Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 14th Jan 2009 10:16 UTC
Permalink for comment 343810
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2008-11-12
Again, most EULA's (that only prohibit) are meaningless, but the few licenses that grant extra permissions are important and valuable.
Oh. How... convenient. So everything in an EULA that limits your rights is meaningless, while everything that grants you rights is valid?
That is mostly true with the exception that you cannot violate copyright law -- you own the copy, but not the copyright. "
No it isn't. And it's also not what i was trying to say. What i DID mean is that: if software is sold but not licensed, EULAs are meaningless. BUT if software is licensed and not sold, then EULAs are very well binding contracts. Of course single clauses can be ruled out by a judge if they are deemed too restricting or plain illegal, but that won't touch the validity of the rest of the license.
Our beliefs have nothing to do with a judge's view of the facts of this case nor with what Psystar is attempting.
It appears that the law is plainly on Psystar's side. Of course, such a condition doesn't preclude the possibility that Apple's lawyers could pull off some absurd travesty of law/justice. "
Again: NO. The law is NOT clearly on the side of Psystar. It all comes down to the whole "is software sold or licensed" debate.