OSNews

No, that would be murder.

I could however, buy a gun, refurbish it and re sell it if I wish. Provided I stay within any safety regulations that may come into play in respect to selling something that could be lethal, like a gun.

I don't see what this has to do with selling software though.

Yes you could and you won't go to jail because you violated the Eula that came with the gun, I'm pretty sure they don't have one. You will go to jail for shooting people. So really your example is more like buying a Mac and then using it for identity theft. You've bought something and decided to break laws with it, the Eula however doesn't prohibit you from braking these laws so your example is invalid.

If my comment had indeed consisted of only the part you quoted, yes. But that was an introduction to the example about upgrades and a possible interpretation of that specific controversial clause in the EULA.

But the issue that is being contested in a *Trial* has nothing to do with upgrading. Apple has never made any statements about using an upgrade copy being the reason that they are suing Psystar. So your point is moot.

With a name like PowerMacX you're obviously biased about this subject and grasping at straws trying to make it seem like Psystar and others are clearly wrong.

The fact is the issue is about a single clause in the EULA that has nothing to do with upgrades or making the whole EULA in applicable.

I don't know whether the clause is enforceable or not. And my opinion on whether it should be or not is just another opinion of a non lawyer so I won't even go there. But please stop trying to muddy the waters by bringing up a bunch of irrelevant points.

How is their requirement to be loaded onto an Apple computer any different to say a vendor who offers an upgrade version of their software with the requirement that you're a licence holder of an older version or have installed a legally acquired older version before the install can continue?

Sure, you could go out right now, buy a copy of Windows Vista upgrade and bypass the upgrade checker - which can be done through installing once without a serial then running the installer again but this time putting in the serial thus the installer thinks there is an older version installed. Because you can do it - does it make it legal?

Microsoft requiring you to have installed an older version before an upgrade can occur - is that a violation of your 'rights'? by you demanding that one piece about 'install on Apple hardware taken away' - Apple's requirements are no different to the requirements made for upgrading and thus do you want the upgrade based licensed be dismissed as illegal as well?

How about their requirement that I must be a student or a non-commercial user to use a given piece of software? isn't that a violation of my rights to use the software as I see fit? after all, I did pay for the software so why the heck should the software vendor remotely care whether I am using it in a commercial environment?

If we're going to talk about 'I paid for it and I should be allowed to use it as I see fit' then I think you need to look at the run off effect of such a declaration and how it impacts on the EULA in its entirety.

Edited 2009-05-21 03:43 UTC

I would suggest that each of the cases that you listed above would have to be looked at separately. While they may seem similar on the surface in that they all limit what you can do with the software after you buy it, there are also some very different circumstances to consider in all the above cases.

So any decision made in regards to not allowing a user to install a legitimately purchased, complete copy of Mac OS X on non Apple branded hardware would not be a precedent to throw out the rest of the EULA however similar they may seem on the surface. The other circumstances specific to each clause must be considered as well. Throwing out all such clauses because fault is found in one would be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I'm not going to argue one way or another on what is acceptable, that is for a judge to decide. But I would prefer to make it crystal clear that all of these issues are separate and the only issue being decided in the Apple vs. Psystar case is whether or not is acceptable to install a legally purchased, complete version of Mac OS X on non Apple hardware and then resell it. Bring up anything else is just a strawman argument.

Edited 2009-05-21 06:05 UTC