Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 2nd Dec 2008 22:42 UTC, submitted by anon
Legal The legal back-and-forth between Apple and clone-maker PsyStar continues to develop, with the latest news being a move by Apple - the Cupertino company has invoked something with many already predicted Apple would call upon: the DMCA, or the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. This was done in an amendment to the original suit, filed in July this year.
Thread beginning with comment 339031
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by Darkmage
by Darkmage on Wed 3rd Dec 2008 09:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Darkmage"
Darkmage
Member since:
2006-10-20

dundun dun.... except you CAN sell the book unmodified with a nice little booklet with notes and addendums that contain changes and corrections, and that is EXACTLY what psystar is doing. They're not giving you a copy of osx that's been hacked and patched, they give you a complete osx install disc that's unmodified. What is modified is maybe the kernel and bootloader on the machine itself. I've booted up osx86 many times and the way they normally hack it to boot now is to edit the bios of the machine and not the kernel of the mac os itself. At any rate AFAIK the kernel is not under a do not redistribute license... But that should be irrelevant anyway since you're really messing with the bootloader/bios layer not the OS layer.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Darkmage
by DrillSgt on Wed 3rd Dec 2008 15:22 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Darkmage"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"They're not giving you a copy of osx that's been hacked and patched, they give you a complete osx install disc that's unmodified. What is modified is maybe the kernel and bootloader on the machine itself."

This statement contradicts itself. Yes, they are giving you a complete OS X install disc that is unmodified. The installed OS is also called distribution. It is being distributed on a new PC. If Psystar modified it, then Psystar is distributing changed copies of a work. Now whether or not they modified it is another story. My analogy has beeen proven in court enough times, google it. If they did not modify it, Apple is wrong. I understand you hate "The Man" and want to stick it to them. The thing is none of us have a clue on what Psystar did or did not do, unless we have an employee among us. The charges by Apple may be well off base, or they may be right on target.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by Darkmage
by looncraz on Wed 3rd Dec 2008 17:55 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Darkmage"
looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

Exactly, in fact the Kernel and MANY parts of MacOS X are, IIRC, GPL & the like. Darwin is the project to look at :-)

Anything that is within both Darwin x86 and MacOS X is totally fair game. And that constitutes a great deal - just not Aqua and some other kits in the system. When I first used MacOS X I was astonished how much of the system was still just Darwin. The Finder certainly tries to present it differently - but that doesn't change the hard facts.

Responding to another post, copyright law DOES permit modifying a book and reselling it - but there are certainly limits. You cannot, for example, duplicate the book from scratch, you have to buy the book at retail, modify it, and redistribute it while fully describing your modifications and not trying to fool anyone into believing your work is an authorized one.

Oh well, I gotta work :-)

--The loon

Reply Parent Score: 3