Talk:CherryOS

message: 3rd paragraph of Legal Threats opens:
"In an ironic twist to the story, the CherryOS lawyers threatened to take action against Kristian in his home state of Massachusetts."
And the next paragraph starts:
"Since the Software Freedom Law Center would not do actions pro-bono, if made in Hawai'i,"
Maybe my legal bones aren't up to snuff, but why is this ironic? I'm not exacting sure what's going on.
 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.25.201.1 (talk) 07:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For anyone who cares to know, the SFLC would have covered pro bono work anywhere in the contiguous US states, but for Hawaiʻi since it would require travel to the islands, they would not be able to automatically cover legal costs. --Puellanivis (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the irony? 

message: Due to Overwhelming Demand
Cherry Open Source Project
Launches 5.1.2005 
:So who hacked them?  --Terrible Tim 00:14, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I put in that the front page has changed, but I'm not sure if they were hacked or bowed out to pressure. --Bash 03:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  From their site 

message: Can Be This Move Cherry OS To Cherry OS (Windows)?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by FamdomFom76 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move a Page 

message: Why are all GPL violations in this article "alleged"? Was it not proven that CherryOS and VX30 had GPL'ed code? Roger 06:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in a court of law, or in any way that is damaging to their image which would allow us to say that they did do it.  If we say they did, and don't say alleged, wikipedia and the authors of this article open themselves up to lawsuit for Defamation.  So, since there was no settlement, no admission of guilt, and no finding against them, it's just "alleged".  That being said, as someone very close to the case, I can say that they did do it, and if they want to sue me for defamation, I can prove it.  However, due to CoI, I can't add that to the article, nor can anyone else really use me as a source... well except to say "she says..." but then that doesn't look particularly exciting...  --Puellanivis 19:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not a court we don't have to give such a benefit of doubt. It's obvious that CherryOS contained GPLd code. :D\=< (talk) 10:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Alleged" violations? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on CherryOS. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.macworld.com/article/39930/2004/10/cherryos.html
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,65437,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It’s Easter, and some 15 years later, but no one ever found my favorite Easter egg. So, I thought I would finally share it somewhere: if you look through the source code of PearPC, you might come across this, which is not where the vpkpx instruction is supposed to be in the decoding tables. It’s supposed to be (and is) at 391, but it was duplicated at 42 as a copyright trap, which I inserted at the same time that I upgraded the performance of PearPC’s vector code significantly. This left CherryOS behind in the benchmarks that they were using as marketing materials, and in their rushed next release, not only did it have equivalent performance… it also implemented this entirely arbitrary invalid opcode. There’s zero reason why CherryOS should have ever implemented this invalid opcode, unless they were copying source code. Those of us who knew about it kept all this secret and never ended up spilling the beans, because things never got to an actual lawsuit. But if you still have a later version of CherryOS laying around, you can test it yourself. Nothing was “alleged”, we had incontrovertible proof that they copied our source code. --Puellanivis (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  It’s been a long time, and probably no one care, but…