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.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-03-19
I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but it does give you a very good "plain english" explanation of the MS EULA vs. the GPL:
http://www.cybersource.com.au/about/comparing_the_gpl_to_eula.pdf
Member since:2006-03-29
Well I could give you the link to the German wikipedia on EULAs, that sums it up nicely, but I doubt most people here understand German, neither will they understand Austrian law --> I could provide you with some paragraphs on contracts.
Even if you'd say an EULA is a contract some of the parts would still be void, as there are some kind of rules what is feasible in an AGB (Standard form contract), I could also provide you with paragraphs on that.
So if one is interested in the actual paragraphs I could provide you with these, at least the paragraphs I know of.
Member since:2006-01-10
Please do. It's what I'm looking for. I don't trust Wikipedia for such controvercial topics as EULA vs GPL for obvious reasons, so getting actual legal text would be good for understanding it.
Member since:2005-07-17
actually READ an EULA versus the GPL.. sometime .. then compare those rights with what you get when you purchase a CD or buy a book. Technically there is no need for an EULA, what's copyrighted is the "recording" of the software to the shiny disk, much like a CD is the recording of a copyrighted song played. The idea of copying to your computer shoudl be "fair use" just like playing a CD in a computational/player device. So the work is protected under normal provisions of the law. EULAs attempt to tell you that you can't read certian parts of the code, how many networks you can connect to, etc... Imagine attaching the same "EULA" to the patent on a table saw, or hammer, etc .. it would be silly!
Member since:2006-01-10
I have read various EULAs and most open source licenses (every EULA for every piece of software I have installed on my computers, every open source license for every piece of open source software I have downloaded to read or compile). I asked nothing of the word of the licenses, I asked for clarification of the laws governing them. Both are contracts, yet both are governed differently (yes, every license is a contract), and this difference, with provisions for each, is what I am asking about.
Also, your use of "should" will most certainly kill your argument, as "should" and "does" are completely different, and in arguments of existing practice, "should" is an opinion with no base. (Just some FYI for your next debate).
Member since:
2006-01-10
You'd be surprised how many buttons are pushed with my question. Many people, especially on forums such as OSNews and Slashdot, like to spout things with no support, and mod people down who ask for proof.
Can you point me to a reading that states this? Many people make such claims, but fail to support them, so I would like some proof. Online legislation postings would be great. Too bad Google doesn't have "concept search".