To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
The customer has the preserved right of using the software the way it fits her most, including modifications on the software...."
This is where the break down is actually. If you were a customer of Apple and used the software for your own purposes, doing this would not be an issue. In this case we have a company reselling Apple software without permission, as well as modifying the software to distribute it to others, and make a profit on it. Big difference from the scenario you mentioned.
I want to mention here that German law also invalidates EULA parts which state that you are not allowed to resell the software -- this was tested in court with the back-then EULA of OEM MS Office versions.
But I assume it's true that this still excludes modifying the software and then selling it, which can be forbidden by the EULA.
p.s.: to clarify: If Apple is sueing Psystar over the EULA (End-user License Agreement) it is obvious that Psystar is buying these end-user licenses from Apple and therefore is a customer like everybody else.
Edited 2008-08-01 01:15 UTC
The issue here is not that people are hacking OS to run on commodity hardware but that they are trying to monetize it. Apple's lawsuit hsa to do with copyright as far as I know and not with the EULA. Psystar is modifying OSX and selling it to consumers, which I think is illegal. No tot mention that they have also ignored the license and request of the original EFI hack author that his work no be used commercially. So I have very little respect for Psystar at this point and all you guys frothing at the mouth about the EULA that this is not about the EULA this is about copyright.





Member since:
2006-01-16
In Germany restricting the use of Software as stated in the EULA is invalid.
The customer has the preserved right of using the software the way it fits her most, including modifications on the software. Statements in an EULA which for example disallow installation of the software on specific hardware don't take effect, i.e. they are not law enforcable. Instead, the EULA in a whole gets invalid if the famous "is still valid even if invalid parts are found" sentence is missing ;-)