to. True, their proprietary configuration tools weren't always open but that's well within their rights if they developed it themselves. Psystar is violating the license by not providing the source and by not including a copy of the APSL with their product. They do not necessarily need to provide all the source to Rebel EFI if there are parts they developed in house that are not modifications to existing components, but they do have to provide the source to the APSL-covered components they've modified. Let's wait a bit and see if they come through on that.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai
by tylerdurden on Thu 29th Oct 2009 00:29 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

No that is not "what every company does" companies pay employees salaries, or they pay for the IP if they get stuff not made in house, or at the very least they try to abide by the terms of the license if they are adopting open source code. And if they don't they get sued, which is what is happening to these fools via Apple.

Some of you must really be living in the basement of your parents if you think this is how companies carry out business. Seriously.

The strong reaction of repulse by the OSX86 guys behind a lot of the stuff Pisstar stole (Netkas et al) is a clear proof these idiots didn't even bother asking for permission.

Edited 2009-10-29 00:31 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by CaptainN- on Thu 29th Oct 2009 22:04 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
CaptainN- Member since:
2005-07-07

I don't know. Taking on a large court case like this does open them up to substantial financial and legal risk. Maybe not as big as is perceived, but surely there's risk involved.

Reply Parent Score: 1