Quote:
Originally Posted by TechSgtChen
Read the comments in the second article electro cites above. It's all about the amount of time and frustration you're willing to put into installing OSX86. If I asked a friend who knew a lot about building a Hackintosh to build me one, I'd be willing to fairly compensate him for his time. I have a mostly working system right now. I'm not going to waste days or weeks experimenting and God only knows how many restarts to try to get the final bugs out. If a company can do that for me, I'll pay them, although obviously not the full Apple premium.
|
I think you are missing the point, from what I can see (without buying it) they are selling a modified boot loader plus an lspci tool that connects to an online database that downloads kexts for the matched hardware, but of course only if its supported on a closed list of components, the ones they are selling with their machines. But the marketing call is "Install OS X on any Computer". That sounds like snake oil to me, its obviously not true, if you have a motherboard with a sis chipset or a sony laptop with an incompatible display controller, how is RebelEFI going to help you?
On the other hand it sounds like a big change of strategy I suppose because of the legal troubles: now instead of selling x86 computers with OS X preinstalled, they could just sell the "proven-to-work" hardware with no OS and just let the user install a bought (or downladed, who cares) copy of OS X, that way the user is the one breaking the EULA, not Psystar.
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. 
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. |
In my opinion you can split RebelEFI in 2 parts:
- The DUBL bootloader (OSXLINUZ & INITRD)
- The RebelEFI app (REBELEFI.PKG)
Even if you consider the whole package a "larger work" (even though its arguable that it is, it could be seen as just a bundle of 2 different pieces of code) based on Boot132, dfe, chameleon, pcefi or whatever, they would still have to release the code for DUBL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by genex
agree initrd is not a regular id some can confirm if it is a encrypted or what ?
|
I think its encrypted somehow, or compressed with some unknown tool, neither gzip nor cpio could unpack it. If you open it in a hex editor you would see no clear text at all so I think its probably encrypted
If its encrypted they key has to be in the OSXLINUX file somewhere I think. There is dsa_pub.key inside rebelefi.pkg but I dont think it got anything to do with the initrd.
I dont know why they would encrypt it though, there are supposed to be only kexts inside the initrd right?
I guess that really shows their true intentions, I hope someone cracks it open very soon...