Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Mon 21st Jul 2008 14:35 UTC, submitted by Thom_Holwerda
Thread beginning with comment 323857
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Psystar Screwed Itself
by alcibiades on Mon 21st Jul 2008 16:24
in reply to "Psystar Screwed Itself"
Member since:2005-10-12
The instant Psystar started modifying the OS and pointing its copies of Leopard to its own update servers
Not at all clear they did this. From the prose on the site it looks like they may have written a script which downloads from Apple and then does some kind of modified install. What would be unlawful about this? There does not seem to be any clause in the Eula which forbids it, and even if there were, does anyone seriously think it would be enforceable? You might as well require the user to only do his updates while standing on one leg and bowing in the direction of Cupertino.
RE[2]: Psystar Screwed Itself
by lurch_mojoff on Mon 21st Jul 2008 16:37
in reply to "RE: Psystar Screwed Itself"
Member since:2007-05-12
The instant Psystar started modifying the OS and pointing its copies of Leopard to its own update servers
Not at all clear they did this. From the prose on the site it looks like they may have written a script which downloads from Apple and then does some kind of modified install. What would be unlawful about this? There does not seem to be any clause in the Eula which forbids it, and even if there were, does anyone seriously think it would be enforceable? You might as well require the user to only do his updates while standing on one leg and bowing in the direction of Cupertino.
Not at all clear they did this. From the prose on the site it looks like they may have written a script which downloads from Apple and then does some kind of modified install. What would be unlawful about this? There does not seem to be any clause in the Eula which forbids it, and even if there were, does anyone seriously think it would be enforceable? You might as well require the user to only do his updates while standing on one leg and bowing in the direction of Cupertino.
There is a clause in the EULA forbidding the installation and use of Mac OS X on non-Apple branded hardware. Psystar's OpenComputer-s are not Apple branded. It doesn't get any clearer that that.
Member since:
2006-10-06
This is going to be a ridiculously easy case to decide.
The instant Psystar started modifying the OS and pointing its copies of Leopard to its own update servers - I mean, heck, how did they think that would be legal? They might have been okay if they just let you buy Leopard and then install it for you - but they went too far. Goodbye, silly company.