Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 17th Sep 2008 09:15 UTC, submitted by Andrew Youll
Mac OS X If you want to run Mac OS X on a standard, non-Apple-labelled x86 box, you have various options. You can go all creative and build and install one yourself, and then be weary when installing updates from Apple. You can also buy a Mac clone from PsyStar, and then be weary of Apple's crack team of lawyers. A third option has just become available: EFI-X.
Order by: Score:
hmm...
by sardaukar on Wed 17th Sep 2008 09:38 UTC
sardaukar
Member since:
2006-05-09

...wonder how The Law views this. I mean, it's clearly a violation of Apple's EULA that states "don't run this on non-Apple stuff". Right?

Reply Score: 0

RE: hmm...
by maxhrk on Wed 17th Sep 2008 09:48 UTC in reply to "hmm..."
maxhrk Member since:
2005-07-24

...wonder how The Law views this. I mean, it's clearly a violation of Apple's EULA that states "don't run this on non-Apple stuff". Right?


I am sure someone will come along and cries, "Freeeeedddoooommmmm!". Anytime soon.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: hmm...
by sardaukar on Wed 17th Sep 2008 09:50 UTC in reply to "RE: hmm..."
sardaukar Member since:
2006-05-09

Why? It's the US of A - freedom of the enterprise and so on. It's Apple's legacy on the line here - you can't just nationalize their tech "for the greater good" like some socialist European government ;) it's un-american!

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: hmm...
by CaptainN- on Wed 17th Sep 2008 19:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: hmm..."
CaptainN- Member since:
2005-07-07

Allow me to paraphrase, "Yeah screw individual freedom! It's only corporate freedom, that's what the USA is about!"

Seriously, try to think about this stuff a little bit more.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: hmm...
by sardaukar on Wed 17th Sep 2008 19:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: hmm..."
sardaukar Member since:
2006-05-09

I'm not saying it's something I like. But come on... corporations are in heaven in the US legal system!

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: hmm...
by progoth on Wed 17th Sep 2008 20:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: hmm..."
progoth Member since:
2006-10-28

Allow me to paraphrase, "Yeah screw individual freedom! It's only corporate freedom, that's what the USA is about!"

Seriously, try to think about this stuff a little bit more.


Yes, there are many freedoms that we may enjoy, as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. If you don't want something done with your property, you get to make that claim, whether you created it on your lonesome or if you've been able to grow a business around it.

The right to property is very important to us Americans, and the Constitution is structured around that tenant (along with our other inherent rights).

Perhaps you should think about this more...or, better yet, study and learn some things.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: hmm...
by looncraz on Thu 18th Sep 2008 05:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: hmm..."
looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

Actually U.S. law directly and emphatically permits and supports all efforts in the name of universal compatibility. It is a de facto requirement of a free-market system.

The problem is FAR beyond technology. If you have a part on your car which fails frequently, you can reverse engineer that part and re-engineer a replacement. You can't just COPY, but you CAN create a competing product.

The law ( and precedent ) clearly provides for technical compatibility on all levels without restriction except ( roughly ) as follows:

1. Violation of Copyright
2. Violation of Trademark
3. Violation of Patent
4. Violation of Contract
5. Illegal Possession of Property ( i.e. source code )

Without falling into any of the above violations, one can do as they will in the name of compatibility.

I ( or you ) have every right in the U.S. to reverse engineer ANYTHING and create a competing product, without fear of legal reprisal ( not that lawyers care about the law anymore ).

Not to be condescending, I would not expect ANYONE to know every law pertaining to even a SINGLE matter, and there is every possibility I am unaware of more recent findings or new precedence set which invalidates the written letter of the law. However, the law is written as such, and numerous, fairly recent, cases have been proven to the affirmative of the actual letter of the law, so I feel safe :-)

--The loon

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: hmm...
by sardaukar on Thu 18th Sep 2008 09:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: hmm..."
sardaukar Member since:
2006-05-09

Wouldn't EFI-x break


...
3. Violation of Patent
4. Violation of Contract
...


in your list?

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: hmm...
by looncraz on Fri 19th Sep 2008 20:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: hmm..."
looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

Depends entirely on how it is implemented.

Contract, surely not, unless the makers licensed the technology, there is no contract to violate ( an EULA is NOT a legal contract, but merely explicit permissions and limitations of liability which may or may not be legally applicable depending on the wording ).


The patent is of no issue here, as the entire manner by which the technology is implemented is outside the domain of Apple's patents. Patents are always overruled for the sake of compatibility or in cases of violation of anti-competition laws.

However, if the product directly uses Apple code/binaries then it is in violation of copyright laws. If it includes code that mimics its external ( patentable ) interface, it is legal only as far as is required for compatibility purposes as laid out under U.S. anti-trust/unfair competition laws.

Should the patent be too closely followed, however, as to utilize more than what is permissible by law, then a patent violation can be filed on that segment.

This is to say that external interfaces ( electronic, software, automotive, or otherwise ) are actually NOT patentable ( this includes things such as MOST file formats, fuel&oil filters, tires, rims, sensors, etc... ), but the inclusion of this in a patent application does not disqualify the pending patent from approval. Whereas, internal methods and operations and design are, in fact, protected by patents ( and copyrights ).

Technical example:
In c++ code you have two files for most classes:

Class.h ( header )
Class.cpp ( code )

The header, if publicly released by any legal means, can be used by anyone for compatibility purposes, regardless of software license, as it describes an "immutable" interface to access the class/product. However, C++ classes have certain protectors within the header. public, protected, and private. public and protected members/functions are fully free to use by law, for the sake of compatibility ( and almost exclusively for this ).

Members and functions within the private "section" of the header, however, cannot be directly copied for compatibility unless one can absolutely prove there was no other way to achieve compatibility.

However, the code itself is fully protected as it is likely to contain someone's intellectual property. No portion what-so-ever may be utilized, in whatever form.

The product in question is, apparently, essentially just using a "header" to provide compatibility. Completely legal, and directly stated in law to be such. Even if they had to completely disassemble MacOS X and violate every "term" within the EULA.

--The loon

Reply Score: 2

RE: hmm...
by Soulbender on Wed 17th Sep 2008 10:04 UTC in reply to "hmm..."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

You make the assumption that Apple can dictate what you can do with the product after you have purchased it. That's not necessarily true, just because something is in an EULA it's not automatically legal.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: hmm...
by sardaukar on Wed 17th Sep 2008 10:08 UTC in reply to "RE: hmm..."
sardaukar Member since:
2006-05-09

Apple can indeed dictate - within the constraints of the law. And their EULA is not illegal.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: hmm...
by bolomkxxviii on Wed 17th Sep 2008 10:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: hmm..."
bolomkxxviii Member since:
2006-05-19

The legality of Apple's EULA remains to be seen.

Reply Score: 7

antitrust issues
by JoeBuck on Wed 17th Sep 2008 18:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: hmm..."
JoeBuck Member since:
2006-01-11

US antitrust laws forbid many forms of bundling (requirements that you cannot buy product A without buying product B). There are some exceptions, and I'm not a lawyer, but courts might well rule that it's not valid for Apple to forbid the running of a legally purchased copy of their operating system on someone else's hardware. On the other hand, they might rule the other way.

See
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/hearings/ip/chapter_5.htm

for some discussion of the bundling rules.

Many people are under the mistaken belief that you can put anything into an EULA and it's illegal for anyone to violate it. It doesn't work that way, or the old Dilbert strip, where Dilbert didn't read an EULA carefully before clicking, and discovered that he was now Bill Gates' cabin boy, might be a real risk.

Reply Score: 2

RE: antitrust issues
by DrillSgt on Wed 17th Sep 2008 23:10 UTC in reply to "antitrust issues"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"US antitrust laws forbid many forms of bundling (requirements that you cannot buy product A without buying product B). There are some exceptions, and I'm not a lawyer, but courts might well rule that it's not valid for Apple to forbid the running of a legally purchased copy of their operating system on someone else's hardware. On the other hand, they might rule the other way."

The one flaw here is that Apple is not attempting in any way shape or form to enforce any clause that says you can not run the software on any other hardware. What they are enforcing is that Psystar has built PC's, installed OS X on them, and sold them as a complete package. If you built a PC and installed OS X, Apple has no leg to stand on. The fact that another company is bundling OS X with a system is the problem.

Reply Score: 2

RE: antitrust issues
by bornagainenguin on Fri 19th Sep 2008 17:08 UTC in reply to "antitrust issues"
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

JoeBuck posted...

Many people are under the mistaken belief that you can put anything into an EULA and it's illegal for anyone to violate it. It doesn't work that way, or the old Dilbert strip, where Dilbert didn't read an EULA carefully before clicking, and discovered that he was now Bill Gates' cabin boy, might be a real risk.


So THAT'S how Seinfeld got conned into doing those commercials! Now I understand everything....

Seriously, it'd be nice if people would realize that individual rights are just as important (if not more) as corporate rights. The only way corporations get away with this stuff is by not allowing it to actually go to court, and relying on ignorance of the Law to keep people fooled into buying their interpretation of things....

--bornagainpenguin

EDIT - fixed hanging tag; spelling

Edited 2008-09-19 17:12 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: hmm...
by StephenBeDoper on Wed 17th Sep 2008 11:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: hmm..."
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

IANAL, but "illegal" is not synonymous with "not legally-enforceable."

Reply Score: 9

RE[3]: hmm...
by Soulbender on Wed 17th Sep 2008 12:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: hmm..."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I'd say they can dictate what I can do with OSX after purchase about as much as Ford can dictate what roads I can drive on if I drive one of their cars. Again, just because it's in an EULA does not mean it's valid contract clause (Sorry, shouldn't have said legal previously). We (well, most countries) have such things as contract law and consumer law.

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: hmm...
by rajan r on Wed 17th Sep 2008 13:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: hmm..."
rajan r Member since:
2005-07-27

I love it when people compare the purchase of a physical, tangible product, like a car, with the purchase of a *license* of software. You're not buying OS X. You're buying a license (i.e. contract) of OS X.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: hmm...
by WereCatf on Wed 17th Sep 2008 13:16 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: hmm..."
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I love it when people compare the purchase of a physical, tangible product, like a car, with the purchase of a *license* of software. You're not buying OS X. You're buying a license (i.e. contract) of OS X.

Incorrect. You are buying a COPY of the software in question. The copy is yours, no one else's. You can do what you wish with it as long as you don't break copyright and/or trademark laws since you don't own the copyright to the software. I already explained this, see my other post. You should study software laws a bit more.

Reply Score: 7

RE[6]: hmm...
by Moulinneuf on Thu 18th Sep 2008 06:06 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: hmm..."
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/macosx.html

"1. General. The software (including Boot ROM code), documentation and any fonts accompanying this License whether on disk, in read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (collectively the “Apple Software”) are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Inc."

To have a copy it as to be sold to you first not licensed for usage.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: hmm...
by Soulbender on Thu 18th Sep 2008 06:13 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: hmm..."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Is that also reproduced on the box? Does the store inform you that you're only buying a license, not a copy?
If not, it's most likely not valid.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: hmm...
by Soulbender on Wed 17th Sep 2008 15:59 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: hmm..."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Wow, is that like how I buy a license to listen to music when I buy a CD? I mean, if Sony says I'm only allowed to listen to their CD's on Sony equipment who am I to complain?

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: hmm...
by WereCatf on Wed 17th Sep 2008 13:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: hmm..."
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Apple can indeed dictate - within the constraints of the law. And their EULA is not illegal.

Actually, the legality of their EULA is a lot a matter of where you live. I've said it dozens of times already but I'll say it here too so people don't live in the false belief: here in Finland they (Apple) can't dictate how many computers I install OSX on or what I can or cannot do with it as long as I don't break any copyright laws. That means I cannot install it on any hardware that I don't own, nor am I allowed to make copies of it, modified or not.

After you have purchased a copy of software kit it is indeed your OWN personal copy. It is not leased, borrowed or otherwise the property of the original owner.

However, if you break the EULA they can forbid you from using their services ie. any service they own and you have no control over can be made inaccessible to you if they deem you haven't followed their EULA. This includes customer support, software updates and such.

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: hmm...
by Moulinneuf on Thu 18th Sep 2008 06:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: hmm..."
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/macosx.html

"1. General. The software (including Boot ROM code), documentation and any fonts accompanying this License whether on disk, in read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (collectively the “Apple Software”) are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Inc."

To have a copy it as to be sold to you first not licensed for usage.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: hmm...
by PowerMacX on Wed 17th Sep 2008 18:14 UTC in reply to "RE: hmm..."
PowerMacX Member since:
2005-11-06

But you are NOT purchasing *the product*, you are purchasing a license to use it. If you could actually purchase "it" (instead of license it) then not only wouldn't they be able to tell you what you can and can not do, but they couldn't prevent you from selling copies or reverse engineering it.

That is the reason software is not "sold" - software is licensed. A license is a contract, if you don't agree to the terms of the contract you can refuse it and ask for your money back.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: hmm...
by WereCatf on Wed 17th Sep 2008 18:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: hmm..."
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

But you are NOT purchasing *the product*, you are purchasing a license to use it. If you could actually purchase "it" (instead of license it) then not only wouldn't they be able to tell you what you can and can not do, but they couldn't prevent you from selling copies or reverse engineering it.

Wow how badly you are mixing things here! You buy a product but you don't own the copyright to it so it is still illegal to make unlicensed copies of it without the permission of the copyright holder. But your copy is yours and you can use it anyway you wish as long as you don't break the copyright law. Go learn about contract and copyright laws before you mix things up even worse than you already do.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: hmm...
by PowerMacX on Thu 18th Sep 2008 00:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: hmm..."
PowerMacX Member since:
2005-11-06

Again, if you *own* something you can do *anything* you want with it.
When you buy software you don't get to own it (unless you paid for all development and own the resulting code & assets), you get a use license. When you buy a music CD you own a piece of plastic and the right to reproduce it (but even then you have restrictions: no public playing, for instance). You don't actually own the songs, which by themselves can be valued $$$.

Copyright is just the fallback, if you want to be strict, the EULA is the only one that even allows you to install software, since it involves a copy. Without a license, what determines the limits of installs (say, a single user license vs. a family pack)?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: hmm...
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 18th Sep 2008 06:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: hmm..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Again, if you *own* something you can do *anything* you want with it.


No, you can't, actually.

If I buy a car, I can drive it wherever I want. I can modify it, drive it forwards, backwards, and sideways. The car is mine, right, so I can do whatever I want, right?

Nope. You can't build another version of the car. Car companies copyright the shape of their cars, their design touches, and so on. Ferrari is particularly strict on this one, but just about any other company does the same thing.

Remarkably similar to software and art, isn't it?

Edited 2008-09-18 06:02 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: hmm...
by Soulbender on Thu 18th Sep 2008 06:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: hmm..."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

When you buy software you don't get to own it (unless you paid for all development and own the resulting code & assets), you get a use license.


So when I buy a car I don't actually own it since I haven't paid for the development and do not own the original design? Why do people think software is different from other products? It's not, the only difference is that it's easier to make copies. Just because the software companies would like you to think that you don't own your copy that doesn't make it so.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: hmm...
by PowerMacX on Thu 18th Sep 2008 18:12 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: hmm..."
PowerMacX Member since:
2005-11-06

So when I buy a car I don't actually own it since I haven't paid for the development and do not own the original design? Why do people think software is different from other products?


Because the car is an object useful all by itself. You bought something for which it's value is indeed physical. In the case of software, you get (at best) a CD which is just a piece of plastic. You can use it as a coaster for your coffee mug, they can't prevent that. But in reality what you actually payed for was the right to use something immaterial: a specific arrangement of zeros and ones.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: hmm...
by Soulbender on Fri 19th Sep 2008 05:02 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: hmm..."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Sorry,but software is just another product and the product is perfectly material. It is stored in the design documents, specifications and yes, in the 1's and 0's. It is no different from, say, a book. Would the general public accept that a publisher dictated that you could only read their books under a reading light of their own design? No, certainly not. The only reason the IT sector is getting away with so much bullshit is because it's new and people are still clueless about it.

Reply Score: 2

Most bizarre marketing ever
by Nycran on Wed 17th Sep 2008 10:28 UTC
Nycran
Member since:
2006-02-06

I'm no marketing expert, but you would think that to sell a product like this, you'd push the ideas of "freedom of hardware" and rebellion against the "Apple Man" to inspire purchase. Instead, they write this:

"EFI-X is made in Europe, utilising the very best construction standards. It costs a lot to us, and it costs a lot to you. Computing is a serious thing for us as well as for you, and we all know that saving a penny will most likely spoil our digital life."

I would suggest to the EFI-X team that not spending money on a decent marketer and copywriter is going to spoil their capitalistic life.

Edited 2008-09-17 10:28 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Most bizarre marketing ever
by chrish on Wed 17th Sep 2008 13:34 UTC in reply to "Most bizarre marketing ever"
chrish Member since:
2005-07-14

I'll rewrite their website for one of their devices. ;-)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Most bizarre marketing ever
by bert64 on Wed 17th Sep 2008 14:22 UTC in reply to "Most bizarre marketing ever"
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

and we all know that saving a penny will most likely spoil our digital life."


Yes, don't save a penny and buy EFI-X, just buy Apple hardware instead.

As for legality, making a version of EFI for a generic x86 machine is not illegal, Intel have been pushing for EFI for years but microsoft never bothered supporting it so it never caught on.

Reply Score: 1

Won't fit in my mind.
by turrini on Wed 17th Sep 2008 11:56 UTC
turrini
Member since:
2006-10-31

If I purchased something from a company, it's mine, not their anymore. Simple as that.

They can't tell me how to use their stuff, but they're in right to don't provide me support or warranty if I break their EULA.

EULA is so boring as if you bought some clothes and the manufacturer says that you can't use it on weekends. Why if it is mine?

Edited 2008-09-17 11:57 UTC

Reply Score: 8

v RE: Won't fit in my mind.
by rajan r on Wed 17th Sep 2008 13:15 UTC in reply to "Won't fit in my mind."
RE[2]: Won't fit in my mind.
by Vanders on Wed 17th Sep 2008 14:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Won't fit in my mind."
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

So if I buy a boxed copy of OS X and snap the disc in half, I can demand that Apple supply a new copy to me, free? Can I download a copy from the internet instead?

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Won't fit in my mind.
by rajan r on Wed 17th Sep 2008 15:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Won't fit in my mind."
rajan r Member since:
2005-07-27

Well, if the license entails a new physical copy be given to you whenever you have an temper tantrum, yes. But otherwise, it is the same contract. So the only valid arguments against the legality of the entirety of an EULA is based on contract law.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Won't fit in my mind.
by Soulbender on Wed 17th Sep 2008 16:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Won't fit in my mind."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

It's like saying, when the NY Giants bought Eli Manning, they can do whatever they like with him.


Wow, and you complain about my comparison? Seriously?
You are comparing two things that are not even remotely the same, one being employment and the other being a purchase. Also, I don't know what planet you're from but they sure cant do whatever they like with him. The U.S has laws against slavery, ya know.

Apple users, they're the new Amiga users.

Edited 2008-09-17 16:07 UTC

Reply Score: 5

v RE: Won't fit in my mind.
by silix on Wed 17th Sep 2008 13:22 UTC in reply to "Won't fit in my mind."
RE[2]: Won't fit in my mind.
by tristan on Wed 17th Sep 2008 14:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Won't fit in my mind."
tristan Member since:
2006-02-01

except for SW - a SW product is not a car, when you buy it, it does not become yours - its property (copyright, and intellectual property over algorithms and mechanisms the SW implements) remains the company's


When I buy a television, I don't expect to take ownership of the "intellectual property" of the company that makes it. The designs of the chips inside it aren't mine, and no-one would expect them to be. The design of the menu screens aren't mine, and so on.

But at the same time, I don't expect the TV manufacturer to be able to tell which which channels I can and can't watch, or which DVD player I can connect to it.

How have we managed to get into the situation where people accept -- and in some cases even defend! -- software companies being able to tell us what to do *after we've bought their product*, in a way that would be completely unacceptable for any other type of product?

Reply Score: 9

RE[3]: Won't fit in my mind.
by google_ninja on Wed 17th Sep 2008 17:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Won't fit in my mind."
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

What about music, books, and videos?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Won't fit in my mind.
by CrazyDude1 on Wed 17th Sep 2008 17:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Won't fit in my mind."
CrazyDude1 Member since:
2007-09-17

The point is that making duplicate copies of the software is a violation and illegal. So if you buy a CD but you can't play the CD at 5 places at the same time then that is fine. You shouldn't be able to.

However telling me that I can play the CD in SONY CD player only but not in my car is clearly violation of my right of use. So now I should buy two copies of the same CD, one for my car and one for my home audio system?

Yes this is a sad situation and we got in this sad situation because we lack a technological solution to piracy without sacrificing user freedom.

The day we have such a solution, I am sure companies would be able to relax their licenses on music, books
etc.

Now about the Apple EULA, I don't think Apple EULA would hold in court if a user installs their legal copy on a custom PC (as long as it is the only copy the user is using).

Edited 2008-09-17 17:24 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Won't fit in my mind.
by progoth on Wed 17th Sep 2008 20:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Won't fit in my mind."
progoth Member since:
2006-10-28

How have we managed to get into the situation where people accept -- and in some cases even defend! -- software companies being able to tell us what to do *after we've bought their product*, in a way that would be completely unacceptable for any other type of product?


Some of us write software. Some of us respect the law and recognize that we'd be in trouble without it. Sometimes those people intersect, sometimes not.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Won't fit in my mind.
by WereCatf on Wed 17th Sep 2008 14:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Won't fit in my mind."
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

except for SW - a SW product is not a car, when you buy it,
it does not become yours - its property (copyright, and intellectual property over algorithms and mechanisms the SW implements) remains the company's


Indeed. You aren't buying the copyright to a car either. So, this point is moot.

yours is the physical media on which the SW is recorded ( which you can do anything you wnat with - including breaking it or using it a coaster) and the right to use it for as long as you comply with the conditions the company has indicated in the EULA ( conditions that you explicitly accept the first time you use the SW or more often during installation)

You own that particular copy of the product that you have purchased. It is a _product_ you are buying. Just as a car, you buy one and that one particular copy is yours. No other similar car is, though, nor can you claim copyright ownership on it either.

I have no idea where you live but here in Finland if it were true that you were indeed subscribing to a service (buying the right to use the software, instead of buying a product) you'd have to sign a contract. EULA can not dictate what you can do with your copy of the software.

It was a few years ago but there was a court case which made the law very clear: the customer had bought a copy of some cad-like software and sold it then a year later to someone else. The EULA however said that you aren't allowed to sell it and the company behind the software took it to the court. The court ruled however that the customer had bought a product, not a service, and was in no liability to the company and could do as he wishes his own copy.

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: Won't fit in my mind.
by silix on Wed 17th Sep 2008 15:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Won't fit in my mind."
silix Member since:
2006-03-01

You aren't buying the copyright to a car either. So, this point is moot.

i perfectly know that you are not buying the copyright to a car, but actually a car doesn't come "with string attached" - there's no eula, and no need to distinguish between the right to use a product and the right to set conditions for the usage of the product (which is something that, in the case of SW, only the copyright owner can legitly do)

I have no idea where you live but here in Finland if it were true that you were indeed subscribing to a service (buying the right to use the software, instead of buying a product) you'd have to sign a contract.

Italy, and i've seen the fact that clicking on "I agree" is equivalent to signing a contract with the SW maker, stressed and remarked often times where i work

It was a few years ago but there was a court case which made the law very clear: the customer had bought a copy of some cad-like software and sold it then a year later to someone else. The EULA however said that you aren't allowed to sell it and the company behind the software took it to the court. The court ruled however that the customer had bought a product, not a service, and was in no liability to the company and could do as he wishes his own copy.

this is only logical, imho
in a contract between two parts, either one can at some point pass on someone else his part of the agreement, "discarding" obligations AND benefits altogether
if there are legal provisions for this, i think not even the conditions set in the EULA by the SW maker, can overcome the right of a licensee to stop using the product, alienating it and letting someone else be the regular licensee of that copy (as long as the new one uses the program as it is intended to be, that is)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Won't fit in my mind.
by Soulbender on Wed 17th Sep 2008 16:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Won't fit in my mind."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

as said before, because the SW is not yours and will never be,


Of course the software is not mine, but the copy I have is. I can use that ANY way copyright laws permit me to regardless of what the EULA says. Sure, Apple may (or they may not) have the right to void my warranty, not service me etc etc but that is not the same as probihiting me from using their product as I see fit. They cant call on the cops to storm my house and take my copy back. It hasn't gone that far. Yet.

An amazing amount of people seem to think that whatever a company put into the EULA is automagically a valid contract clause. That is, however, not the case. EULA's, like any other contract (if it can even be considered a contract seeing as the user has not signed anything but that's a different discussion) are governed by (aside from copyright law) contract law, and in the case of selling to end-users, consumer law. A company cant put whatever the hell it wants into a contract and say "well, if you don't like it don't buy it". That's not how it works.

Reply Score: 8

v RE: Won't fit in my mind.
by Ralf. on Wed 17th Sep 2008 14:49 UTC in reply to "Won't fit in my mind."
RE: Won't fit in my mind.
by pixel8r on Thu 18th Sep 2008 02:51 UTC in reply to "Won't fit in my mind."
pixel8r Member since:
2007-08-11

If I purchased something from a company, it's mine, not their anymore. Simple as that.

They can't tell me how to use their stuff, but they're in right to don't provide me support or warranty if I break their EULA.

EULA is so boring as if you bought some clothes and the manufacturer says that you can't use it on weekends. Why if it is mine?


Thats fine, but in the case of software, WHAT you purchased is NOT the software, but a license to use the software. and like you said, you may do with that license whatever you wish....but with the software, you are bound by the license as to what you do with it.

Its different to buying a physical product...well kind of. See, when you buy software that comes in a box, on a cd, you own the cd, and you own the box, but as for whats ON the cd, you only own a license to use that.

If you dont like the way that works, use Linux or something else covered by a less restrictive license. Works for me ;)

As far as the GPL is concerned, you CAN do whatever you like with the software, the license only comes into effect when you distribute the software.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Won't fit in my mind.
by gfx1 on Fri 19th Sep 2008 13:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Won't fit in my mind."
gfx1 Member since:
2006-01-20

The whole licensing part of the software is made up by lawyers to extract as much money of the buying consumer as possible.

I buy my software after that I can do with it what I want maybe except duplicating it and selling the copies.

I paid for it greedy bugger.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Won't fit in my mind.
by apoclypse on Fri 19th Sep 2008 14:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Won't fit in my mind."
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

But that is the point. No one is preventing from cracking/hacking your own paid for copy of OSX. Its when you try selling a hacked version of OSX that things get iffy. You said it right in your post, you can do whatever you want with your personal copy of OSX, no one is going to stop you, however if you start an OEM company and start hacking OSX to run on your OEM PC and distribute by the thousands then its an issue. The same thing applies to opensource licenses like the GPL. It doesn't come into affect until you try to distribute the software, otherwise do as you wish with the software.

Reply Score: 2

v No thanks
by sb56637 on Wed 17th Sep 2008 12:07 UTC
Technical details?
by Morph on Wed 17th Sep 2008 12:12 UTC
Morph
Member since:
2007-08-20

Too bad the review and the website are quiet on technical details. How does it work? Why does it need to plug directly into the motherboard USB connector? What does it do that couldn't just be done in software (like eg Vista OEM bios cracks)?

Looking forward to someone dissecting the thing!

From the website's FAQ:
EFI-X is a revolutionary device *not* based on any existing pendrive and flash memory chips.
On top of that, it sports some really intricate hardware protection to protect your and our own interests.

Edited 2008-09-17 12:13 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Technical details?
by mckill on Wed 17th Sep 2008 13:08 UTC in reply to "Technical details?"
mckill Member since:
2007-06-12

Here's basically how it works (and why this has nothing to do with Pystar or is 'illegal').

Its a bootable device (there's some BIOS firmware issue requiring it to be on the internal 11pin connector to be fully bootable i believe, not sure on specifics).

the device contains a boot loader and a boot menu. this booter is not running any apple or OSX code, all it does is allows you to then boot off a legit OSX DVD installer or OSX drive.

the USB dongle also has some code to then pre-load some kernel extensions that can disable known 'bad' extensions that cause kernel panics on non-apple hardware (AppleIntelCPUManager.kext, etc) and others that can inject EFI data so that the drivers can properly load (Network, Video etc).

I believe the only fishy thing that might be going on is the EFI-X device having a kext that can decrypt some of the apple binaries to run (dsmost.kext or appledecrypt.kext).

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Technical details?
by Morph on Wed 17th Sep 2008 17:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Technical details?"
Morph Member since:
2007-08-20

That doesn't sound like anything that can't be done purely in software. You could do all of that from a regular bootable CD or USB stick. Surely there is something more going on - surely the "really intricate" unusual hardware and high price tag isn't just "to protect your and our own interests"!?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Technical details?
by frood on Thu 18th Sep 2008 00:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Technical details?"
frood Member since:
2005-07-06

That doesn't sound like anything that can't be done purely in software. You could do all of that from a regular bootable CD or USB stick. Surely there is something more going on - surely the "really intricate" unusual hardware and high price tag isn't just "to protect your and our own interests"!?


Exactly. It reminds me of a cracked copy of Vista I played with once. It used grub to boot some code which temporarily altered the BIOS in some way causing Vista would think you were using a Dell computer. This prevented the need to activate it.

I imagine this device does much the same kind of thing.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Technical details?
by tyrione on Wed 17th Sep 2008 21:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Technical details?"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

Here's basically how it works (and why this has nothing to do with Pystar or is 'illegal').

Its a bootable device (there's some BIOS firmware issue requiring it to be on the internal 11pin connector to be fully bootable i believe, not sure on specifics).

the device contains a boot loader and a boot menu. this booter is not running any apple or OSX code, all it does is allows you to then boot off a legit OSX DVD installer or OSX drive.

the USB dongle also has some code to then pre-load some kernel extensions that can disable known 'bad' extensions that cause kernel panics on non-apple hardware (AppleIntelCPUManager.kext, etc) and others that can inject EFI data so that the drivers can properly load (Network, Video etc).

I believe the only fishy thing that might be going on is the EFI-X device having a kext that can decrypt some of the apple binaries to run (dsmost.kext or appledecrypt.kext).


Let's cut to the chase. The company has a license for UEFI from Intel and/or is an active member of the UEFI Consortium and is offering a product that include this Firmware and sells it as a hardware embedded UEFI Firmware with a generic bootloader.

From there all behavior is passed off to OS X and it's DVD.

From there the person who installs it on a non-authorized Apple product VOIDS their Warranty.

The real question will be whether Intel keeps a hands off approach leaving Apple to to build into their Software a firmware tester that is supposed to load Apple certified UEFI firmware and when that's not found the Disk fails out.

Reply Score: 3

Pointless...
by apoclypse on Wed 17th Sep 2008 13:12 UTC
apoclypse
Member since:
2007-02-17

My money is that once Apple drops PPC support they will activate the TPM chip and write some DRM scheme into the kernel so that it will be become illegal to run Apple software on any other hardware and sell it, since it would require that both OSX and the hardware be patched to run. That would be copyright infringement. Right now Apple doesn't bother with any of that because you already bought their hardware, they don't even ask for a serial number when you install OSX. They are trying to sell you hardware and in-order to protect their hardware they will most likely lock down their software.

I do commend this company for at least acknowledging that their product is for enthusiasts not for people who think they don't have to pay the Apple tax. These same people scream FREEDOM at the top of their longs but in the end all they really care about is their pockets and could really give a rats ass about the legality of the EULA. These same people would still circumvent it even if it was enforceable. If you are really serious about running OSX on other hardware, here is a solution but its going to cost you. Seems about right to me.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Pointless...
by Piranha on Wed 17th Sep 2008 13:47 UTC in reply to "Pointless..."
Piranha Member since:
2008-06-24

From what I've read there isn't a Infineon TPM chip in some Intel-based Macs. Even if one line of Intel system doesn't have the chip, they can't require it. I'm sure they'll find another method in Snow Leopard 10.6 to try to deter people away from installing, but it's still x86 hardware, and WILL run on non-Mac computers.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Pointless...
by apoclypse on Wed 17th Sep 2008 14:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Pointless..."
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

The point isn't to stop end-users from installing it if they wished to. Its to stop large scale reselling of their software by other companies. These other companies would have to circumvent Apple's copyright in-order to sell hardware with OSX pre-installed. As far as I know you can crack any software and device you wish yourself if you payed for it. Selling a cracked version of software OTOH is illegal.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Pointless...
by bert64 on Wed 17th Sep 2008 14:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Pointless..."
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

The point isn't to stop end-users from installing it if they wished to. Its to stop large scale reselling of their software by other companies. These other companies would have to circumvent Apple's copyright in-order to sell hardware with OSX pre-installed. As far as I know you can crack any software and device you wish yourself if you payed for it. Selling a cracked version of software OTOH is illegal.


To sell it pre-installed yes...
But to sell hardware that just happened to be compatible, and to also resell copies of OSX is perfectly legal. What you decide to do with the 2 unrelated products that you just purchased are entirely your own concern.

Selling a cracked version is also not illegal, or shouldn't be... Selling a copy is that's illegal, wether you cracked it to make the copy or not.

If i buy a Ford, modify it and then sell it on I'm well within my rights to do so, and it's still a Ford, albeit a modified one. What i can't do is manufacture my own vehicle and sell it with Ford's branding attached - ie rebrand something that didn't have Ford branding explicitly placed there by Ford.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Pointless...
by cm49 on Wed 17th Sep 2008 14:54 UTC in reply to "Pointless..."
cm49 Member since:
2007-03-23

Unlikely, since far from all Intel Macs have a TPM module.

Have a look here, it's a good read:

http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter7/tpmdrmmyth/

Reply Score: 1

Technology gets a pass
by slashdev on Wed 17th Sep 2008 13:18 UTC
slashdev
Member since:
2006-05-14

EULAs appeared seemingly like a thief in the night. They were the butt of jokes of IT folk (You agree to give me your first born son, if so click "OK"), there were even EULA that stated if you open a box of software, you agree to the EULA...problem was the EULA was inside the box!

The true extent of what can actually be asked of a person in such a contract (and if its enforceable) will hopefully be resolved in the future, cases like the most recent MAC-clone and probably this new dongle should, hopefully, hasten the resolution for us here in the States (and possibly in the EU with the dongle...)

Reply Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:
2006-07-14

Tried going to the website to be met with a mysql error message.

They were using mysql to store the session data, and the table is corrupted.

Reply Score: 1

So what is it
by Bounty on Wed 17th Sep 2008 17:41 UTC
Bounty
Member since:
2006-09-18

Do you buy a copy, or do you buy a license/contract to access it? I know when I deal with Microsfot contracts, you actually sign real paper, with ink, black ink.. many times and you both get originals with real signatures on it. If clicking on "I Agree" was enough why wouldn't they just send me a link to a webpage? I click "I agree" for stuff on their website anyways. Not to mention all the poor bastards that installed Safari on their windows boxes. If we really are just licensing the software with a contract, why isn't there a self addressed envelope and contract documents in each box of software? It's not that expensive, and it would cement the status of the software being a license only. They want their cake and mine too. Either you go by contract law, or copyright not both. If you try to change the game from straight copyright, it should void all copyright protections you have.

Reply Score: 2

polaris20
Member since:
2005-07-06

It brings out all the armchair lawyers. =)

Reply Score: 3

Apple will find a way
by cmost on Wed 17th Sep 2008 22:03 UTC
cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

Apple isn't stupid. If the courts rule that Apple cannot in fact dictate what consumers do with legally purchased copies of the OSX operating system, then Apple will simply remove retail copies of their OS from store shelves. Simple; end of story. Apple sells retail copies of its OS as a courtesy to owners of Macintosh computers. Apple will simply implement a system whereby owners of Apple Macintosh computers receive updated copies of the OS directly from Apple. Alternately, Apple will incorporate a unique hardware device inside authentic Macintosh computers without which the OS refuses to install. In either case, hackers will find a way to circumvent the protections but ordinary consumers will be out of luck. If Apple does nothing, then it gets the chance to further saturate the market with OSX and increase its share of the desktop market (taking away from Windows.) With Windows Vista floundering in the marketplace, this is Apple's chance to show that it has a real alternative to Windows (sorry Ubuntu.) Considering the explosive popularity of iPhone and iPods, it wouldn't take much to convince users that Apple really is where it's at and people will switch to the OSX in droves.

Edited 2008-09-17 22:09 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Apple will find a way
by JoeBuck on Wed 17th Sep 2008 22:45 UTC in reply to "Apple will find a way"
JoeBuck Member since:
2006-01-11

If the courts rule that Apple's attempts to restrict people from running their purchased copy of Apple's OS on another machine violate the law (and I don't know if they will or not), it's likely that the kinds of technical workarounds you describe would also be considered illegal. If tying is illegal, then tricky technical hacks to implement tying would be illegal.

Reply Score: 2

in sweden
by Mellin on Wed 17th Sep 2008 23:17 UTC
Mellin
Member since:
2005-07-06

an EULA isn't a legally binding contract

Reply Score: 2

RE: in sweden
by frood on Thu 18th Sep 2008 00:48 UTC in reply to "in sweden"
frood Member since:
2005-07-06

an EULA isn't a legally binding contract


Then why do Swedish software products come with an EULA? (e.g. http://www.mondozer.com/Contents.asp?id=756)

Reply Score: 1

Why insist on this fuss?
by Traumflug on Thu 18th Sep 2008 12:27 UTC
Traumflug
Member since:
2008-05-22

Com'on, people. A hacked Mac is much less interesting than the real thing. Using a Mac isn't about having good productivity for the money, it's a lot about fashion. Hackintoshes are _not_ in fashion.

If you are about value in the form of "work done", don't discuss wether running Mac OS X on a generic PC is or is not legal - simply go a step further and head to your desktop Linux distro of choice. They've catched up a lot already and it's only a matter of time for them to be more advanced. More shiny, more productive, no (legal) hassles.


Traumflug

Reply Score: 1

RE: Why insist on this fuss?
by WereCatf on Thu 18th Sep 2008 12:55 UTC in reply to "Why insist on this fuss?"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

If you are about value in the form of "work done", don't discuss wether running Mac OS X on a generic PC is or is not legal

You make the assumption that people who don't agree to EULAs use OSX on non-Apple hardware. But well, atleast I don't. OSX is not such a wonderful OS that I'd be interested in using it on any of my x86 machines. I use it only on my PPC Mac, and there only because all the hardware isn't fully supported under Linux and the OSS flash-plugins are so buggy. So, no, I couldn't care less about hackintoshes. I do however care about EULA legality and I have stated the situation how it stands here in Finland. (Several people however seem to think that if EULAs are valid in their countries it must apply to every single country, including Finland. But well, that's their issue.)

Reply Score: 3

RE: Why insist on this fuss?
by polaris20 on Thu 18th Sep 2008 17:08 UTC in reply to "Why insist on this fuss?"
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

Com'on, people. A hacked Mac is much less interesting than the real thing. Using a Mac isn't about having good productivity for the money, it's a lot about fashion. Hackintoshes are _not_ in fashion.

If you are about value in the form of "work done", don't discuss wether running Mac OS X on a generic PC is or is not legal - simply go a step further and head to your desktop Linux distro of choice. They've catched up a lot already and it's only a matter of time for them to be more advanced. More shiny, more productive, no (legal) hassles.


Traumflug


Linux is nowhere near as trouble-free OS-wise as OS X is, in my experience.

You also can't run a lot of the same apps on them. And please don't start listing the open source copycats, because they're not the same, and they're not always as good.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Why insist on this fuss?
by cmost on Fri 19th Sep 2008 02:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Why insist on this fuss?"
cmost Member since:
2006-07-16

Linux is nowhere near as trouble-free OS-wise as OS X is, in my experience.

You also can't run a lot of the same apps on them. And please don't start listing the open source copycats, because they're not the same, and they're not always as good.


Have you considered that your problems with Linux just might be due to operator error?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Why insist on this fuss?
by polaris20 on Sat 20th Sep 2008 19:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why insist on this fuss?"
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

"Linux is nowhere near as trouble-free OS-wise as OS X is, in my experience.

You also can't run a lot of the same apps on them. And please don't start listing the open source copycats, because they're not the same, and they're not always as good.


Have you considered that your problems with Linux just might be due to operator error?
"

Right, if anyone ever has trouble with Linux, it's always operator error. :/

Nice try at a troll, but no. I manage a network of mixed SuSe/Ubuntu servers and clients, and the issues I've had (mostly with SuSe, actually) have nothing to do with "operator error".

Reply Score: 2

Sigh
by gan17 on Thu 18th Sep 2008 12:39 UTC
gan17
Member since:
2008-06-03

Sigh.... If only people invested this kind of money and time into improving GIMP and getting printer support and color management right in Linux.

Guess I'll have to continue using overpriced Macs for my photo work for some time. ;)

Reply Score: 1