Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 13th Jun 2009 11:13 UTC
Legal We've got some news in the Apple vs. Psystar tragedy that's been unfolding before our eyes for months now. We all know the gist: Psystar sells machines with Mac OS X pre-installed, while the EULA states that's not allowed. Apple then took this stuff to court, and in the meantime, Psystar went into Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection. The news today is that Apple has filed a complaint stating that this Chapter 11 thing is just a shield that allows Psystar to continue its business practices, which Apple deems as illegal.
Permalink for comment 368395
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Psystar Has Its Own EULA
by Governa on Sat 13th Jun 2009 11:46 UTC
Governa
Member since:
2006-04-09

To be fair, before complaining about Apple's EULA, maybe we should also take a close look at Psystar's own EULA. PJ’s/Groklaw skill at dismantling the “open source freedom fighter” myth that has grown around the very few Psystar supporters is superb. Some of the most interesting bits:

(...) What about trademarks? Psystar keeps those all for itself, revealing themselves as lovers of IP rights in all their forms, so long as Psystar is the beneficiary:

10. Trademarks. This License does not grant any rights to use the trademarks or trade names “Psystar”, “Psystar Corporation”, “Open Computer”, “OpenPro”, “Open Computing”, “OpenServ” or any other trademarks, service marks, logos or trade names belonging to Psystar (collectively “Psystar Marks”) or to any trademark, service mark, logo or trade name belonging to any Contributor. You agree not to use any Psystar Marks in or as part of the name of products derived from the Original Code or to endorse or promote products derived from the Original Code other than as expressly permitted by and in strict compliance at all times with Psystar’s third party trademark usage guidelines which are posted at http://www.psystar.com/legal/guidelinesfor3rdparties.html.

So, let me get this straight. They can sell stuff using Apple’s trademarks, and yours, but woe betide us if we use Psystar’s? Anybody note an imbalance in the universe here? But I saved the best for last:

11. Ownership. Subject to the licenses granted under this License, each Contributor retains all rights, title and interest in and to any Modifications made by such Contributor. Psystar retains all rights, title and interest in and to the Original Code and any Modifications made by or on behalf of Psystar (”Psystar Modifications”), and such Psystar Modifications will not be automatically subject to this License. Psystar may, at its sole discretion, choose to license such Psystar Modifications under this License, or on different terms from those contained in this License or may choose not to license them at all….

Well, well. You gave them rights, but when it’s their turn, it’s maybe they will, and maybe they won’t. They might not license their stuff at all? And *Apple* is a meanie because it has license terms? Puh lease.

And one last cherry on top, Exhibit A, includes this term:


This file contains Original Code and/or Modifications of Original Code as defined in and that are subject to the Psystar Public License Version 1.0 (the ‘License’). You may not use this file except in compliance with the License. Please obtain a copy of the License at http://www.psystar.com/opensource/ppl/ and read it before using this file.

You have to comply with Psystar’s license or you can’t use the code, even if you didn’t say I agree? Well, I declare.

Psystar is promoting Open Source “in every way possible?” That’s what they told us [Google the license by name], before they revamped their web site.

And Psystar is fighting to prove EULAs are from the devil?

I think not, m’lords.

That flushing sound you hear is any last remaining vestige of Psystar’s credibility going down the toilet
(...)

- Groklaw's full article : http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081204231414746
- Psystar Public Licence : http://psystar.com/opensource/ppl/

Regarding Thom's article, I do agree that Apple's motion makes a whole lot of sense.

Edited 2009-06-13 12:04 UTC

Reply Score: 7