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 391683
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Wait, what?
by boldingd on Wed 28th Oct 2009 23:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wait, what?"
boldingd
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.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Wait, what?
by koki on Thu 29th Oct 2009 02:22 in reply to "RE[4]: Wait, what?"
koki 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.

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.

Reply Parent Score: 1