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 352330
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Uhm...
by rhavyn on Mon 9th Mar 2009 20:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Uhm..."
rhavyn
Member since:
2005-07-06

I see you don't understand open source. Let me make it simple.

Open source licenses: grants rights on a copyrighted work that you would not have under copyright law.

EULAs: take rights away on a copyrighted work that you would have under copyright law.

That's an enormous difference. By law, consumers are granted rights. Apple takes these rights away for the sole purpose of harming consumers by limiting choice and advancing lock-in.

This is in NO WAY comparable to GPL lawsuits.


I understand open source quite well thank you very much. You, however, are purposefully avoiding the point of what I wrote.

Whether the license grants or removes rights is completely immaterial, the concept is respecting the license. If you feel that you have a right to infringe on Apple license, regardless of the reason, then you should have no qualms about someone else infringing on the GPL, regardless of the reason.

I can assure you that Linksys feels that their inability to distribute a modified Linux without releasing the source is just as detrimental to them as your inability to install OS X on whatever machines you want to.

Seriously, the fact that you can rationalize a difference between the two says much more about your understanding of open source and respecting software developers than it does mine.

Finally, you're going to have to do a lot more than simply state that Apple's EULA in some way harms consumers. I'm afraid that your opinion carries no weight with me or many other people on this planet. Such comments sound more like hyperbole attempting to appeal to fear than a rational, coherent argument.

Reply Parent Score: 4