Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 20th May 2009 13:27 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems Hot on the heels of the Russians, we have another clone maker popping up, this time in fish & chips country: Freedom PC. "Powerful and versatile, environmentally friendly yet inexpensive computer systems compatible with any and all of the main operating systems: Mac OS X, Linux or Windows. So YOU can decide which one to use for what YOU want to do. And we give you a choice of models, too - from the low priced and good looking office machine, the ideal choice for business, to the high powered, sleek, gaming media centre. All, with the operating system of your choice pre-installed - or none at all - at prices accessible to all." They offer various models pre-installed with Windows, Linux, or Mac OS X.
Permalink for comment 364701
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by darknexus
by Gunderwo on Thu 21st May 2009 05:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by darknexus"
Gunderwo
Member since:
2006-01-03


How is their requirement to be loaded onto an Apple computer any different to say a vendor who offers an upgrade version of their software with the requirement that you're a licence holder of an older version or have installed a legally acquired older version before the install can continue?

Sure, you could go out right now, buy a copy of Windows Vista upgrade and bypass the upgrade checker - which can be done through installing once without a serial then running the installer again but this time putting in the serial thus the installer thinks there is an older version installed. Because you can do it - does it make it legal?

Microsoft requiring you to have installed an older version before an upgrade can occur - is that a violation of your 'rights'? by you demanding that one piece about 'install on Apple hardware taken away' - Apple's requirements are no different to the requirements made for upgrading and thus do you want the upgrade based licensed be dismissed as illegal as well?

How about their requirement that I must be a student or a non-commercial user to use a given piece of software? isn't that a violation of my rights to use the software as I see fit? after all, I did pay for the software so why the heck should the software vendor remotely care whether I am using it in a commercial environment?

If we're going to talk about 'I paid for it and I should be allowed to use it as I see fit' then I think you need to look at the run off effect of such a declaration and how it impacts on the EULA in its entirety.


I would suggest that each of the cases that you listed above would have to be looked at separately. While they may seem similar on the surface in that they all limit what you can do with the software after you buy it, there are also some very different circumstances to consider in all the above cases.

So any decision made in regards to not allowing a user to install a legitimately purchased, complete copy of Mac OS X on non Apple branded hardware would not be a precedent to throw out the rest of the EULA however similar they may seem on the surface. The other circumstances specific to each clause must be considered as well. Throwing out all such clauses because fault is found in one would be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I'm not going to argue one way or another on what is acceptable, that is for a judge to decide. But I would prefer to make it crystal clear that all of these issues are separate and the only issue being decided in the Apple vs. Psystar case is whether or not is acceptable to install a legally purchased, complete version of Mac OS X on non Apple hardware and then resell it. Bring up anything else is just a strawman argument.

Edited 2009-05-21 06:05 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2