CherryOS is available for trial and download. Requires a 1.6 Ghz PC or more and at least 256 MBs of available RAM.
CherryOS Now Available
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Last time I read about CherryOS was in this thread –
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/18/2137253&tid=179&t…
I thought this guy had been run off by al the claims that his software was just a rip-off of PearPC.
Download here:
http://movies.mxsinc.com/CherryOS_Software.zip
A quick google over their domain shows no sign of PearPC / Pear / GPL / BSD.
title says it all
hmmm.. the trial crashes immediately after asking me to register. at least that got that part right i guess. :/
Sony Vaio Z1 w/ 1.7ghz Pentium M and 512mb. Seems pretty standard to me. Maybe its SP2. heh.
this was all over the net a while ago, with a video of some wanker crapping on about how good this program was, when it was an exact copy of pearpc with a couple little additions.
soon after all the word started spreading that it was a rip off of free software, like the owner of the site had done before… the site closed down…
i wouldn’t use this software even if it was free, stick with PearPC
This is the worst vapor ware ever, it actually exist.
Anyways, curious to see how it works.
Not to sure what all the fuss is about if it’s using PearPC, as long as it meets the license requirements then there should be no issue there.
And if these people have taken PearPC and improved it, then all the more reason not to have an issue with them. Assuming they haven’t violated PearPC license.
The real question should be how well it works.
Now if they are ripping others off in that they are violating their license, of course thats not right, but now welcome to the world of putting your code out there for anyone. Just because you put a license on it doesn’t mean everyone is going to care. Not that it’s right to violate them. but to expect everyone will play along like one big happy family is foolish. Especially if the odds of you being able to do anything about it are low.
Not to be a troller here but Apples Mac OS X license says that when you use it you basically agree to use it only on Apple hardware.
So technically CherryOS & PearPC are illegal programs to use with Mac OS X, however PPC Linux is fine.
Er…that’s not that simple. That guy, who claims to developed CherryOS, has stolen GPLed source code and turned it into some closed licensed commercial thingy, which is clearly ILLEGAL.
With BSDs and Linux out there. Who needs to run other Operating Systems specially on top of Windows, that’s not good
CherryOS would be illegal then, not PearPC. It’s only illegal to use OSX on PearPC. It only askes for a PPC disk, dosen’t have to be OSX.
They make you register to get it, screw the thevies and use the direct link: http://movies.mxsinc.com/CherryOS_Software.zip
This is not worth downloading anyway – it will be too slow to run anything, no sound, either get a mac or just install Linux or BSD (OS X is based on Darwin, a BSD derivitive)
So is this exactly PearPC???? Must be, eh? Has anyone tried it yet?
>>Not to be a troller here but Apples Mac OS X license says that when you use it you basically agree to use it only on Apple hardware.
Yea and licences like that are just as stupid as DVD movies saying you can only play them on approved players. It’s high time copyrights are overhauled in the court systems because as it stands now all we are doing is renting our stuff without the benefit of returning it for a replacement when they break or cease working. Should Apple be forced to provide tech support for it on non Apple hardware? No, but what you use the software on shouldn’t make a hill of beans when you pay your own $$ more it.
So is this exactly PearPC???? Must be, eh? Has anyone tried it yet?
____________________________________________________________
Why try it? Why give this guy any credibility? Its been shown that he has taken the PearPC (GPL’d) source code and:
1) Released binarys only.
2) Removed credit of the original developers.
I woundn’t touch this with a ten foot poll.
The hypocrisy of you license zealots is astounding.
“Let’s all violate MS EULAs and DVD licensing, but if someone violates the GPL, heads must roll!”
poorly programmed ! my clock was in the bad year !!!
Now, the application always start with : “Illegal clock change ”
BRAVO !
Look at the c:/cherryOS
All Hdd are in rar file… Very bad programming !!!
+1 for fraud !
Crashes for me too. What a PoS.
come on, that’s completely different.
using libdecss is like breaking a lock on a legally bought DVD.
and violating MS EULAs? where? how? by using samba?
those cherryOS guys are STEALING source code. and even worse: they SELL it afterwards.
what would you do, if i stole your car and sold it back to you, claiming it has been mine all the time?
for you: “geh kacken” (google is your friend)
They didn’t even had the decency to hide their tracks. The config files are in the EXACT format of PearPC’s, and the MAC addresses for the NICs are unchanged as well. This is ridiculous!!
My goodness… I wouldn’t be too surprised if this is a actually a trojan horse.
well i guess someone should file a report.
It’s well-known that whoever’s behind CherryOS stole the PearPC code. So why is this being posted on here now, and if it does need to be posted then why without any sort of warning/mention of this?!
Its been beat until death. Stick an “Apple” sticker on your PC. Instant OSX lic compliance.
MainCherryOs.exe is a stupid Visual Basic application that acts as a ‘frontend’ without any special code, it has tons of photoshop jpeg images embedded into it and does stupid things like extracting .rar files with compressed disk images, creating a pearpc config file with a variable name and launch the cherryos.exe file that’s pearpc modified. They should be really stupid guys thinking to fool people just by adding a ‘wrapper’ to a free program. Just look inside the cherryos.exe file and you’ll find pretty much the same code than pearpc, even the error messages are the same.
“The hypocrisy of you license zealots is astounding.
‘Let’s all violate MS EULAs and DVD licensing, but if someone violates the GPL, heads must roll!'”
This scenario may appear to be morally inconsistent but, it is not. Illegal, yes. Inconsistent, no – at least within the moral framework of someone who believes in freedom of speach, the immorality of the restriction of the free flow of information, and believes licences that propogate knowledge are preferable to licences that allow the hoarding of knowledge.
I realize morality is quite out of fashion these days but, you don’t have to believe anything in the above list to be able to unravel the truth of the seeming contradictory actions of “licence zealots.”
Eugenia, why did you post this?
It’s clearly illegal, and the guy is clearly a con-artist.
Didn’t you read the previous discussions on this topic? ?
I find it sad that you’d support something like this.
Yeah, cos journalists never report on illegal stuff, do they?
I think it’s good that Eugenia posted it, first because it’s OS related, second because if it’s really a fraud (I always thought the guy wanted to promote his vx30 codec – which might not be so bad after all (I hope it’s not rip-off of something else)) then people can get together and look – reverse engineer the EXE file (as some people did) and try to find pieces of the code that look exactly like the PearPC code (most likely some static tables, the way the opcodes are written, or something like that to get a clue).
It’ll be interresting to see the development of this thing – whether GPL really works (there was this hardware-company which made some network-card and used some GPL code, and did not release any source code, but were forced after a while to do so – the question is whether they did it, to protect their name, or it was really a legal question – If it’s the former then it might be the case that the guys from CherryOS do not care at all, now if it’s the latter then it might be a problem with them)…
Isn’t it still illegal to run osx on non-apple hardware? The mac-on-linux website warns about this. This Cherry-thing seem to promote use of OSX very widely. If this is right it showes that this company must be more or less “criminal minded”.
Look at the “release notes” page:
“Sound. There is no sound support on this version. We will be releasing an update that will include sound capabilities as soon as it becomes available.”
“as soon as it becomes available” makes it sound like he is waiting for the pearpc developers to finish sound support
“The hypocrisy of you license zealots is astounding.
Let’s all violate MS EULAs and DVD licensing, but if someone violates the GPL, heads must roll!”
You should try better next time, troll. GPL doesn’t try to limit the actual use of the software – i. e. on what hardware you run it and for what prupose. It is only concerned with copying and redistribution. Therefore, violating GPL is necessarily related to copyright. MS EULA, on the other hand, wants to regulate all sorts of things, including the underlying OS, usage purpose, benchmarking etc. (Imagine that, when you buy, say, a shovel, you get a license with it that prohibits you from digging in certain places or using it together with certain tools…) I don’t feel myself obliged to comply with such restrictions — neither morally (I should have the freedom to use the thing i bought any way I see fit) nor legally (this kind of restrictions is specifically prohibited by Civil Code in the country where I live and all sane countries like f. ex. Germany).
Sorry for the off-topic.
http://www.maconlinux.org/overview.html
“License: MOL is an open source effort; it is licensed under the GNU general public license.”
$ pwd
~/.wine/fake_windows/CherryOS
$ find . -type f -exec strings -a {} ; | grep -i maconlinux
MacOnLinuxVideo
.MacOnLinuxVideo
UH-OH! HE REMOVED ALL THE PEARPC REFERENCES, BUT FORGOT ABOUT MOL!
in case he changes it later:
$ md5sum CherryOS_Software.zip
30876ef4baca159609092cf8cdc28a9a CherryOS_Software.zip
I have a copy of it if he changes it and denies it later.
> UH-OH! HE REMOVED ALL THE PEARPC REFERENCES, BUT FORGOT ABOUT MOL!
No he didn’t, see:
http://search.gmane.org/search.php?query=cherryos&email=&group=gman…
JUST READ THIS
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=6633910&foru…
Ok, it’s pretty obvious that this is a modified PearPC.
Scroll down to Hartshorn’s comments at the bottom, where he compares PearPC disassemblies with CherryOS.
GPL Violation.
As far as I know there has been no case regarding a breach of the EULA of some software so it is very hard to predict what would happen if a case actually went to court.
I really think it depends on where you live. I am sure that in the US it might hold some weight but a clause such as that would not stand up here in the UK. Most people here have region free DVD players as they are sold in high street shops. What you do with your software/dvd’s after buying a copy as long as it is for personal use, really is up to you.
The con artist who “made” CherryOS should be sued into oblivion.
What is to be done now? Will the FSF step forward?
It seems to me that a substantial number of companies use GPL’d code — I know this from one company I quit. What are your experiences?
Isn’t it still illegal to run osx on non-apple hardware? The mac-on-linux website warns about this. This Cherry-thing seem to promote use of OSX very widely. If this is right it showes that this company must be more or less “criminal minded”.
It doesn’t run it crawls 🙂
At least the last time I tried pearpc 🙂
So the question is, what can you do about it? It seems to me that this is the first real test of the GPL. This guy figures that the GPL movement has no balls. Or in other words that it isn’t worth the paper it’s written on – because pretty much anyone can just take the code and do what they want with it, regardless of whether it complies with the licence agreement or not.
So beyond shouting and complaining, what can you do?
GJ
That may be the case in the US, I am not sure. However, in Europe, we are having a jolly good laugh about clauses like that, in line with MS’s desire to only use Windows OEM with the machine it came with, etc…
I’m curious how Cherry OS actually performs, if it is indeed a PearPC rip-off as suggested my curiosity will end here as I find the program unusable in it’s current form. I’m a Sun/Apple person so I’ll have to rely on any informal review.
I agree with hypocrisy poster, as he said, it seems the GPL is sacred, but anything else goes…..
This guy is obstinate, if I were him, I would have changed my name and I would have move to tibet to live a different life.
it does crash everytime it runs, waste of time…… don’t waste your bandwith
Hm … since when a hardware emulator is an Operating System (kernel & accom. appz)? Or have I misread?
Have given the site a look, didn’t like it really.
To the german lad here: *gg* google would translate “geh kacken” to “have a <relieving action on toilet>”, and no one ‘d get the offense. Better you provide yerself with some real cool english curses – for the sake of us all *rofl*
I just installed CherryOS, but it won’t create new users. It gives an error message.
>> Not to be a troller here but Apples Mac OS X license says
>> that when you use it you basically agree to use it only on
>> Apple hardware.
Apfel’s copyright isnt “wrong” but this hardware requirement is just irrelevant to the end user.
Copyright holders cannot force “anything” on the user, think of requiring to have your trousers down while using a MAC or something like this.
The COPYright exists to make clear how the product is copied and now how it is used. They cannot extend the conditions of the copyright beyond those allowed by the law unless you sign a personal contract with them.
The GPL states that you have to make available any changes to the source of a GPL licensed application.
This guy has created a front end in Visual Basic to the PearPC binaries. He hasn’t made any changes to the source, so he can’t make his non-existent changes available can he?
It is quite legal to distribute binaries of GPL code, and the source to PearPC is available on sourceforge for anyone to download.
Lame, yes.
Illegal, no.
> Lame, yes.
> Illegal, no.
False: He would have to distribute the sources for PearPC himself, which he clearly doesnt do.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#TOCGPL
I suggest you actually read the GPL.
Firstly, he still has to make the source available himself, even if he doesn’t change it.
Secondly, he has to acknowledge the copyright of the PPC authors and cannot claim to have written it himself.
Thus, CherryOS is clearly in violation of the GPL. It would even be in violation of the BSD license.
This thing is even slower than PearPC… Also, it has broken three GPL’s, MacOnLinux’, OpenVPN’s and finally PearPC’s.
Don’t confuse breach of contract with “illegality” ok?
A contract is between private parties and a breach of its terms results in damages (which the aggrieved party must prove) and may allow for equitable relief in the form of injunction.
Illegality relates to an offence under legislation whereby an individual is deemed to have harmed society.
Copyright law in certain countries has both a private and public aspect to it so that there may be criminal sanctions as well as private ones but don’t believe that simply breaching the terms of a contract make you liable for criminal punishment!
Apfel’s copyright isnt “wrong” but this hardware requirement is just irrelevant to the end user.
Copyright holders cannot force “anything” on the user, think of requiring to have your trousers down while using a MAC or something like this.
The COPYright exists to make clear how the product is copied and now how it is used. They cannot extend the conditions of the copyright beyond those allowed by the law unless you sign a personal contract with them.
you aparently havent read slashdot ever since microsoft first brought us the EULA. they can have redicules clauses, american copyright law is moronic that way. i remember one version of jbuilder that basically gave borland the right to perform an audit on any computer it was installed on, whenever they wanted.
No it is not. Anytime you distribute binaries you must make available the source for distribution as well. He can do it if he makes the source available for distribution.
this article is really bad made.
take an example with this article:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/57242
it is the newsticker from famous and good german IT magazin. this article does not forget to mention the obvious similarity to the opensource project pearpc.
I would be glad, if you could update your article.
(it is not much work and must not go in detail as heise.de, that’s why I love osnews.com for the short articles if not interested in more details. one additionalsentence would be enough)
nevertheless, the grand of articles is good
by the way, anyone who wants to download pearpc without registering, can take this url:
http://movies.mxsinc.com/CherryOS_Software.zip
well, but I would suggest to better try out the original pearpc.
You might wanna take a look here:
http://www.h80571.serverkompetenz.net/
I don’t think it’s illegal.
PearPC is GPL’d, right? so as long as someone gives PearPC credit, and eventually gives over the source code, where is the violation? That’s the whole point of open code-take it, modify it, etc…
You don’t have to release source code with the binaries-it can be provided on a by-request basis and still be GPL compliant (technically anyway). And, as far as I know, there is no time limit on WHEN you need to provide the source code.
Seems like a tempest in a teacup to me. Why not rip off PearPC? Aren’t they trying to get around Apple’s hardware monopoly? What makes them sacrosanct?
How about the growing numbers of WINE versions? How is that different? Answer: it isn’t.
GPL zealots cannot have it both ways. Either the code is open, or its protected. You can’t have “selective” protection, by which I mean, PearPC is protected from having someone come in, modify the code, adn release it,
and WINE, Red Hat, Gentoo, and 1000’s of other projects are not.
“Isn’t it still illegal to run osx on non-apple hardware?”
No, it’s against the terms of the Apple license agreement. And I’d love to see them make it stand up in court.
“PearPC is GPL’d, right? so as long as someone gives PearPC credit, and eventually gives over the source code, where is the violation?”
Neither of which this clown’s actually *done*.
there is no time limit on WHEN you need to provide the source code.
Of course there is: You have to provide it, when you are asked for it. This means, as I understand it, without any intentional delay.
Of course there is: You have to provide it, when you are asked for it. This means, as I understand it, without any intentional delay.
There’s no mention whatsoever of delivery times in the GPL. Basically someone can deliver the source any time they feel like it. It’d might not be reasonable, but the GPL doesn’t give you any rights to expect delivery in a reasonable time.
At a guess this will get fixed in a future revision.
There’s no mention whatsoever of delivery times in the GPL. Basically someone can deliver the source any time they feel like it. It’d might not be reasonable, but the GPL doesn’t give you any rights to expect delivery in a reasonable time.
I think its common sense that, when you dont _want_ (but are technically able to) to provide the sources when they are requested and needed, you simply _refuse_ to provide them. In this case the GPL-Licencee could enforce the delivery legally.
IANAL, but i cant imagine that the legal meaning of “refusing something” differs all too much from my definition.
There’s no mention whatsoever of delivery times in the GPL. Basically someone can deliver the source any time they feel like it. It’d might not be reasonable, but the GPL doesn’t give you any rights to expect delivery in a reasonable time.
At a guess this will get fixed in a future revision.
Haha. Wrong. Something that judges often look at with licenses is the spirit or intent of the license, and that can way just as heavily. If a specific time period were required on every legal document then half the software world is in trouble.
A big part of how a license can be applied is how the author of the license interprets it. Since the authors of the GPL (the Free Software Foundation) have made it abundantly clear what their interpretation and expectations are about this particular point, they do have to provide upon request within a reasonable amount of time.
If a specific time period were required on every legal document then half the software world is in trouble.
Specific time period? No, but the majority will have something indicating that delivery should be expected in a reasonable time (Eg Prompt delivery).
A big part of how a license can be applied is how the author of the license interprets it.
Sure, but the license is an agreement between the user and the author of the software. Unless they’ve handed responsibility over to the FSF then it’s the interpretation of the author that counts. Just because the license happens to be the GPL doesn’t make the FSF’s interpretation count for anything. If it is original code and the author is being deliberately slow then there’s no way you can force delivery of the source.
Things are different here, because it’s obvious the guy has broken the GPL on the PearPC code. It’s up to the PearPC guy to enforce it though, CherryOS users can’t force the CherryOS folks to release the code.
If it is original code and the author is being deliberately slow then there’s no way you can force delivery of the source.
He isnt “slow” because it would mean he is delivering the source part by part and wasting time between single packages, which is, of course, a nonesnsical example.
But he isnt delivering _at all_. You can no way reintepret a slowness in “deliberately and by no means justified _refusing_ to give out the code” at at the requested moment.
It’s up to the PearPC guy to enforce it though, CherryOS users can’t force the CherryOS folks to release the code.
No, his licencees have the right guaranteed by the GPL the project is released under, to get this source upon request. This is a right I, as a user, have and am being denied, and I can enforce such a right legally.
Just tried it out, it definitely is Pearpc, but the interface is pretty neat, it creates the hard disk image for you (Out of a .RAR file) and then boots from the CD. Seems exactly the same speed as the latest PearPC cvs builds. Just makes PearPC easier to use.
Besides that, this is definitely illegal, shame, it would be nice contribution back to PearPC.
No, his licencees have the right guaranteed by the GPL the project is released under, to get this source upon request. This is a right I, as a user, have and am being denied, and I can enforce such a right legally.
No. If CherryOS was GPL then you’d have a point.
PearPC users have a contract (GPL) with the PearPC authors.
The CherryOS authors broke that contract when they changed the license.
CherryOS users have a contract (CherryOS license) with the CherryOS authors (Which the GPL violation makes worthless).
Now just because the CherryOS authors have broken their contract with the PearPC authors does NOT mean CherryOS users get any rights to enforce the GPL. The ONLY people who can enforce the GPL are the PearPC authors because that’s the contract that’s been broken.
However I’m pretty sure there are a few laws dealing with selling goods that you don’t actually have the right to sell. The CherryOS authors could probably get caught by that if someone felt it worth the effort.
Ho Ho Ho… this is not Chisrstmas and CherryOS is not our gift for Us PC users who want to try a MAC…..
…. I digged in the files that the “incredible Setup Factory 6 instaler SETUP.EXE”that installs CherryOS… and I found somethings…
– video.x, MacOnLinux Video driver is copied in the TEMPO directory under *****.tmp, “Cherry IDE.DAT” in CherryOS Directory.
– in “ppccfg.example” it says ppc_start_resolution, in CherryOS`s “invisble” config file cos_start_resolution….
No debuggers, no nothing, just WIn98, a task killer and MS-DOS Edit to fin out that is just a fake, a fugly VisualBasic GUI to use PearPC, should have been done in Flash to make i look better….
If the Serial number comes out, let`s spread it to pull back to pc users the GNU license that MXS hast violated!.
The PearPC developer has said he’s going to look into the similarities himself and get in touch with the FSF for advice on how to take the matter further if he believes the code is copied. FSF’s normal method is to attempt to persuade the infringer to comply with the GPL voluntarily before taking any legal action, and in all the cases they’ve dealt with so far, this has happened and they haven’t needed to sue anyone.
Now just because the CherryOS authors have broken their contract with the PearPC authors does NOT mean CherryOS users get any rights to enforce the GPL. The ONLY people who can enforce the GPL are the PearPC authors because that’s the contract that’s been broken.
He received his sources and binaries from the PearPC devs. He distributed the binaries of a derived product to me. He had no right to change the licence, and I know this, i.e. it is still something to be proven through in the court. The licence under I received these derived binaries will, if there is evidence, be the GPL, so he is obliged to let me access them.
I dont care what original developer thinks about this, or if he cares about enforcing his rights, but I as a licencee have been denied certain rights, which, if I have evidence, I should have been granted, and the only option I have is not only “go cry to the original devs”, which may not even be reachable at all.
The catch with the GPL is that it does not die with the developer (or his interest in his product), but can be defended (or enforced) until it ends up in public domain.
>If the Serial number comes out, let`s spread it to pull back
>to pc users the GNU license that MXS hast violated!.
Sure ! Lets sink to this same low level.
Since “we” /obviously/ are the good guys, it is morally and legally ok to do so !
Brilliant idea.
…
I don’t understand what you’re finding so difficult about this.
The entire validity of the GPL rests on copyright law. If you aren’t the copyright holder then you have no rights whatsoever to deal with a GPL violation. You get given rights through whatever license comes with the software. If the software doesn’t get distributed with a GPL license then you don’t get the rights given by the GPL. It doesn’t matter if the software is a derivative of a GPL licensed work or not.
Maybe it’ll be clearer if I step away from the software point of view and give an example from a different field.
Let’s say I produce and distribute a film ‘Star Battles’, which bears an uncanny resemblance to a certain film by George Lucas.
It doesn’t matter if you heard about the film, read a review of the film, watched the film at the cinema or bought the limited edition collector’s double disc DVD with lifesize blowup doll of ‘Darth Rader’, you CANNOT do anything about my copyright violation. The only person who could do anything would be Mr Lucas or persons he has given permission to act on his behalf.
Just because something is software, and happens to be originally licensed under GPL changes NOTHING. If you aren’t the copyright holder you can’t enforce the original license.
The catch with the GPL is that it does not die with the developer (or his interest in his product), but can be defended (or enforced) until it ends up in public domain.
This is why the FSF has people dealing with copyright assignment. The copyright holder assigns copyright of the software to the FSF giving the FSF power to act in enforcing the license. If the copyright holder hasn’t assigned copyright then the only thing the FSF can do is inform the copyright holder of the violation. They can’t take any action to enforce the license, neither can anybody else. In the event of a developer’s death their copyright passes to their estate in exactly the same fashion as any other published work.
You get given rights through whatever license comes with the software. If the software doesn’t get distributed with a GPL license then you don’t get the rights given by the GPL. It doesn’t matter if the software is a derivative of a GPL licensed work or not.
You oversee a point here. The GPL was designed not to protect the original author’s rights, but to secure that every subsequent user gets the same rights the derivative autor got.
It isn’t his to give /me any rights or to withhold them, and its irrelevant what he proclaimes the license is, as i can prove that it should be covered by the GPL. I dont challenge the copyright he has on the derivative parts, but as long as a user, i can prove that he denies _me_ something i should have gotten, i can get this by legal action.
Compare this with a hypothetical piece of commercial software I bought, but became a version with reduced capabilities, although I bought a full licence. As long i can prove what licence it originally should have been, I can require the author to hand out the proper product.
Of course, this doesnt work with conventional copyrighted works, because of all the “reserved rights”. No one besides the original author simply has any rights on the code/art works. With the GPL every single subsequent user gets those rights to copy use and modify the software, once the derivative author starts distributing, on binaries _and_ source code, and can reinforce them if they see the need.
This is why the FSF has people dealing with copyright assignment. The copyright holder assigns copyright of the software to the FSF giving the FSF power to act in enforcing the license.
Actually, they just “assume” it to be so. But it is a whole different case if I, as a user, accuse the distributor of fraud, and not delivering the sources he was required to provide to me. His “new licence” simply doesnt matter, if I can prove the court that I should have gotten “more” than he provided.
If the copyright holder hasn’t assigned copyright then the only thing the FSF can do is inform the copyright holder of the violation. They can’t take any action to enforce the license, neither can anybody else.
They can not, until they get the distributed binaries.
Following your logic it wouldnt be possible for me or any other end user to sue for a original product or a refund if I bought a pirated MS office and MS just wouldnt bother to jump in and go to court.
Or do you just prefer to cry wolf coz it makes you feel special?
Email him, and ask him for the source to the GPL bits. If he doesn’t hand it over within 2 weeks then you will have made your point. If he does, then you can shut up.
ASIK he has not included the PearPC copyright info.
Thus, he is a bad bad bunny. And should be spanked. Unless o/c he is not actually using PearPC.
As has already been said, if there’s a copyright infringement by CheeryOS, then only the copyright holder of PearPC would have the locus standi to bring action in the courts, and not you as a user.
Another way to look at it is with privity of contract. In using code from PearPC to develope CherryOS, the developer enters into a contract (e.g. the GPL) with the copyrights holders of PearPC. If he breaches a term or condition of that contract, then ONLY the copyright holder of PearPC can go after him.
The fact that he has not passed on the rights that PearPC wanted you to have is irrelevant, you still have no locus standi. There are very few cases where 3rd parties can enforce contracts that they are not a party to, and in my opinion this is definitely not one of them.
look at wxw.9down.cxm
“You oversee a point here. The GPL was designed not to protect the original author’s rights, but to secure that every subsequent user gets the same rights the derivative autor got.”
That doesn’t matter. The GPL can be designed however it likes but it can only *work* in the way copyright law works, and that law doesn’t allow your fudge (product B legally ought to have been released under license Z, so even though it wasn’t, users of it can take legal action if it breaks license Z). Doesn’t work. As err keeps telling you, before you can treat CherryOS as a GPL-licensed piece of software, someone with power over the PearPC copyright needs to take legal action to compel CherryOS to be so licensed.