Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 14th Nov 2009 22:32 UTC
Legal As Murphy's Law dictates, this news was destined to come while I'm down and out with the flu, while being miserable on the couch. Dragged my bum to the computer for this one (my iPhone alerted me, oh the irony): Apple has scored a major win in its case against Psystar. Judge William Alsup more or less agreed with just about everything Apple said, granting Apple's motion for a summary judgement. Instant update: Mind, though, that this ruling only covers Leopard. Snow Leopard will be handled in the Florida case.
Permalink for comment 394897
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
hypocritical much?
by Abstract on Mon 16th Nov 2009 08:20 UTC
Abstract
Member since:
2009-10-24

Incoming TLDR.

Going to address a few things in this post, but first I would like to reply to Thom.

First off I agree an EULA is not a License, but is an agreement to the License of the software. I have stated this in prior posts on similar topics. You do not own Mac OSX in of itself you own a license to use the software. Just because software is distributed on a physical medium as to virtual / downloaded does not make the software yours. Yes you may resell the license, but Mac OSX belongs to Apple.

Secondly, by your own admission you have stated you own multiple Apple Macintoshes, As before I have stated that what is called into question is the manner in which the EULA is presented, it should be done prior to the sale, but even still you are familiar with the content, terms and conditions of Apple's EULA from your first Apple Macinoths unless you blindly click "Accept". As the saying goes "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" so if you felt so strongly against the terms and conditions of the EULA why would you purchase a second Apple Macintosh?

Now lets discuss your only valid point, which is the actual presentation of the EULA, and how does this concern GPL?
GPL code does not present the user with its license either, and in most cases it is only mention in comments at the top of a source file, and usually it is not even the full GPL but just a statement that the code is under GPL and a link to the GPL. So how is that any better then presenting a user with an EULA after they have removed the shrink wrap and open the packaging? Also how would the GPL be valid if I never physically signed a contract or document stating I agree to the terms and conditions of the License?
Or are we just going to keep playing word games and debate semantics?

Its funny how GPL extremists are quick to call people that defend Apple "Zealots", yet they do the same for the GPL, hypocritical much?

GPL is probably by far the most RESTRICTIVE license associated with Open Source Software, yes they do not limit the platform in which you can use it on, but they do limit how you can use it, so what really is the difference? A restriction is a restriction regardless of how you are restricted.
Besides if the GPL was the best and most wonderful license for Open Source Software why do most prefer Apache's and/or a BSD derived license instead?

Technology is evolving at such a rapid rate that school's curriculums can not even really keep up, so the laws & courts which are bogged down with bureaucracy are even further behind. So we'll just exploit things until they do catch up?

If having to sign a physical document is the only way for any "Agreement" to a License is binding and valid then so be it, but common sense will tell you that is just an unnecessary step imo, and wastes time.

@lemur2

You are going to have to try to explain this somehow. The GPL allows for collaboration. It is responsible for the creation of billions of dollars worth of software that everyone on the planet can use for no cost.


How is something that is free / no cost have profits of billions? Or did you mean the solutions and support that incorporate GPL'd software / code has helped companies and individulas generate billions of dollars in revenue?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_software
"A report by Standish Group states that adoption of open source software models has resulted in savings of about $60 billion per year to consumers."


All Open Source Software is not GPL.
Saving billions by not having to purchase software because there are free / no cost alternatives is not the same as generating billions.

I voted it down because it was inaccurate. Utterly wrong, in fact.


again, hypocritical much?

Edited 2009-11-16 08:24 UTC

Reply Score: 0