Linked by Nescio on Mon 9th Mar 2009 08:05 UTC
Apple Numerous irrelevant issues and feelings about them are ventilated in comments on the case. However, there are only two important issues. One is what the law is, the other is what we think the law should be.
Permalink for comment 352310
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Uhm...
by rhavyn on Mon 9th Mar 2009 18:25 UTC in reply to "Uhm..."
rhavyn
Member since:
2005-07-06

I have one question for all the Apple people in here:

Why on EARTH are you guys defending Apple? Would you do the same for Microsoft Office and its EULA that says it may only be installed on Windows? would you support Microsoft if they sued a retailer who sells Linux machines with legal copies of Office pre-installed through WINE?

Seriously, I have no idea why you would defend a company that is trying to limit your rights in such an unreasonable manner. It's truly beyond me.


Perhaps because we don't think it's unreasonable? And yes, I would support Microsoft in enforcing their EULA too. If you don't like the terms you need to agree to, don't use the product, it's really simple.

Seriously, I have no idea why the people not defending Apple think you have the right to ignore the terms under which a manufacturer licenses and distributes their products. You have no right to Apple's software, or Microsoft's or any other companies.

Otherwise, I hope to see all kinds of articles on here about how the Linux developers should just ignore the, for example, ZFS and Dtrace licenses, and just include them in Linux. Because, you know, it's just not fair that Sun isn't providing their software under the license that the Linux folks would prefer.

Do you disagree with the lawsuits against Linksys failing to honor the GPL? Because your line of reasoning seems to say that Linksys has every right to ignore the GPL since it is inconvenient to them.

Reply Parent Score: 3