We haven't discussed Psystar in a while, have we? In case you've been living under a rock for a while, Psystar is a Mac clone maker entrenched in a legal battle with Apple. Recently, Psystar changed lawyers, and today they posted a vigorous entry on their website about how ready they are for the fight with Apple.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-17
You'd still need a real operating system to load the "cloud OS X" (which would at most be not an OS at all, but a pile of Javascript), so that view doesn't really make any sense.
Member since:2005-07-11
You'd still need a real operating system to load the "cloud OS X" (which would at most be not an OS at all, but a pile of Javascript), so that view doesn't really make any sense. "
No, just a boot loader that understands DHCP to get an IP, DNS to translate "os.apple.com" into an IP, and to download the kernel. Once the kernel is downloaded and running, it then mounts the root directory via NFS (or some other remote filesystem). Once that's done, it runs just like any other OS ... with a bit more latency when initially loading apps, as they have to be "downloaded" via the remote filesystem.
This isn't all that new. It just requires more download throughput than most home Internet connections. People with 100 Mbps connections, though, can easily do this.
Just search the web for "diskless linux" or "diskless freebsd" or similar terms, and you'll find lots of information on how to do this over a LAN. All that would be needed is for better network transports to handle the WAN/Internet speeds.
Member since:2006-05-11
If you think it is moral and reasonable to say you owning a copy of a software, can you say you "own" a copy a music or a movie? Do you also think the law should be changed to allow you play a music or a movie to the public freely because you "own" that copy?
Trust me, I don't think the current copyright system is anywhere to perfect. But I don't think you can make any lawmaker to believe the concept of "owning" a software copy works. If you had that concept, you would not have prevent others to apply that concept to movies, scripts, theaters, books, music, etc. And the whole copyright system would become just a mess. Even one considering the copyright system is defective does not think making such a revolution is workable.
I do agree with open source software, especially GPLv2 ones. And open source software should work within the framework of copyright. Actually GPL exactly let you know you don't fully "own" your copy of source code because it explicitly prevent you from closing it. So the whole system is just against the concept of "owning a copy". You don't! You are licensed with a copy.
Member since:2005-06-29
You are confusing things, as usual on the web.
According to copyright law, yes you DO own that album you just bought. I'm currently listening to A Camp's "Colonia", and that spinning disc inside my CD player (yes, I'm old-fashioned) is most certainly mine according to copyright law. I'm allowed to do a number of things with said copy - such as making a number of personal copies.
At the same time, copyright - rightfully so - restricts me from doing a number of things as well. No public performance, no distributing, no altering and distributing, and so on.
The only person who may do those things is the copyright owner. While I own my copy of Colonia, I do not own the rights to Colonia (those are owned by Wigpowder). It's all in the name: copyright.
When it comes to software, the exact same distinction and rules apply. I own the copy of Mac OS X I bought, in the same way that I own my copy of Colonia. This means that I can do whatever I want with my copy of Mac OS X - including reselling it, making personal copies, and installing it wherever I want. As long as I remain within the rights granted to me as a consumer within copyright law.
So, what about the EULA, you say? Isn't that a contract? Technically, yes, it is a contract - in the same way that if I were to write on a piece of paper right now that by commenting on OSNews, you become my slave, and you must hand over your women to me (TO HELP WITH WORLD PEACE, YOU DIRTY BOY).
An EULA is NOT, I repeat, NOT part of the sales agreement between the vendor and I, and as such, it classifies as a post-sale restriction, which are illegal in many countries. The only way for an EULA to be valid is to have it presented and agreed upon AS PART OF THE SALE.
Someone brought up open source licenses - completely irrelevant for this case, and I'm surprised people STILL bring it up. The GPL is distribution license that grants you additional rights on top of what copyright law provides, but these rights only come into play when you want to modify and/or distribute software.
An EULA, by contrast, limits not the distribution, but the use of software. The GPL does no such thing.
I hope this clarifies everything a bit. I thought people knew this by now.
Edited 2009-07-29 11:10 UTC
Member since:
2006-09-01
It would be great to see the EULA and the silly notion that we don't own a copy of the software we pay for invalidated.
If Apple could figure out how to get OS X to run at decent speed in the "cloud", they could forget about selling hard copies of OS X. That could solve a lot of problems for them.