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 view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-05-11
No, your statement is incorrect. GPL restricts the "REdistribution" of the source code and the "REdistribution" is stipulated AFTER you get your copy of source code from a upstream distributor. Just a special case of the restriction placed by EULA.
So the fact is, Apple places a restriction in its EULA most people dislike. And FSF places a restriction in its GPL and most people like. But all restriction should be valid. You may make things licensed by GPL better to defeat things licensed by Apple. But it does not work to claim Apple's restriction is invalid.
Member since:2005-07-06
No. Standard copyright restricts redistribution of the source code. The GPL grants you certain additional redistribution rights. If you don't agree with the the GPL, then that's totally cool with everybody, doesn't effect your ability to use the software and you simply have the default rights granted by copyright law. If you want distribution rights beyond that then you can get them by agreeing to the terms of the GPL.
So the GPL is both optional for the user and doesn't add any restrictions to them beyond standard copyright law. The Apple EULA is (in theory) mandatory for the end user and adds additional restrictions to the end user beyond standard copyright laws. That's a pretty big difference.
Member since:2007-11-17
Section 1 of the GPLv2 ( GPLv3 uses to the same effect different language - e.g. conveying rather than distribution - and covers the whole legalese in much more detail ) makes it clear that you are allowed to make (and even distribute) as many verbatim copies of a GPL licensed work as you please, provided that you keep the license and copyright information intact.
The rights granted this way are a real superset of what you are usually granted by the various implemenations of copyright law per default (e.g. the right to resell your copy/instance, the right to produce (additional) copies for the purpose of backup or installation, the right to cite portions of the work for purposes of review and scholarship, the right to sell parts of the work independently, etc. ). The GPL FAQ explicitly mentions that concepts like "Fair use" trump the GPL[1].
The remainder of the license (and other, OSI conformant open source / free software licenses) grants specific additional rights that go way beyound what copyright usually provides out of the box (e.g. the right to make and distribute modified versions of the work, etc.).
Could you please point out where in your opinion the GPL (or any other OSI conformant F/OSS license) specifically conflicts with guaranteed (end-user) rights ?
Thanks in advance
[1]http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#GPLFairUs...
EDIT: Wording
Edited 2009-07-29 15:45 UTC
Member since:
2006-04-22
This is incorrect as far as my understanding goes.
The important difference is that EULA place restrictions on end users that have legally acquired the item after they have legally acquired it.
The GPL and other such licenses don't place *any* restrictions on end users at all. GPL restricts the *distribution* of the source code and the restriction is stipulated before it is distributed. That is all. Big big difference.