Could be a fun fight to watch...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| techiem2 Aug 27, 2008 5:57 PM EDT |
but I honestly don't see them having much of a chance to win. I mean, the license is the license. If they can get away with forcing Apple to officially open OSX up for installation on generic hardware, what's next? Force all the Unix vendors to port to x86? Force application developers (of whatever platform) to port to the platform of your choice? |
| TxtEdMacs Aug 27, 2008 6:21 PM EDT |
Actually, no forcing Apple to do anything but get out of the way. It will depend upon the courts that take the case and how strong their legal team is in presenting the case. Reread the statements, unaltered software package just loaded on generic hardware and whatever problems arose were solved by the choice of parts, configuration and other tweaks made independently by the seller. Now tell me where Apple's arm was twisted to make it all work? Every machine had a purchased copy of Apple's OS X. |
| number6x Aug 27, 2008 6:54 PM EDT |
Apple's license only allows running the OS on apple branded hardware. This effectively limits OS/X to run on Apple Hardware, or more accurately hardware manufactured by companies who are licensed by Apple. Apple hardware is built in Taiwan or elsewhere by licensed OEMs. Running the software on non-apple branded machines voids your license. Doing something that voids your license could result in you losing the license. It doesn't matter if you payed for the software or not. Its not about paying its about following the rules of the copyright holder's license. If you take some GPL'd software, make custom changes, and redistribute it without the changes. You are in violation of the license the copyright holder gave you the software under. Running OS/X on non-branded machines is a violation of the copyright holder's license. It does not matter if you purchased the copy of OS/X or if you got it from Santa Clause. I don't like the license, so I don't run the software. Apple lost me when Scully killed the Apple II line in the 90's. |
| TxtEdMacs Aug 27, 2008 7:14 PM EDT |
Tell me this, do you believe when you park your car or hang a jacket at a restaurant that signs are legally binding? Apple is not be cheated out of payment. If restraint of trade gains the attention I think it should, Apple will not have as shiny (and as undeserved) reputation. It's your choice to follow the dictates as you please, however, I do not like someone telling me how I might use a product I purchase may be used when safety is not an issue. |
| number6x Aug 27, 2008 7:40 PM EDT |
Do you believe that the GPL is not binding? The signs at the restaurant are not licenses. Compare Apples to Apples (or Psystars in this case). There is no restraint of trade. Stephen King licenses a publisher to publish a book as a hardcover and a paperback. They don't get to make movies, action figures, and comic book versions just because they get to publish his book. If he licenses them to do so, they can. The publisher might still try to make money off some unlicensed works, but he will sue them and he will get a new publisher. |
| TxtEdMacs Aug 27, 2008 7:57 PM EDT |
What about the jackets and the cars? On King's books, which I would not buy (or even keep if given to me), I would feel perfectly free to allow a toddler to make a mesh of it with crayons or gunk. I might as a joke paper the walls with selected pages, probably in the john for any to read. Or I might use in as a covering to wings on a model plane, that I would fly indiscriminately wherever I could escape arrest. Do you think either he or his publisher could add conditions to stop any of this use? I make no pretense at being a lawyer, but my son will be soon. Moreover he was writing briefs for a practicing lawyer when he was still an undergrad. I will ask his opinion when I see him next. I have many reasons to take his opinion than any I might read here. [He does not agree with my views by default, which is one of the many reasons I tend to trust his judgment on legal issues.] Otherwise we wait for the courts. |
| dumper4311 Aug 27, 2008 8:09 PM EDT |
TxtEdMacs: You're confusing media (CDs or Books) with their contents (executable code, or literature). You've bought the media, to do with as you wish. You've been granted a license to use the contents thereof, under the terms of said license. |
| jdixon Aug 27, 2008 9:42 PM EDT |
> You've been granted a license to use the contents thereof, under the terms of said license. Yes, but the terms of use for most content is very broad, while the terms of use for software tends to limit its use severely. That's a major, and possibly unjustified, difference. Remember that in most cases you cannot review the terms of the license before you buy the product. That means that the license must meet certain minimal conditions concerning it's advertised usage (in the case of OSX, as an operating system for a computer) or the license will be considered invalid. As a simple example, a license which required the user to donate their organs to the author's charity of choice would almost certainly be considered invalid, as it's not reasonable or even possible for everyone to comply with it, and it's completely outside the expected scope of a software license. Yes, that's an extreme example, but it demonstrates the concept fairly well. Whether Apple's terms for OSX are unreasonable is something only a court can decide. I would think that limiting the use of the software to only hardware of Apple's choosing, rather than simply stating that any other hardware is not supported, may well be outside the expected scope of a software license, but then IANAL. |
| TxtEdMacs Aug 28, 2008 8:04 AM EDT |
jd,Quoting: ... possibly unjustified, difference. That's the point, technology has run ahead of case law. The precedents have not been set in many areas. Therefore, it is foolish to think a shrink wrap license will hold as the corporate lawyers attempt to wrap their owners rights against all comers. Depends on the courts. Right now with many having vested interests the more extreme licensing scenario may well be the Law. However, to take at face value the words of interested parties as it being set in stone is to ignore how the law works. [If you are easily upset, skip this section: Anyone notice [in the States] that the stupid utterances of a couple of local cops stopping photographers from taking pictures of trains is now true, via action by Congress? "The Bill of Rights [ceased to exist] ...". The Constitutional government has been subverted, i.e. we no longer have a real Republic under Law. However, those that love the second amendment above all else are not taking up arms against tyranny. Ironic, isn't it? They have their toys and they fail to notice creeping power grab.] So about the law, When more important words are erased at U.S. Law's foundations, shrink wrap verbiage can be expanded or annulled. Indeed, it could go several ways if it get the full treatment. [No humor in content, too serious an issue.] Warning to Dumpster: you failed miserably reading my mind twice before, so before engaging in character assassination, base your rant upon someone else instead of your pretense to read my mind. You have no idea what I reflect upon. Do not use me as a jumping off point to another rant*; so foam away preferably with the spittle flying in another direction. * One exception. If it is intentionally humorous (meaning you know your words are ridiculous), fine I like a good joke above all else. Fire away. |
| jdixon Aug 28, 2008 10:56 AM EDT |
> When more important words are erased at U.S. Law's foundations... Careful, TxtEdMacs, you'll be lumped with me and Bob if you keep that up. :) |
| dumper4311 Aug 28, 2008 12:32 PM EDT |
@TxtEd: Who's dumpster? :) Warning??? Calm down my friend, no foam or spittle from me. Quite the contrary, it's you frothing over nothing. What I really want to know is how will you cope if I continue to disagree with you from time to time? I've never tried to read your mind, simply interpret what you've written. If there's been misunderstanding there, isn't it possible that - with it being your statements that were apparently misunderstood - you bear at least as much responsibility as me? :) Character assassination??? If you mean disagreement, the best I can do is invite you to get over yourself. Your narcissism is showing. :) If you find my arguments so vehemently disagreeable, I'd recommend ignoring them. If you'd like to return to a rational and intelligent discussion, I'd welcome that. But the blind emotion really doesn't help any of us very much. |
| TxtEdMacs Aug 29, 2008 7:39 AM EDT |
dumper, You missed it. An invitation to joke and you passed it up. Notice how many words had double meanings? I wanted a rift, I was hoping to compliment your humor. Will read carefully later, since I just scanned everything today. I will be gone another day or so to finish projects I need to go in September. Txt. |
| dumper4311 Aug 29, 2008 12:21 PM EDT |
@TxtEdMacs: Your [No humor in content . . .] tag above the 'Warning' you addressed to me kind of set the tone for what followed, sorry if I misinterpreted. I'm feeling dizzy, going to go sit down . . . Good luck with your projects. |
| TxtEdMacs Aug 30, 2008 9:08 AM EDT |
dumper..., Give me a few more days, I will respond directly to you via email through LXer. I understand the good reasons you have for being confused by my words Those words were a mix of serious and light in the same sentence. This thread is dead and some explanation will take a bit of space. In early September I you will hear form me. Txt. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!