
Psystar Steals Open Source Bootloader and Sells it for $50 - chanux
http://www.geektechnica.com/2009/10/psystar-steals-open-source-bootloader-and-sells-it-for-50/
======
aphistic
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?

~~~
m_eiman
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.

~~~
mbreese
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.

<http://opensource.org/licenses/apsl-2.0.php>

~~~
omouse
It looks like that, but the author could have change the wording of the
license to fit him.

If he didn't, then he's a complete moron who should never deal with legal
issues because it does apply to Apple Inc. only.

------
patio11
Funny how folks find a sudden respect for what licenses say when it is their
own being violated...

~~~
btilly
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.

~~~
ubernostrum
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.

------
ars
wmf called it: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=897924>

------
ajross
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.

~~~
andrewf
That license text is new.

I'm curious as to what the previous version had as its license.

~~~
carussell
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...](http://www.ihackintosh.com/2009/01/download-pc-
efi-v9-chameleon-bootloader-one-click-installer/>), 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>](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/>](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>](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.

