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.
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.