Rebel EFI from Psystar - Page 2

pαuℓzurrr. · #11 10-24-2009, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imkantus

Somebody made it to mount the initrd?

I would be interested in it's content.

But I failed on trying to access it, maybe the fs is something else the cramfs...

Would be great if someone could help me.

Im interested in this too, i didn't have any success yet too...

genex · #12 10-24-2009, 03:21 PM

agree initrd is not a regular id some can confirm if it is a encrypted or what ?

electro · #13 10-24-2009, 04:05 PM

Coment Netkas from has blog's :

-----------------------------------
Parasites, such parasites.

You all know who I’m talking about.

Comments Off
-----------------------------------
http://netkas.org/?p=294

Kabyl · #14 10-24-2009, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dies

Interesting, I was under the impression that the APSL was similar to BSD.

Code:

4. Larger Works. You may create a Larger Work by combining Covered
Code with other code not governed by the terms of this License and
distribute the Larger Work as a single product. In each such instance,
You must make sure the requirements of this License are fulfilled for
the Covered Code or any portion thereof.

If I'm reading that right it would mean that I can add as much as stuff as I want and the only requirement is that I release the original code, I can still keep my code or theme or whatever private.

Well, their so called "EFI" is not a Larger Work to begin with..

Quote:

2.2 Modified Code. You may modify Covered Code and use, reproduce, display, perform, internally distribute within Your organization, and Externally Deploy Your Modifications and Covered Code, for commercial or non-commercial purposes, provided that in each instance You also meet all of these conditions:
...
(c) If You Externally Deploy Your Modifications, You must make Source Code of all Your Externally Deployed Modifications either available to those to whom You have Externally Deployed Your Modifications, or publicly available. Source Code of Your Externally Deployed Modifications must be released under the terms set forth in this License, including the license grants set forth in Section 3 below, for as long as you Externally Deploy the Covered Code or twelve (12) months from the date of initial External Deployment, whichever is longer. You should preferably distribute the Source Code of Your Externally Deployed Modifications electronically (e.g. download from a web site).

2.3 Distribution of Executable Versions. In addition, if You Externally Deploy Covered Code (Original Code and/or Modifications) in object code, executable form only, You must include a prominent notice, in the code itself as well as in related documentation, stating that Source Code of the Covered Code is available under the terms of this License with information on how and where to obtain such Source Code.

Is that enough?

source: http://www.opensource.apple.com/license/apsl/

Dies · #15 10-24-2009, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kabyl

Well, their so called "EFI" is not a Larger Work to begin with..

Is that enough?

Not really...

It looks like a "larger work" to me, it looks like they not only consolidated a few things, *maybe* made them easier to use, prettier to look at, etc. added some custom applications. Whatever BS they did, I'm pretty sure it's larger than what they started with.

From:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html

Code:

The FSF now considers the APSL to be a free software license with two major practical problems, reminiscent of the NPL:

    * It is not a true copyleft, because it allows linking with other files which may be entirely proprietary.
    * It is incompatible with the GPL.

See section 2 of the NPL for the reference above

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/netscape-npl.html

In any case, there is really no sense in us arguing about it. We're not lawyers ( well, at least I'm not ) and this isn't a court. I also don't enjoy pissing off people who contribute to the community.

The only point I was trying to make is that it cracks me up when people release their code to the public under a pretty liberal license then get pissy when someone does something they don't like with it.

Seems very childish to me. Either don't release the code at all, release it under a restrictive license or deal with it.

In the end it doesn't really matter because if someone really wants to steal your code they will. Not much can be done about it in some cases, even if you have a legal department at your disposal.

pcmaczone · #16 10-25-2009, 01:04 AM

If it works then $50 is not a lot to pay for the convenience. As has been pointed out, that's what your paying for. I know there are other free options but for many it's just too much messing about and often wasted time.

Of course the way to stop this is for the community to produce the same thing and make it free to everyone

and by same I mean a one stop option, just load it up and away you go. If Pystar can do it I am sure the community can.

Kabyl · #17 10-25-2009, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dies

Not really...

It looks like a "larger work" to me, it looks like they not only consolidated a few things, *maybe* made them easier to use, prettier to look at, etc. added some custom applications. Whatever BS they did, I'm pretty sure it's larger than what they started with.

I want to make sure that we're talking about the same thing which is the boot loader; osxlinuz from their ISO.

OK, so this boot loader is based on boot-132 + code from Chameleon like the GUI (and all the back end code).

Now I'm sure they did modify few things in the GUI code, they obviously used another theme (which we have a whole section in our forum on how to do that, you probably already have seen it), I'm also sure they didn't use some of the code we added to boot-132, even all this is still called a modification to the covered code. If it was a larger work, it wouldn't be based on boot-132 in the first place..

Anyway I'm not sure if you or others understand the technical details, I hope you do because it's important for you to understand how not releasing the changes is violating the APSL.

Quote:

From:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html

Code:

The FSF now considers the APSL to be a free software license with two major practical problems, reminiscent of the NPL:

    * It is not a true copyleft, because it allows linking with other files which may be entirely proprietary.
    * It is incompatible with the GPL.

See section 2 of the NPL for the reference above

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/netscape-npl.html

Well I guess that means you got a little of what I meant, they do have to release the covered code and the modifications they did to it and they do have to include a copy of the APSL, which they obviously didn't do.

Quote:

In any case, there is really no sense in us arguing about it. We're not lawyers ( well, at least I'm not ) and this isn't a court. I also don't enjoy pissing off people who contribute to the community.

It's probably just a waste of time that we're posting in this thread... but maybe not, in which case I hope few people benefit from this kind of discussions (I prefer to call it like that, instead of calling it arguing).

Quote:

The only point I was trying to make is that it cracks me up when people release their code to the public under a pretty liberal license then get pissy when someone does something they don't like with it.

Well, it's everyone's right to get upset when their work is used this way.

Quote:

Seems very childish to me. Either don't release the code at all, release it under a restrictive license or deal with it.

You know you don't really have much choice here, if you want to base your work on someone's or some company's work, there are rules here.

I knew after a while that I shouldn't expect things to be fair, so I chose to keep many things only for me and my friends, why should I care, right?

I knew what it meant when I released my code for Chameleon, I know others will use it in anyway they want, and I'm fine with that, would have released it otherwise

But I keep my right to be upset and my right to express it too, if people don't like to hear that, they can ignore me, and sorry for flooding their screens

Quote:

In the end it doesn't really matter because if someone really wants to steal your code they will. Not much can be done about it in some cases, even if you have a legal department at your disposal.

True, that's how things work.

Kabyl · #18 10-25-2009, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pcmaczone

If it works then $50 is not a lot to pay for the convenience. As has been pointed out, that's what your paying for. I know there are other free options but for many it's just too much messing about and often wasted time.

True, and I really understand when people pay because they don't want to spend time tinkering, it's not everyone's best way of having fun.

I just hope that you get what you're paying for

I read about their "great" customer support, so.. good luck

It looks like we can make some profit too (?)

Quote:

Of course the way to stop this is for the community to produce the same thing and make it free to everyone

and by same I mean a one stop option, just load it up and away you go. If Pystar can do it I am sure the community can.

Psystar hasn't done it, they don't have the skills from what I have seen so far.

mindlessmissy · #19 10-25-2009, 02:42 AM

So long as apple can release an update to render every 3rd party hack useless, why should anyone complain ... ? ( or can they !?! )

-
-
-

On a not so related note, why am I being labeled a "cheetah" ? I am a "pussy", gosh darn it !

Imkantus · #20 10-25-2009, 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mindlessmissy

On a not so related note, why am I being labeled a "cheetah" ? I am a "pussy", gosh darn it !

Go wiki...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X#Versions