Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 25th Apr 2008 15:01 UTC
Legal When PsyStar announced they would be offering their own Macintosch clone, pre-installed with Apple's Mac OS X Leopard, they opened up a whole can of worms. Despite the fact that the company itself was shrouded in mystery and dubiousness, the possible implications of their actions sparkled an interesting debate here on OSNews as well as other discussion venues: can PsyStar and its users just discard Apple's End User License Agreement for Leopard? Instead of relying on my own limited layman's understanding of Dutch Common Law, I decided to contact Dutch legal experts, and ask for their opinions on Apple's EULA, and EULAs in general.
Permalink for comment 311840
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by dmantione on Tue 29th Apr 2008 06:27 UTC
Member since:

An EULA might be a valid legal agreement, however, that does not mean the principle "licensed, not sold" mean.

Purchasing software in a store is a purchasing agreement "koopovereenkomst", as meant by the "Burgerlijk Wetboek". If your invoice (legal proof of the "koopovereenkomst") states you bought a MS Office, you have bought (a copy of) MS Office, and not a right to use MS Office.

The findings of the Finish court are not contradictory to what has been written in this article. I'm confident a Dutch court can rule the same, and I'm condifident conditions on the use of software can be made in Finland.

Reply Score: 1