Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 24th Dec 2008 20:49 UTC, submitted by judgen
Thread beginning with comment 341449
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-05-18
As I understand this case ... it's not a problem that Pystar makes hardware that is compatible with Mac OS X, it's not a problem if Pystar resells Mac OS X, it might be a breach of EULA if Pystar installs it on the OpenComputer and it might be a copyright infringement if they redistribute Apple's patches and updates.
Obviously the part about the copyright infringement is the worse.
So, what I don't understand is why they don't make their own update program that pulls only safe patches directly from Apple's servers without them passing through Pystar's servers. Wouldn't this pretty much solve the copyright issue? Is it doable?