With all these accusations flying around that Psystar stole the code they're using, does anyone have any proof beyond "They're doing the same thing I'm doing, they couldn't possibly do it on their own!"?
Typically when I see these types of stories the developer that feels wronged posts a bunch of code comparisons, binary comparisons or strings found in the binaries to show that it's a possibility. All the articles so far on this subject point to the author's blog post about changing the license for his software but it's quite lacking on any proof.
I'm all for open software and I don't know which side of the fence I'm on for the hackintosh debate (though I'd love to legally run OS X on my custom built PC, I'm stuck with a mac mini for now) but can someone post some proof?
He says that the NEW license prohibits commercial use, but what about the original license? If it allowed comemrcial use, then they've done nothing wrong and he'll have to live with regreting the choice he made when he published it.
The linked license is from a version that's over a year old (April 2008). Who knows what the terms were before that. Though, if there weren't any explicit terms, that means that distribution was prohibited.
Now, the most recent version (10.5) that was posted a few days ago is licensed under the Apple Public Source License... which expressly allows commercial use. But from my initial reading it is like the GPL, in that it's a viral license. Since this boot loader is based on Apple's boot loader, it must also be under APSL.
There is also a note in a README that says for commercial purposes contact the authors, but since this is APSL anyway, I doubt that they have the ability to grant a license for Apple's code, so that's all moot.
Basically, it looks to me like the EFI bootloader's authors are of of luck in that their code must be distributed under APSL. So, if Pystar is fulfilling their requirements under the APSL (distribute source code) there is nothing anyone can do about it.
Except Apple that is. From what I've read, with this license, it looks like Apple has the sole right to terminate the license.
The legal basis for not making unauthorized copies of software and reselling those copies is very, very well established in US copyright law.
The legal basis of other restrictions in a clickwrap license (for instance, authorizing use on only certain types of computers, a la Apple) is a LOT murkier.
Here are some unenforceable (usually) clickwrap restrictions:
* Anything that restricts resale or transfer of legally obtained copies (i.e., first sale doctrine)
* Anything that restricts cleanroom reverse-engineering
* Anything that explicitly disclaims a warranty when it is unlawful to do so (some states require you to provide certain warranties and you cannot clickwrap them away)
Here are things that are largely untested in most jurisdictions with respect to clickwrap licenses [not site license agreements, etc.]:
* Restrictions to only certain types of users (academic/upgrade)
* Restrictions to only certain types of computers (Apple)
It is a mistake to look at any group of people as having an opinion. They have many opinions, and those opinions are often inconsistent and in conflict. Different incidents will pull out different vocal minorities, and so you get opposing points of view being said. The group sounds inconsistent, but not necessarily any member of that group.
For an example where the group is truly inconsistent, suppose 1/3 like Los Angeles more than New York more than Chicago, 1/3 like New York more than Chicago more than Los Angeles and 1/3 like Chicago more than Los Angeles more than New York. Then by a 2/3 margin they think that that New York is better than Chicago, and Chicago is better than Los Angeles, and Los Angeles is better than New York! Those aggregate beliefs are clearly inconsistent, yet no individual in the group is at all confused about their preferences.
It is correct, however, to read the linked article and see someone who thought violating a license was fine so long as it was a closed-source Apple license, but had problems with it as soon as it appeared to be violation of an open-source license.
To be fair: the license text at http://netkas.org/?p=62 doesn't look like "open source" to me. It's a non-commercial-use-only thing that quite clearly doesn't meet the standards of the open source definition.
Doesn't mean that Psystar has the right to use it, of course. Just that it doesn't look particularly valuable to the community either. The author is cheesed because he/she isn't being paid, not because Psystar isn't being a good member of the open source community.
We don't normally get fired up over copyright infringement issues between close source distributors, so I'm not quite understanding the outrage. Let them sort it out in the courts.
Did Matt at Geek Technica even look into the issue beyond the initial accusation by netkas accusation? If I say that netkas stole the code from me, will he similarly parrot this entirely false statement on my behalf?
According to this iHackintosh post <http://www.ihackintosh.com/2009/01/download-pc-efi-v9-chamel..., netkas's bootloader is based on Chameleon. Indeed, the readme in that package reads, "These two projects were merged together by netkas and released as Chameleon v1.0.12.
", and netkas corroborates this himself <http://netkas.org/?p=245>. (This is all cumbersome sort through, because all of netkas's code seems to be distributed through those shady, advert-laden filehosting websites, rather than maintaining some centralized project repository that are so prevalent for open source projects.)
The only problem here, is that Chameleon <http://chameleon.osx86.hu/>; is licensed under the Apple Public Source License. This clashes with netkas's tantrum and seemingly after-the-fact pronouncement that PC EFI is under a proprietary license. In fact the exact version under dispute here seems to be V8, which netkas is already keenly aware is under the Apple Public Source License <http://netkas.org/?page_id=21>.
Furthermore, netkas just throws out the accusation Rebel EFI doesn't conform to the license terms. Well, it certainly doesn't conform to his entirely irrelevant and void terms he posted to his blog, because he doesn't have the authority to distribute his derivative under those terms. I don't have OS X, so I can't tell whether or not Rebel EFI fails to point to the sources.
Typically when I see these types of stories the developer that feels wronged posts a bunch of code comparisons, binary comparisons or strings found in the binaries to show that it's a possibility. All the articles so far on this subject point to the author's blog post about changing the license for his software but it's quite lacking on any proof.
I'm all for open software and I don't know which side of the fence I'm on for the hackintosh debate (though I'd love to legally run OS X on my custom built PC, I'm stuck with a mac mini for now) but can someone post some proof?