Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 21st Sep 2009 08:44 UTC, submitted by Cytor
Hardware, Embedded Systems There are several options out there if you wan to run Mac OS X on your non-Apple labelled computer, but one of them appears to be in serious trouble. It has been uncovered that the EFI-X module is nothing more than a USB stick with a DRM chip, with code from the hackintosh community on it - without attribution. On top of that, its firmware update utility uses LGPL code - again, without attribution.
Permalink for comment 385213
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Contracts, Sales and Licenses
by The1stImmortal on Mon 21st Sep 2009 12:58 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by lurch_mojoff"
The1stImmortal
Member since:
2005-10-20

IANAL of course, and I'm also from Australia rather than the US where all these legal games tend to be played, but given what scraps I've picked up over the years, I see it this way (be warned, it's late and I'm trying to force my brain to express concepts it doesn't fully understand!):

Whether it's a cut-and-dried contract or not seems to depend not only on the wording used, but on the type of sale. If someone (legally) buys a product, sold with the intention of people using it, there's somewhat of a presumption that the person should be able to use it. The license would just be codifying and refining that presumption in terms of copyright law.

Most commercial EULAs (or whatever they are called for a given product) include a severability clause. Why? Because it's possible for a court (or government agency in some cases) to rule that a given provision in a license is unfair or unenforceable, and software developers and users still want the license to apply otherwise. (I'm not sure if this applies to Apple license but I'd expect so)

It's entirely possible that at some point it may be ruled that the restriction in the OSX license against running the software on non-Apple PCs is in conflict with the implied terms of sale of the product originally, or that it's unfair, or that it's illegal. In those cases they may be overridden. The rest of the license stands to continue to allow use. On the other hand, it may be found perfectly fair and legit. That's for lawyers to fight out, we will probably never have a say in that one.

Interestingly - the GPL doesn't have a severability clause - the opposite. It says, essentially, that if anything's not able to be adhered to, then there is no license! (or rather, strictly speaking, there's no right to distribute.) Since most GPL software is distributed (or at least available somewhere) for free or near-zero cost, and is generally freely useable, then the sale type issue may not be as important.

Anyway - I hope that made sense somehow ;) I'm off to bed!

Reply Parent Score: 2