Linked by Anton Klotz on Fri 25th Jan 2008 13:14 UTC
This article is about new aspects of the never-ending story of how Apple is protecting MacOS X for running on different hardware than Apple's. The keyword is virtualization, which allows running unmodified version of Mac OS X as virtualized instance.
Permalink for comment 297789
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-13
Apples and oranges, as it were. EULA's generally attempt to control how software is used, wheras OSS licenses generally attempt to control how software is distributed only and assert no control over how an individual uses it.
OSS licenses rely on the power of existing copyright law, which already deals with distribution, and at the very least the GPL, for one, has been found legally valid within the EU.
The problem with EULA's is two-fold: In many cases they are trying to enforce restrictions against privileges users may already have by law within their jurisdiction (ie. the ability to reverse-engineer, fair-use provisions for copying media, etc.) which would generally invalidate those provisions, and the second problem is the question of enforcing click-through or break-the-seal as a valid form of contractual agreement.
So EULA's are not necessarily illegal per se, but often the provisions they try to enforce or the manner in which users are forced to accept the terms, are.