Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 18:08 UTC, submitted by JayDee
Hardware, Embedded Systems As if selling non-Apple labelled computers with Mac OS X pre-installed and licensing the technology to do so to third parties wasn't enough, Psystar has now moved ahead and has started offering its Rebel EFI package for everyone to buy and use. It makes it possible for just about anyone to install Mac OS X on a non-Apple labelled computer.
Order by: Score:
good for developers
by secs on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 18:18 UTC
secs
Member since:
2009-10-22

Rebel EFI is built atop Psystar's Darwin Universal Bootloader, which allows you to install up to six different operating systems on six different hard drives. It supports Mac OS X Snow Leopard, Windows XP, Vista, and Windows 7, as well as various Linux distributions.


Controversy aside, it sounds like a good tool for developers.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by frood
by frood on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 18:18 UTC
frood
Member since:
2005-07-06

My biggest problem thus far is that there's doesn't seem to be a supported hardware list, and why would you spend USD 49 on something if you don't know if your machine is supported?

It would be good to get a hardware list, but the site does offer an evaluation copy to try.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by frood
by ebasconp on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 20:16 UTC in reply to "Comment by frood"
ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

The evaluation copy lets you try the thing by two hours.... so, hardly you can verify that everything is working properly in your environment in such time.

Reply Score: 2

v Pystar
by drcoldfoot on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 18:29 UTC
GPL
by Cytor on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 18:31 UTC
Cytor
Member since:
2005-07-08

would be interesting to know if any GPL code is involved, since it doesn't seem like they provide any sources.

Reply Score: 2

RE: GPL
by linumax on Sat 24th Oct 2009 00:14 UTC in reply to "GPL"
linumax Member since:
2007-02-07

Apparently it is based off of Chameleon.

Reply Score: 2

Install
by lefty78312 on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 18:32 UTC
lefty78312
Member since:
2005-10-18

Too bad OS-X can't be installed on machines with an AMD processor.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Install
by darknexus on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 18:35 UTC in reply to "Install"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Too bad OS-X can't be installed on machines with an AMD processor.


It can, just not with Rebel EFI. You need some kexts and a patched Darwin kernel, but you can do it.

Reply Score: 4

One thing's for sure
by darknexus on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 18:34 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

Whether you approve of what Psystar's doing or not, regardless of the legality, you have to respect them. These guys have got guts, and they don't seem to be afraid of anything or anyone in the legal department.

Reply Score: 6

RE: One thing's for sure
by ebasconp on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 20:18 UTC in reply to "One thing's for sure"
ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

Whether you approve of what Psystar's doing or not, regardless of the legality, you have to respect them. These guys have got guts, and they don't seem to be afraid of anything or anyone in the legal department.


Yes, about the guts, I fully agree with you... but about the ethics... these guys want to profit with someone else work!! bad, bad!

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: One thing's for sure
by FunkyELF on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 20:27 UTC in reply to "RE: One thing's for sure"
FunkyELF Member since:
2006-07-26

Yes, about the guts, I fully agree with you... but about the ethics... these guys want to profit with someone else work!! bad, bad!


No, they're profiting from their work. You buy OSX directly from Apple.

Reply Score: 9

RE[3]: One thing's for sure
by Tuishimi on Sat 24th Oct 2009 01:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: One thing's for sure"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

I think he might also be referring to Chameleon.

Reply Score: 2

Psystar is trash, why support them?
by mckill on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 19:02 UTC
mckill
Member since:
2007-06-12

their 'magical' boot loader is simply ripped off from the Chameleon hackintosh booter project which is free and being developed by the community, yet Psystar thinks they can license it to others for money and sell it to people?

i guess they also feel they can just sell hackintoshes legally too, so i'm not surprised.

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

They claim they developed it on their own. Do you really believe that after the EFI-X debacle, as well as being in court, as well being scrutinised by thousands of raving mad Apple fans, they would really risk violating an open source license?

Reply Score: 3

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Do you really believe that after the EFI-X debacle, as well as being in court, as well being scrutinised by thousands of raving mad Apple fans, they would really risk violating an open source license?


Why not? Legally, as of this moment, they're already violating Apple's license so why would any other licenses be safe from Psystar? Whether or not the clauses in Apple's eula are eventually ruled valid or not, at the moment what they are doing is technically illegal by the letter of the law. If they're willing to violate Apple's license, why not foss licenses too? I'm not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt here.

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Whether or not the clauses in Apple's eula are eventually ruled valid or not, at the moment what they are doing is technically illegal by the letter of the law.


No, it's not. Even IF it would be a breach of contract, it would not be illegal.

Reply Score: 2

Umm ... HUH?!
by mrhasbean on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 22:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Psystar is trash, why support them?"
mrhasbean Member since:
2006-04-03

"Whether or not the clauses in Apple's eula are eventually ruled valid or not, at the moment what they are doing is technically illegal by the letter of the law.


No, it's not. Even IF it would be a breach of contract, it would not be illegal.
"

Why is it called Contract Law then? If breaching a contract isn't breaking the law all contracts are invalid because there would be no recourse if you breached them. It isn't breaking CRIMINAL law, but it certainly IS breaking CIVIL law, which is why they are presently in court.

Does that spell it out simply enough for you to understand Thom?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Umm ... HUH?!
by cycoj on Sat 24th Oct 2009 05:40 UTC in reply to "Umm ... HUH?!"
cycoj Member since:
2007-11-04

"[q]Whether or not the clauses in Apple's eula are eventually ruled valid or not, at the moment what they are doing is technically illegal by the letter of the law.


No, it's not. Even IF it would be a breach of contract, it would not be illegal.
"

Why is it called Contract Law then? If breaching a contract isn't breaking the law all contracts are invalid because there would be no recourse if you breached them. It isn't breaking CRIMINAL law, but it certainly IS breaking CIVIL law, which is why they are presently in court.

Does that spell it out simply enough for you to understand Thom? [/q]

Actually if you break a contract you do not break contract law! That is a big difference. You could possibly break contract law by making a contract which is forbidden by contract law, but by breaking the contract you are not breaking contract law.

Your definition of illegal also goes counter to how the term is used everywhere. Next thing is you're telling me people are doing something illegal when they default on their mortgage payments, or when they allow their neighbours to use their wireless/broadband internet ... All these are breaking contracts not laws!

Reply Score: 4

Open/Free Source
by golimpio on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 19:31 UTC
golimpio
Member since:
2009-10-17

Psystar is selling a "product" that is available for free on various "hackintosh" communities.

If they are using free software to build their product and sell it (and there is a big chance that's true), it's really a shame.

Also, it's a sad news for the hackintosh community, probably Apple will make it more difficult to use their OS on non-Apple machines.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Open/Free Source
by VTPower on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 20:06 UTC in reply to "Open/Free Source"
VTPower Member since:
2007-04-06

If they are using free software to build their product and sell it (and there is a big chance that's true), it's really a shame.


Pystar has no respect for Apple's IP/Licensing. Why would anyone think they would respect an open source license/GPL??

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Open/Free Source
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 20:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Open/Free Source"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Pystar has no respect for Apple's IP/Licensing.


No respect? They are buying legal copies of Mac OS X, and they then resell those to their customers. I'm failing to see the not respecting part here.

I've done the same thing numerous times, as I'm sure a lot of Mac users have. Does this mean all those people have no respect for Apple's IP either? Or is Psystar magically special?

Copyright law applies to companies and individuals all the same, so if Psystar has no respect for Apple's IP, then it means that anybody who has ever resold a legal copy of Mac OS X does not respect Apple's IP either.

You see how idiotic that is?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Open/Free Source
by VTPower on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 20:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Open/Free Source"
VTPower Member since:
2007-04-06

No respect? They are buying legal copies of Mac OS X, and they then resell those to their customers. I'm failing to see the not respecting part here.


OMG! You must be kidding! Apple's license specifically states that the os can not be installed on any non apple hardware. Yet that is what pystar does. So yes, they do not respect apple's license.

Copyright law applies to companies and individuals all the same, so if Psystar has no respect for Apple's IP, then it means that anybody who has ever resold a legal copy of Mac OS X does not respect Apple's IP either.

You're completely off in left field now. You're mixing two different scenarios to try and justify your position. It's obvious your a pystar supporter but it's also obvious you lack any knowledge of existing ip/licensing law.

Edited 2009-10-23 20:26 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Open/Free Source
by merkoth on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 20:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Open/Free Source"
merkoth Member since:
2006-09-22

Pardon my ignorance, but I can't help but notice that most people seem to be unable to put an S after a P, consistently writing Pystar. Or maybe I'm missing some sort of joke / insult?

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Open/Free Source
by obsidian on Sat 24th Oct 2009 05:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Open/Free Source"
obsidian Member since:
2007-05-12


(snip)
Apple's license specifically states that the os can not be installed on any non apple hardware.
(snip)

Interesting...

That's like saying that if I buy a car from Apple(tm) Motor Co, I can only drive it on Apple(tm) roads and fill it with Apple(tm) gas.
Sheesh - what a draconian license.

This reminds me of the "DVD Jon" scenario, where (iirc) he bought a DVD and couldn't play it on his Linux box, so he tinkered away until he could.
He won that legal battle, and I'm sure that a legal case could be won against this clause.

If I were a lawyer, I would love to challenge that clause in court. Apple might have it in their license, but I wouldn't mind betting that it is unenforceable.

If I buy a legal copy of the OS, I should be able to install it on whatever I want - my PC, toaster or clothes-dryer.

There must be a section of law which covers this area.
"Restraint of trade" probably isn't quite the one, but that's what I'm getting at - the freedom to use a legally-purchased product in whatever way you see fit.

If I bought Apple's software (completely legally), but got my hardware from elsewhere, what business is it of Apples?

Edited 2009-10-24 05:57 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Failing or choosing not to?
by mrhasbean on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 23:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Open/Free Source"
mrhasbean Member since:
2006-04-03

No respect? They are buying legal copies of Mac OS X, and they then resell those to their customers. I'm failing to see the not respecting part here.


For starters your summary of what they are doing is incorrect. They are indeed "buying legal copies of Mac OS X" and then yes they also "resell those to their customers", but it's the bit in the middle that you CHOOSE to overlook.

Maybe in Pixicornland where you reside most of the time Thom you can claim that "I didn't sign anything therefore that agreement that I clicked the AGREE button for is invalid" but in the real world those sorts of agreements are presented all the time, and people opt in to agreements like that millions of times every single day. They are the base on which a significant portion of online business is conducted.

It just so happens that Apple's agreement contains a clause that says the product can only be installed on an Apple branded machine. Now unless that clause is successfully challenged it is part of a contract that Pystar (and anybody else) agrees to whenever they install OSX on a machine. So at that point, if they proceed, they are immediately in breach of civil contract law if the machine they are installing on isn't an Apple branded machine.

Breaching a contract that you have agreed to, just because you don't like one of the clauses, without successfully challenging that clause, is the height of disrespect, whether you choose to see it or not...

Reply Score: 6

RE: Failing or choosing not to?
by haydenm on Sun 25th Oct 2009 05:05 UTC in reply to "Failing or choosing not to?"
haydenm Member since:
2006-10-29

Isn't this what the Apple/Psystar case is trying to resolve?

Right now everyone has their own opinion or interpretation of this area of law, when and only when we see the verdict we can start pointing fingers and saying "you were wrong mrhasbeen."

Reply Score: 1

RE: Failing or choosing not to?
by mat69 on Mon 26th Oct 2009 18:12 UTC in reply to "Failing or choosing not to?"
mat69 Member since:
2006-03-29

Any written contract is based on that people can read and agree on it _before_ buying something. Just calling something "contract" does not make it a contract.

Lately I see messages like "When buying this you agree on the license on the CD in the box." and that is plain rubbish and void, at least where I live.

If you were presnted with the license beforehand it would be different, yet that does not mean that the restrictions imposed would hold (depending on the country in fact).

The above is roughly valid (I'm not a lawyer) for consumers where I live, companies aren't guareded that much.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Open/Free Source
by golimpio on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 20:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Open/Free Source"
golimpio Member since:
2009-10-17

"Pystar has no respect for Apple's IP/Licensing. Why would anyone think they would respect an open source license/GPL??
"

Good point.

Anyway, I'll wait to make sure they are not making unappropriated use of open source software. I'm a developer and I contribute to open source communities. I can't support Psystar.

Edited 2009-10-23 20:27 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Open/Free Source
by nimble on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 20:07 UTC in reply to "Open/Free Source"
nimble Member since:
2005-07-06

Depends on the license on the "hackintosh" stuff, doesn't it? If it's BSD or similar, there are no grounds for complaint if a company repackages it and sells it as closed source.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Open/Free Source
by phoenix on Mon 26th Oct 2009 01:42 UTC in reply to "Open/Free Source"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Psystar is selling a "product" that is available for free on various "hackintosh" communities.

If they are using free software to build their product and sell it (and there is a big chance that's true), it's really a shame.


Why is it a shame to sell an open-source product? Just because the source is open doesn't mean the product has to be free. Or are you going to turn around and rail against Juniper Network for selling FreeBSD inside their routers? Or against CrossOver for selling WINE? Or even against Microsoft for selling OpenBSD (SFU is based on OpenBSD)?

Reply Score: 2

Deja vu (sorta)
by MissinBeOS on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 19:34 UTC
MissinBeOS
Member since:
2006-10-20

Anyone else remember the heady days of the PowerPC clones from PowerComputing? I loved their ads -- even the last one showing the guy pulled over by the police for speeding -- a last slap at Apple for not renewing their cloning license.

Regardless ... I'm not sure what the legality of this is, but it sounds like a very cool way to install a purchased copy of OS X onto a number of different machines.

I hope they don't get squashed like a corporate bug for this. You have to admire their sheer chutzpah ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Deja vu (sorta)
by golimpio on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 19:44 UTC in reply to "Deja vu (sorta)"
golimpio Member since:
2009-10-17

I'm only going to admire them when they distribute their software as an open source project. That will be a really positive attitude.

For now, I see a company that wants to make money from the hard work of others.

Edited 2009-10-23 19:46 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Deja vu (sorta)
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 19:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Deja vu (sorta)"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

For now, I see a company that wants to make money from the hard work of others.


Proof please?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Deja vu (sorta)
by golimpio on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 20:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Deja vu (sorta)"
golimpio Member since:
2009-10-17

Sorry I didn't make it clear...It's only my opinion, of course I can't prove anything without disassembling their program and compare with Boot-132, Chameleon, etc...

But, looking at their boot loader screenshot, it very, very similar to Boot-132, Chameleon.

People have been working in those free boot loaders since 2005. There is a big community working on it for free and to keep it free.

Of course there is work from Psystar on it, but the base of their software just looks very familiar.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Deja vu (sorta)
by Cytor on Sat 24th Oct 2009 11:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Deja vu (sorta)"
Cytor Member since:
2005-07-08

I'm sure someone will look into this very soon. See netkas' latest comment: http://netkas.org/?p=294
(he developed PC-EFI)

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Deja vu (sorta)
by golimpio on Sat 24th Oct 2009 16:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Deja vu (sorta)"
golimpio Member since:
2009-10-17

I'm sure someone will look into this very soon. See netkas' latest comment: http://netkas.org/?p=294
(he developed PC-EFI)


Yes...a very short comment, but precise: "Parasites"

Reply Score: 1

I like what I see...
by looncraz on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 19:50 UTC
looncraz
Member since:
2005-07-24

I'm going to download this thing and try it out. If I like it, worky or not, I'm buying it.

Not because I like MacOS X ( I don't really like it all that much, I find it to be incredibly slow with terrible graphics & fonts ), but because I can finally support Psystar in a real way that is worthwhile and affordable.

I'm only $7.99 short...

--The loon

Reply Score: 4

RE: I like what I see...
by twitterfire on Sat 24th Oct 2009 19:04 UTC in reply to "I like what I see..."
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

That's exactly what I'm going to do. I don't have a particularly big fan of Os X, but man, you got to love what Psystar is doing.

Reply Score: 1

Legal mumbo jumpbo
by jefro on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 20:24 UTC
jefro
Member since:
2007-04-13

I just don't get this whole Apple deal. This is like saying I can only run Mobil gas in my car or saying I can only use Firestone tires. I know that's not legal. I am buying the OS not some phoney lease agreement that says I can't save money or make an choice. This is worse than the Government.

We all know Apple can't be selling their OS for $49 (or less) and making a profit. So they are actually loosing money on the OS so they can sell you a $2000 system. I know that's not legal.

Reply Score: 0

Hilarious
by alcibiades on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 20:46 UTC
alcibiades
Member since:
2005-10-12

Psystar must be a great place to work. Something new every day, management with a wonderful sense of humor, and with a sort of Monty Python, in your face, approach to business. If you were 25, you could do a lot worse than apply for a job there. It would certainly be an experience! You'd always show up for work in the morning with a sort of tingle of anticipation, what on earth were they going to do today?

Reply Score: 1

Some thoughts...
by Mage66 on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 21:53 UTC
Mage66
Member since:
2005-07-11

I'm sure that it's likely that this product contains open source components. But, they aren't easy to use. It aseems like the Hackintosh enthusiasts like having the installs be as difficult and arcane as possible.

If this product makes the installs dead-easy, they respond to tech support requests, and add to the drivers available for OS X... I think this would be worth the money.

I don't have a problem paying $49.95 if they have made installation easier, provide ongoing support and updates, and develop drivers.

I would also consider a portion of the price going to support the legal costs in the lawsuit.

I think a real Apple manufactured computer is the best hardware platform to run MacOS X on. I love my Core 2 Duo Mini. But, I'd also love to run MacOS X on a Netbook, or low cost laptop until I can afford a Macbook Air, or Macbook.

The purpose of this product is to get funding for the legal battle, and to prove that MacOS X can run on non-Apple hardware. It's only Apple's purposeful action of tying MacOS X to their own hardware that keeps it from running on identical generic Intel systems.

Imagine if Microsoft had tied DOS and Windows to only run on Microsoft branded hardware, or OS/2 only ran on PS/2 computers.

I see Apple's P.O.V., but I'm just not wealthy enough to buy the Apple system equivalent to the Generic system I could build for $800 - $1000.

I bought Tiger, Leopard and Snow Leopard at retail, besides the copies that came with my Mini. I should be able to run them on hardware I own. If Apple won't support MacOS X on non-Apple hardware, that's fine. I bought the Mini to have a supported system.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Some thoughts...
by golimpio on Sat 24th Oct 2009 01:41 UTC in reply to "Some thoughts..."
golimpio Member since:
2009-10-17

I'm sure that it's likely that this product contains open source components. But, they aren't easy to use. It aseems like the Hackintosh enthusiasts like having the installs be as difficult and arcane as possible.

If this product makes the installs dead-easy, they respond to tech support requests, and add to the drivers available for OS X... I think this would be worth the money.

I don't have a problem paying $49.95 if they have made installation easier, provide ongoing support and updates, and develop drivers.


That's not wrong in improve an open source software and make money with it.

It's not about the money, it's about ethic. There are people working hard (and for free) to make it possible to install a MacOSX in any PC. If companies like Psystar use their software, they must give them credit.

If they are using GPL software, they must make the source code available for download.

Psystar is not the first one, EFi-x apparently did the same (it was reported by tom's hardware).

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Some thoughts...
by Ed W. Cogburn on Sun 25th Oct 2009 05:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Some thoughts..."
Ed W. Cogburn Member since:
2009-07-24

If they are using GPL software, they must make the source code available for download.


netkas didn't use the GPL. It looks to me like his license is being violated, but this case has nothing to do with the GPL or with source code.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Some thoughts...
by alcibiades on Sat 24th Oct 2009 07:43 UTC in reply to "Some thoughts..."
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

This point of view, the limited hardware range issue in general, not just on price, is quite common. It comes up almost at once when people ask you whether they should consider a Mac. They mostly have a perfectly usable screen which they would quite like to reuse.

What comes next is usually one of two things. Sometimes they talk about physical size. They would like something smaller. Shuttle type boxes seem to be quite attractive. At this point I usually end up pointing out they can get a Mini, but its horrendously expensive for what you are getting in hardware performance terms, and they flinch. These are not jacket pocket guys, they are neat on the desk, or occasional drop into a holdall guys. Or gals.

The other thing that comes up is price. Their price point is low numbers of hundreds of Euros. They have seen stuff in the shops or on the net, it looks to them like you pay 500 or so, and you get a nice big fast box. What do you have in the Apple range at that point? That's what they ask. And the answer is, well, err...

I think a lot of the hackintosh impetus would go away if Apple found some way of letting the so called X-Mac loose. Of course the problem is it would cut a lot of the ground from under the Pros. But at some point it may be inevitable.

Reply Score: 2

OS X "tie-in" to Apple hardware
by obsidian on Sat 24th Oct 2009 10:11 UTC
obsidian
Member since:
2007-05-12

As readers will remember, not long ago Microsoft were strongly condemned for their "tie-in" (integration) of I.E. with Windows.

Ok, so now we have Apple selling OS X, and it has a license that *compels* the user to only run it on Apple machines. Surely, that is tie-in? The illegal restriction of user choice?

What's the difference between that and the MS situation? Is there a difference?

Edited 2009-10-24 10:18 UTC

Reply Score: 2

alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

Yes, there is a significant difference, many of them.

The issue with OSX is

(1) whether you are violating copyright to install it on the 'wrong' computer


(2) whether the EULA clause which prohibits that is enforceable.

(3) and, in the USA, whether, if it is enforceable, to break it and then use the software is a copyright violation.


The cases are Vernor vs Autocad, Blizzard vs MDY, Softman. Read each of them, including the groklaw account of Blizzard, and you will understand the issues.

The issue with IE is whether, given that you have dominant market share in the OS market, you may bundle a piece of applications software you have made, while refusing to bundle competitive applications software from other vendors.

So, for instance, could you bundle an MS word processor while refusing to bundle also Open Office. Or, do you have to treat all applications in the same way? So if you bundle IE, also bundle Firefox and Opera. If you bundle Word, at no extra price, also bundle OO Writer and so on. Or, another way, allow the user to choose which to take at first startup.

You can see that these are not the same thing at all.

Reply Score: 2

obsidian Member since:
2007-05-12

Yes, there is a significant difference, many of them.

The issue with OSX is

(1) whether you are violating copyright to install it on the 'wrong' computer

(2) whether the EULA clause which prohibits that is enforceable.

(3) and, in the USA, whether, if it is enforceable, to break it and then use the software is a copyright violation.


The cases are Vernor vs Autocad, Blizzard vs MDY, Softman. Read each of them, including the groklaw account of Blizzard, and you will understand the issues.
(snip)

You can see that these are not the same thing at all.

Ahh... Very many thanks - that was a very good summary of the differences!

Reply Score: 2

clueless
by Abstract on Sat 24th Oct 2009 17:47 UTC
Abstract
Member since:
2009-10-24

You people are not even realizing the larger picture.
Only thing wrong with the EULA is the time in which it is presented, and the manner in which it is presented.
Only valid argument concerning the EULA. What do I mean by that? The end user purchases the license before being presented with the conditions and what they need to agree to.
But if you think its alright to ignore it, and if Psystar for some strange reason wins, all License Agreements presented in the same manner go right out the window, including the GPL.

All these car analogies don't really work. Think of it like this, its common knowledge that breaking into your neighbor's house and stealing their property is illegal, yet I doubt many of us have actually sat down and read your states penal code / law book.

The better analogy is a ski resort, I will use tahoe for this example. All of the ski resorts in tahoe with the exception of a few are all on state park property, so the land itself belongs to the people. You buy a season pass to be able to use the lift for quick access / travel to the top of the mountain. Now that pass is only good for the individual who buys it. If you give your pass to your friend to use, you violate the agreement with the ski resort, cause they issued it to you. Just because you purchased it, doesn't mean you can ignore the agreement.
Same thing with Apple and MacOSX you are not buying the copy of OSX, you are buying a license to use OSX.
You can spin it anyway you like, it maybe wrong in your eyes, but that is the truth of the matter.

But like the tools most of you are, fail to see the larger picture, lets say Apple does allow clones again, the cost of OSX would go up greatly (which is the main reason clones were killed off, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maIgu_7oLm0 ), which would result in more pirating of it, which is loss of revenue for Apple, which also cuts into R&D, etc..
So this OS that most of you are crying about that you want to use on low end hardware, might actually disappear or Apple might have to go the route of Microsoft with Activation Keys, and other nonsense, which would degrade the user experience which is one of the main aspects of OSX that has you wanting to use it in the first place.

So if you want to see the demise of OSX why even cry about using it on low end hardware to begin with?

Reply Score: 2

RE: clueless
by phoenix on Mon 26th Oct 2009 01:50 UTC in reply to "clueless"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

But if you think its alright to ignore it, and if Psystar for some strange reason wins, all License Agreements presented in the same manner go right out the window, including the GPL.


Except that the GPL is not and end-user license. It's a distribution license. The terms of the GPL only come into play when you distribute the source/app/binary/project/etc to someone.

Same thing with Apple and MacOSX you are not buying the copy of OSX, you are buying a license to use OSX.


Several US courts seem to disagree, in that you do buy that specific copy of software.

Reply Score: 2

double post FTW
by Abstract on Sat 24th Oct 2009 18:19 UTC
Abstract
Member since:
2009-10-24

tried to edit my original post, but i guess i missed the window.

Further comment on EULA and License Agreements in general:
I have never open the packaging Mac OSX came in, inserted the disc read the License Agreement, and been like "no, i don't agree to that" and bring it back to where i purchased it and asked for a refund since i don't agree to the License Agreement. Which is one of the things I mean when i say the issue is with how the EULA is presented and when. So I do not know if the reseller would refund your money or not.

Further comment on the car analogies.
The car analogy would only be valid on Apple hardware, which apple does not restrict you in the use of it in anyway. You do not have to run OSX on apple hardware, you can run any OS and/or software you want on their hardware, which is the "can only use gas made by the car manufacture or drive only on the roads made by the same people who made your car" would even be valid. Apple gives you BootCamp to run other OSes on their hardware.
So again this is the Software License, that you are disputing, and I will say it once more, you do not own the OS, you license it, and therefore you are bound by that License in the manner in which Apple allows you to use it. If you do not agree to the terms and conditions of that License Agreement, then do not purchase it.

Edited 2009-10-24 18:20 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: double post FTW
by alcibiades on Sun 25th Oct 2009 07:18 UTC in reply to "double post FTW"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

No, its not just about how its presented. There are contractual clauses that have been presented in the right way and executed in the right way that are nevertheless not enforceable.

For instance, they breach consumer protection laws, or trading standards, or competition legislation, or (and this is probably a killer for this clause in the UK) they seek unlawfully to retrospectively modify the terms of a previous completed contract, ie the sale.

EULA clauses in general may be valid or not, it depends entirely on the clause. If they are valid contractual clauses, that is because they would be valid no matter if they were executed in a EULA or in some other way. If they are not valid, they would not be valid even if sworn before a notary public after reading every word aloud.

By the way, the only scenario in which breaking a EULA clause is 'illegal' is in the US, if Blizzard holds up to appeal. If it does not, and every place else in the world regardless, you have done nothing illegal, you have just placed yourself in breach of contract, and can be sued for damages by the person with whom you have entered into the contract. Its not illegal.

Reply Score: 2

USB Sound Dongle
by linker3000 on Mon 26th Oct 2009 01:44 UTC
linker3000
Member since:
2009-10-03

Wow, see the ad on the Psystar page for USB sound dongles at $19.99ea!?

I wonder how these would stack up to the ones I have just purchased off eBay for TWO UKP each, including postage.

There's mark-up and there's taking he pee.....

Reply Score: 1