OSNews

Perhaps because we don't think it's unreasonable? And yes, I would support Microsoft in enforcing their EULA too. If you don't like the terms you need to agree to, don't use the product, it's really simple.

Seriously, I have no idea why the people not defending Apple think you have the right to ignore the terms under which a manufacturer licenses and distributes their products. You have no right to Apple's software, or Microsoft's or any other companies.

Otherwise, I hope to see all kinds of articles on here about how the Linux developers should just ignore the, for example, ZFS and Dtrace licenses, and just include them in Linux. Because, you know, it's just not fair that Sun isn't providing their software under the license that the Linux folks would prefer.

Do you disagree with the lawsuits against Linksys failing to honor the GPL? Because your line of reasoning seems to say that Linksys has every right to ignore the GPL since it is inconvenient to them.

I see you don't understand open source. Let me make it simple.

Open source licenses: grants rights on a copyrighted work that you would not have under copyright law.

EULAs: take rights away on a copyrighted work that you would have under copyright law.

That's an enormous difference. By law, consumers are granted rights. Apple takes these rights away for the sole purpose of harming consumers by limiting choice and advancing lock-in.

This is in NO WAY comparable to GPL lawsuits.

I guess I can qualify as Apple person so I'll respond.

I'm defending Apple's position much more because it's the rules of the game than because it's Apple's position. Using a piece of software is not an inalienable right. It's up to the author (or rather the owner of the copyright) of the software to decide who they grant the privilege (yes, I know, all of you will jump on this particular word and tear me a new one, but if you think about it for every piece of software in one way or another you have to qualify to use it - whether it is people having certain hardware, or people having certain software, or people willing to pay x amount of money, or people willing to put x amount of work, or any number of those) to use it.

I'm a dedicated Apple user (one who's been following the rules, well, most of the time) and if schmucks like Psystar manage to erode Apple's ownership of Mac OS X, I'll either have to put up with a WGA lookalike or I'll be forced to use an inferior OS, because Apple had abandoned their PC business (yeah, I know, that las one is not all that likely, but still).

And lastly, I defend Apple's position because it's against people who are making money off of the work of others. Neither me, nor Apple give a flying f--k that pimply nerd in their mom's basements use arcane hacks to get Mac OS X to work on their fancy netbook (or whatever). So it's not about persecuting individuals and crushing their rights, as everyone seems to see this, but instead it's about stopping and punishing a bunch of crooks, who, as I said, are profiting off of other people's work.

Why are *you* defending those crooks is equally beyond me.

"Why are *you* defending those crooks is equally beyond me."

Psystar crooks? They legally purchased the copies of Mac OS X. They did not steal them. Then they installed those copies on their Mac-like hardware, and sold the hardware and the installation (as a service).

Pystar did not steal anything. Apple got paid for each copy of Mac OSX. And the mac compatible hardware has nothing to do with Apple - again, nothing was stolen from Apple.

Now, Pystar might have violated a restriction put on OSX via the EULA. Now it's in court, and the court will decide whether Pystar violated the EULA, or even if the EULA is even enforceable. That last bit is particularly relevant to everyone else. EULAs essentially remove consumer rights that are already protected by the law.

It can be well argued that those who attach EULAs to their product are the ones who are crooks, because they are violating consumer rights protected by the law.

But again, the courts will decide these issues. Until then, nobody in this case are crooks. Even if the courts rule against Pystar, Pystar are still not crooks, because this is a civil case, not a criminal one. If the court rules against Pystar, they will have been deemed to have violated Apple's EULA (which by necessity, will have been ruled to be enforceable. If not, the case is irrelevant), they will not have been deemed to have broken the law (which is what makes one a crook).

And, once more, EULA often run contradictory to consumer rights, and the law.

Edited 2009-03-09 20:18 UTC

They are, some of them, at least being consistent. They really do think that any software manufacturer should be allowed to place any restrictions he wants to in the EULA and have the courts enforce them. It is difficult to see their reasoning. Its not clear that such a provision is necessary to the health of the industry, in the way that copyright arguably is. And its not clear that there would be any social benefits to it, though there might be many to a supplier by reduction of competition.

We do in consumer protection law commonly restrict what agreements companies can make with their customers. In the UK, for instance, no agreement which limits the consumer rights you have in law will be valid.

There is no evidence that the ability to restrict what we do with software in way of installation of one authorized and purchased copy is either a necessary or desirable power for companies to have.