To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
But I assume it's true that this still excludes modifying the software and then selling it.
If you took the time to read, the issue isn't the reselling of the operating system - I've sold old copies of MacOS X without any repercussions from the auction site I did it through.
The issue at play is the fact that this vendor is selling a MODIFIED VERSION of Apple's software - that is the issue. They have hacked up a copy of MacOS X and resold it. Unless they have a special OEM agreement with Apple (which they don't), what they did was illegal.
Don't accuse others of not reading what they are talking about in the very same minute you don't read what you are even quoting yourself (I refer to the second paragraph of my posting here)!
In my previous posting I justed added some general information about the laws in Germany. This is a special issue:
* not allowing modifications to the software is invalid
* not allowing to resell the software is invalid
* the combination of both presumbly gets valid again
I say presumbly as this is not as clear as it looks.
And sure, what they did may be illegal in other countries and even in Germany. You seem to be a little bit overeager at claiming facts though!
Edited 2008-08-01 05:17 UTC
"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."
I agree mostly. This is going to be interesting to see how it goes. According to Apple, OS X on the shelf is sold as an upgrade to an existing system, not as an end product. This will finally answer that question also I think.





Member since:
2006-01-16
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