From Benny Li
Hi Charles,
After the CherryOS scandal, I was
skeptical when I read about iEmulator in this week's Miscellaneous
Ramblings (see iEmulator a Good x86
Emulator for PowerPC and Intel Macs). It appears that iEmulator is
an illegally rebadged version of the open source and free Q. See
http://www.kju-app.org/blog/?p=6/
Q is a Mac OS X front end to the QEMU open source processor
emulator.
Benny
From Tuomas Rosberg
Mentioning iEmulator in Low End Mac should include mention about Q
and QEMU, the open source software that forms the core of the
product.
I wish to point You at the view of developers of the software. Read
"Oops - they did it again" at http://www.kju-app.org/blog/?m=200608
Thank You for Your time
Tuomas Rosberg
Hämeenlinna
Finland
Hi Benny and Tuomas,
Thanks for your comments.
As I mentioned to Bruce, I have no experience with
iEmulator (indeed, I had never heard of it before), and I'm highly
doubtful that he was aware of any controversy regarding copyright
issues. He just likes the program.
I don't in any way condone code pirating, but it's not
the consumer's responsibility to sleuth such things out before they
purchase a program in good faith.
If one is aware of any such issues pertaining, it
becomes a matter of consumer ethics.
Charles
iEmulator Repackaged Open Source Software
From Andrew Main
Charles,
The iEmulator note was intriguing, so I took a look. The website
looks good, but $24 seemed awful cheap for such functionality. Seeking
more background, I checked MacUpdate and VersionTracker, where user
notes led me to the webpage for Q, the free & open source project
on which iEmulator is apparently based. iEmulator claims to have added
considerable value to Q, but Q's developers seem to feel
differently:
http://www.kju-app.org/blog/?p=6
"Actually iEmulator checks out our code, changes the
icons, name, removes the link to the mother homepage and finally adds a
price tag."
I'd have to try both of them for a while (which requires paying for
iEmulator, no refunds apparently) - which I'm unlikely to do - to get
to the truth of it, but I guess I'm inclined to believe the open-source
guys.
A while back someone was packaging various open source apps -
OpenOffice, The GIMP, the BOCHS PC emulator, etc. - with fanfare,
burning them on CDs, and selling them as if it was some kind of big
deal (i.e. different from what anyone could download for themselves).
They seem to have gone away.
Just thought you'd be interested in some background.
Andrew
Thanks for the further info, Andrew. I hadn't heard of
the program until I received Bruce's note.
If the code is pirated, which seems to be the case,
then shame on the iEmulator "developers", value added regardless.
I'm inclined to believe the Open Source guys too.
Charles
'Other Red' Seems Hokey
From: Andrew Main
Charles,
I've never had any dealings with Jack Campbell; the MacMice he sells
appear to be good, though some of the other hardware toys he was
selling a while ago seemed questionable. But so far as I know he's the
only individual person who has rated an entire MacInTouch Reader Report
forum all to himself (and not for reasons of flattery):
http://www.macintouch.com/mactable.html
And more recent comments on his 'Other Red' scheme:
http://www.macintouch.com/readerreports/fraudreports/topic4449.html
Maybe he's "reformed" and "trying to make good", etc., but somehow
he just doesn't seem to be able to do anything without making it smell
hokey. This whole "Red" scam is hokey enough to begin with; I guess
maybe it deserves to attract remoras like Campbell.
Andrew
Hi Andrew,
Jack certainly seems to generate a lot of heat, but I
haven't yet seen anything other than innuendo and conjecture about
Other Red being fraudulent. No "smoking gun" so far. MacMice and Other
Red operating from the same server doesn't quite cut it. Jack has been
up front about his involvement with the project.
I only know Jack through occasional email
correspondence about his products (which I mostly like) over the past
several years. Based in this cyber-acquaintance, perhaps I'm just
gullible, but I like the guy, and he's designed some really great
computer mice.
Charles
Uninformed Opinion about 'Other Red'
From Rich Brauer
Dear Mr. Moore,
You wrote:
"Jack Campbell is quite up front about the Other Red
program being a frank 'clone' coat-tailing the Product (Red)
program.
"Being as the point of all this is (or should be)
helping people who need help badly, I don't perceive any ethical
failure here. Other Red isn't in direct competition with Product (Red),
and the two programs logically compliment each other. Obviously, Other
Red will benefit from coat-tailing Product (Red), but if that means the
African orphans get more support than they might have if they had
called the program "Alternative Purple" or some such, isn't that a good
thing?"
The fundamental flaw in your thinking (and I don't know much about
Product (Red), either, BTW, so please don't take this as a defense
thereof), is that all charities are equally worthy. And that's just not
at all true. 501c(3) charity status is not a frivolous undertaking. It
will take the IRS a minimum of 6 months to approve you, after a
comprehensive application, with written clarifications often requested
and supporting documentation. Of course, Mr. Campbell skipped that part
of the journey to charity nirvana.
Campbell's charity is registered in Kenya *only*: <http://www.ukundakids.com/images/regdoc.jpg>,
Every legitimate charity that solicits in the United States, and I
do mean every last one, is registered with the IRS and the Secretary of
State wherever they are headquartered. And if you're unfamiliar with
the corruption endemic to Kenya, I encourage you to investigate. There
is a specific reason that Other Red does not solicit donations: It's
frickin' illegal!
In other words, the problem with something like Other Red is not
that the concept is wrong. It's that the donor is ultimately trusting a
man who's already been convicted of fraud and tax evasion, who
registered a "charity" in Kenya, has posted virtually no information
that can be adequately fact-checked (try actually parsing the text of
the websites - there is virtually no actual information, only cheap
marketing verbiage.)
For an example of charity that I'm not terribly fond of but still at
least operates by and large legally, check this out: <http://www.theirc.org/about/financial.html>
That's the kind of thing you want to find on a charity's webpage. Which
is exactly the opposite of Campbell's pages.
Whenever I read Mr. Campbell's boiler plate, the most astonishing is
always the sense of grandeur. If, for example, you glance at the Other
Red site and the Ukunda site, you'll be shocked at the vision. Much
less the disparity. They currently provide some kind of care, of an
unspecified sort I might add, to 65 children. But supposedly that's
going to ramp to 2000 within a year. Please forgive me if I'm a little
unclear on the practical mechanics of that transformation.
His prose is routinely short on practical facts, and always full of
grand metaphors and promises of more to come.
You wrote:
"As for Jack Campbell's past legal
problems, whatever they were (as you say, they apparently had something
to do with fraud and tax evasion), he says that they took place 14
years ago and that he completed his post-release supervision seven
years ago, so unless anyone can produce contradictory documentation,
it's time to let that matter rest."
There's certainly a lot of truth to that sentiment. Ex-felons
deserve an opportunity to return to the community. However, there are
two solid arguments against it. First, there have been slews of
complaints about Mr. Campbell's business practices since his release
from prison (please reference, among others, the MacTable discussion on
Macintouch). Allegations of fraud, copyright infringement, et al. have
been leveled.
Second, if a man kills someone with a meat cleaver, it may not be
the wisest idea to hire him as your butcher. If a man was once willing
to commit fraud and tax evasion, you don't necessarily want to send him
cash overseas based on a scanned document and a promise that if you buy
that product he's offering, he'll give 10% to the cuddly orphans.
Maybe Mr. Campbell's charity is perfectly legitimate, and he's doing
wonderful work in Kenya. But, and I capitalize this because it bears
noting: YOU, SIR, HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING. AND YET, YOU WERE STILL
WILLING TO ENCOURAGE YOUR READERS TO TAKE PART IN WHAT AT FACE VALUE
APPEARS TO BE A SCAM!
You owe the readers of Low End Mac an apology, and at the very least
a caveat along the lines of, "It might be better to not be an
early adopter here." And as a "journalist"" you should simply be
embarrassed. Uninformed opinion is not what I'm looking for at LEM.
Thank you for your time,
Rich Brauer
Hello Mr Brauer,
Thank you for sharing your views.
However, methinks thou dost protest too much, based on
the evidence you've presented, which is essentially supposition and
hearsay.
I only know Jack Campbell through sporadic
correspondence over the past three or four years and what I've read on
various websites, some of which have been highly uncomplimentary, to
say the least.
Your objections to Mr. Campbell seem to be largely
predicated on his rhetorical style and unproven third-party
allegations. One of the primary reasons for registering charities with
the IRS is to be able to issue tax deductible receipts, which is
something Other Red is not offering.
Mr. Campbell acknowledges his past legal problems, but
he's served his time, and unless someone can present evidence of
current wrongdoing, I reiterate, he deserves to be given the benefit of
doubt.
I try to be prudently skeptical, but not cynical - a
challenge in our present world.
If Other Red is a scam, it is certainly an unusual
one, in that the charity, as you acknowledge, explicitly refuses to
accept direct donations of cash and only benefits from a 10% "royalty"
on Other Red program products. That would appear to be a policy based
on philosophy rather than legality. If there is some legal impediment
to a charity, or an individual for that matter, accepting donations,
perhaps you will enlighten me. Whatever, your "send him cash overseas
based on a scanned document" scenario does not apply here. He's not
asking anyone to.
If you buy, say, an Other Red MacMice Danger Mouse,
you pay no more for the product than you would if you bought a regular
white or black Danger Mouse, and you get what I consider to be an
excellent product at a fair price. Indeed, while I have probably close
to a couple of dozen computer mice of many brands and configurations,
the ones I use 90+ percent of the time are MacMice products - The Mouse
and Danger Mouse being my favorites entirely on the merits of function
and feel. The potential for "rip off" in this instance is low.
Worst case would be MacMice failing to hand off the
promised 10% donation to the African orphanage - or that the existence
of the orphanage itself is a hoax - but is there any evidence that
either is the case? Not that I've been made aware of.
You're right; I have know way of knowing, but
apparently, neither do you. Until someone presents information (rather
than conjecture) to the contrary, I'm disposed to assuming
provisionally that Other Red is what it purports to be. If I'm proved
mistaken, I will retract, but I won't apologize for endeavouring to
a priori think well rather than ill of a project that seems "at
face value" to be commendable.
Charles
Go to Charles Moore's Mailbag index.
