Headline FeedsLinuxInsider Talkback
|
|
See Full Story
Five months after a preview version of CherryOS was released to cries that it was merely a copy of the open-source PearPC, software distributor Maui X-Stream has done it again. The Hawaii-based company re-released a final version of CherryOS on Tuesday to a similar reception. PearPC, a PowerPC architecture emulator, is released under the General Public License, which means anyone is free to use and modify the code as long as the modifications are again released under the GPL.
Re: CherryOS Emulator Faces Licensing Problems
Posted by: hideme666 2005-03-13 06:01:53 In reply to: Susan B. Shor
It strikes me as a little hypocritical of these Free/Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS)-loving "critics" to slag Cherry OS. One of the arguments that we hear presented over and over from all corners of the FLOSS community is that FLOSS allows for vibrant and viable COMMERCIALISATION of said software.
Unless the makers of Cherry OS are violating the terms of the licencing agreement under which the original code is distributed, it doesn't matter WHAT the makers of Cherry OS are doing with the code, now does it?
I fear that all the bad press that Cherry OS is getting (unless it's self-generated in order to create visibility in a short time... "there's no such thing as bad publicity") might discourage other companies from adopting FLOSS software as a business model.
Yes, the FLOSS community claims that FLOSS is a viable business model. However, beware, the FLOSS community appears to take away with its right hand what it gives with its left.
I'd rather see a little more information and a lot less hype. Whether the "controversy" is intentionally being created by X-Stream, I do not know. If it is, then I'm all for punishing the company since they're engaging in unscrupulous business practices. If it's the FLOSS community "eating its own" then those rogue members ought to "shape up or ship out".
Sincerely, Eric.
hide me 666 at hot mail dott com
Unless the makers of Cherry OS are violating the terms of the licencing agreement under which the original code is distributed, it doesn't matter WHAT the makers of Cherry OS are doing with the code, now does it?
I fear that all the bad press that Cherry OS is getting (unless it's self-generated in order to create visibility in a short time... "there's no such thing as bad publicity") might discourage other companies from adopting FLOSS software as a business model.
Yes, the FLOSS community claims that FLOSS is a viable business model. However, beware, the FLOSS community appears to take away with its right hand what it gives with its left.
I'd rather see a little more information and a lot less hype. Whether the "controversy" is intentionally being created by X-Stream, I do not know. If it is, then I'm all for punishing the company since they're engaging in unscrupulous business practices. If it's the FLOSS community "eating its own" then those rogue members ought to "shape up or ship out".
Sincerely, Eric.
hide me 666 at hot mail dott com
