Linked by Anton Klotz on Fri 25th Jan 2008 13:14 UTC
This article is about new aspects of the never-ending story of how Apple is protecting MacOS X for running on different hardware than Apple's. The keyword is virtualization, which allows running unmodified version of Mac OS X as virtualized instance.
Thread beginning with comment 297789
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Whats the big deal ?
by pxa270 on Fri 25th Jan 2008 15:11
in reply to "RE[2]: Whats the big deal ?"
Member since:2006-01-08
You're pretty much dead on. What many people keep missing is that distribution licenses like the GPL don't really need to be "tested in court", in contrast to user licenses.
If you distribute GPL software without complying to its terms, the authors simply sues you for copyright violation. The GPL doesn't even come into play. Unless you as the violator invoke it, in which case you're left to argue that somehow the GPL gives you distribution rights even if you don't agree to its terms.
RE[4]: Whats the big deal ?
by hobgoblin on Fri 25th Jan 2008 15:25
in reply to "RE[3]: Whats the big deal ?"
Member since:2005-07-06
RE[3]: Whats the big deal ?
by Stephen! on Fri 25th Jan 2008 20:53
in reply to "RE[2]: Whats the big deal ?"
Member since:2007-11-24
Member since:
2005-07-13
Apples and oranges, as it were. EULA's generally attempt to control how software is used, wheras OSS licenses generally attempt to control how software is distributed only and assert no control over how an individual uses it.
OSS licenses rely on the power of existing copyright law, which already deals with distribution, and at the very least the GPL, for one, has been found legally valid within the EU.
The problem with EULA's is two-fold: In many cases they are trying to enforce restrictions against privileges users may already have by law within their jurisdiction (ie. the ability to reverse-engineer, fair-use provisions for copying media, etc.) which would generally invalidate those provisions, and the second problem is the question of enforcing click-through or break-the-seal as a valid form of contractual agreement.
So EULA's are not necessarily illegal per se, but often the provisions they try to enforce or the manner in which users are forced to accept the terms, are.