Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 14th Apr 2008 21:44 UTC
The website of a Miami-based networking and security solutions reseller became inaccessible Monday, shortly after the company began advertising an unauthorized Mac clone for a fraction of the cost of Apple's cheapest system. Dubbed OpenMac, the USD 400 offering from Psystar Corporation is described as 'a low-cost high-performance computing platform' based on the ongoing OSX86Project - a hacker-based initiative aimed at maintaining a version of the Mac OS X operating system for everyday PCs. The website is back online now, and the machine has been renamed to Open Computer. Update: Psystar says they will continue to sell the Open Computer system, despite the fact that it appears to violate Apple's EULA. "We're not breaking any laws," they insisted.
Thread beginning with comment 309706
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[2]: Again, I wish people would actually think
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 15th Apr 2008 16:56
in reply to "RE: Again, I wish people would actually think"
Member since:2005-06-29
simply because they don't agree with it (which is a violation of the moderation policy, a policy they agreed to, as users, when they signed up to this website)).
Err, the moderation system has changed. Up and down votes are based on agreement these days. However, the communication about this thing has been abysmal (our fault) so we'll get into this.
In addition, complaining about moderations in the comments section also happens to be a violation of our policy
. Please do not reply to this comment, we're sorting this stuff out as we speak.
RE[2]: Again, I wish people would actually think
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 15th Apr 2008 16:59
in reply to "RE: Again, I wish people would actually think"
Member since:2005-06-29
The EULA is a contract, it is a contract where by you agree to the idea where by you do not own the software, you are infact licencing the software off the company for a said price with said conditions.
For about 348267 times now, I have tried to explain that that EULAcontractagreementthing you keep talking about is INVALID. Not because of the EULA itself, but because of the TIME and PLACE of presentation of this EULA, as well as (possibly) the fact that the EULA lacks any signatures, making it most likely invalid a second time.
So, you can keep on saying like a broken record player that we agreed to a contract, but if the contract is invalid BY LAW, you don't have to live by its terms.
RE[2]: Again, I wish people would actually think
by Bounty on Tue 15th Apr 2008 17:12
in reply to "RE: Again, I wish people would actually think"
Member since:2006-09-18
The EULA is a contract, it is a contract where by you agree to the idea where by you do not own the software,
Now we're getting somewhere. You agree to this contract after you buy the software. I think that is the point some are trying to argue. Also, some or all of it may not be legal. Like the "I will punch Bill Gates if I see him clause."
If you want to stop people the EULA and restrictions, then stop using software which places restrictions on users - send a message to software companies through your purchasing habits that their behaviour is unacceptable and that you won't tolerate it.
Or, you do what you want and deal with the court if they press charges. Using the dollar as pressure only works under ideal capitalism. When you have broken laws, and companies and government acting like mafia it doesn't work. If I want to stop all extra software licenses... that means I only buy ????? a few cheesy games for windows... ohhh wait, would have to buy windows... damnit! Down to lesser of evils.. BSD v GPL2 v GPL3 v EULA.... all while not castrating myself.
RE[3]: Again, I wish people would actually think
by kaiwai on Tue 15th Apr 2008 17:17
in reply to "RE[2]: Again, I wish people would actually think"
Member since:2005-07-06
Now we're getting somewhere. You agree to this contract after you buy the software. I think that is the point some are trying to argue. Also, some or all of it may not be legal. Like the "I will punch Bill Gates if I see him clause."
Some people here are claiming that the whole idea of an EULA is invalid; all I say is that within the EULA, it is valid, but not all the clauses are valid. Just because one clause is invalid, doesn't make the whole thing invalid.
As for the buying, you take the software home, throw it into the machine, read the licence, don't agree with the licence, and you take it back. If you can't get a refund in your country, then the issue is with your government and the lack of consumer protection - and nothing to do with 'big bad mean software company'.
The point you make the agreement is when the EULA is presented to you, if you disagree with it, you SHOULD have the right to take it back and ask for a refund. Again, if you cannot do the above, then the laws in your country are deficient.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-06
It is on the basis (I would assume under fair use) that you can make backup copies, tape versions (to play in the car) and rip the music for music players.
The EULA is a contract, it is a contract where by you agree to the idea where by you do not own the software, you are infact licencing the software off the company for a said price with said conditions.
For me, I don't support the notion of EULA, I hate the very idea of having these sorts of restrictions - which is why I find it funny when I see pea brained half witts mark down my posts (not because my posts are spam, abusive of marketing - simply because they don't agree with it (which is a violation of the moderation policy, a policy they agreed to, as users, when they signed up to this website)).
If you want to stop people the EULA and restrictions, then stop using software which places restrictions on users - send a message to software companies through your purchasing habits that their behaviour is unacceptable and that you won't tolerate it.