Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 21st Sep 2009 08:44 UTC, submitted by Cytor
Hardware, Embedded Systems There are several options out there if you wan to run Mac OS X on your non-Apple labelled computer, but one of them appears to be in serious trouble. It has been uncovered that the EFI-X module is nothing more than a USB stick with a DRM chip, with code from the hackintosh community on it - without attribution. On top of that, its firmware update utility uses LGPL code - again, without attribution.
Thread beginning with comment 385192
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by lurch_mojoff
by lurch_mojoff on Mon 21st Sep 2009 10:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by lurch_mojoff"
lurch_mojoff
Member since:
2007-05-12

For one that is absolutely not true - there are few, if any, jurisdictions in which software license agreements are explicitly non-binding.

And for two - the exact same can be argued about open source licenses. After all, I can download, compile, incorporate into my project and even modify open source code without ever explicitly agreeing to anything. At least with software license agreements there usually is an unskippable step in the software installer on which the text of the agreement is presented to you and you have to select "I Agree" in order to continue. With source code licenses there isn't even that. By your logic they should be even more insubstantial and nonbinding.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[5]: Comment by lurch_mojoff
by lemur2 on Mon 21st Sep 2009 11:24 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by lurch_mojoff"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

And for two - the exact same can be argued about open source licenses. After all, I can download, compile, incorporate into my project and even modify open source code without ever explicitly agreeing to anything.


Exactly so. An open source license such as the GPL gives you permission to do that. Absent being granted such permission, these acts would be illegal for ANY software (EULA or not).

At least with software license agreements there usually is an unskippable step in the software installer on which the text of the agreement is presented to you and you have to select "I Agree" in order to continue. With source code licenses there isn't even that. By your logic they should be even more insubstantial and nonbinding.


One is not required to agree to the GPL license because it doesn't prevent you from doing anything.

Copyright law is the legally binding thing that prevents you from doing anything with software that isn't yours (i.e. software that you did not write yourself). That is what stops you from doing things such as "download, compile, incorporate into my project and even modify open source code".

The GPL merely gives you permission (which you wouldn't normally have) to do SOME things (but not other things) with software that isn't yours (i.e. software that you did not write yourself).

You don't need to agree to anything at all in order to be given a permission.

Edited 2009-09-21 11:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 11

lurch_mojoff Member since:
2007-05-12

You are right but you are nitpicking on semantics. At any rate, this thing you said:

Copyright law is the legally binding thing that prevents you from doing anything with software that isn't yours (i.e. software that you did not write yourself)... You don't need to agree to anything at all in order to be given a permission.


applies equally to source code and software licenses. Copyright law is what gives the holder the legal right to dictate the terms under which you can use their software.

Reply Parent Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

FOSS licenses are based on copywrite. They are made clearly available previous to sale. They are permissive in nature; you may have permission to do a bunch of stuff provided you follow these very few rules insuring that other people continue to have permission to do a bunch of stuff also.

EULA are presented after sale as restrictive agreements (you can't do this, this, this, this, this, this or this.. the company retains the right to enter your computer at any time and to this, this, this, this, this, or this..) and as far as I'm aware, are separate from the copyright which says one can't duplicate the software for redistribution or resale.

Copyright is respected and enforced in most places, post sale limitations are not.

Someone with more legal training could probably correct me but based on my understanding, your confusing two separate controls.

Reply Parent Score: 7

strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20

They are permissive in nature; you may have permission to do a bunch of stuff provided you follow these very few rules insuring that other people continue to have permission to do a bunch of stuff also.


Very few rules? Grin.

EULA are presented after sale as restrictive agreements (you can't do this, this, this, this, this, this or this.. the company retains the right to enter your computer at any time and to this, this, this, this, this, or this..) and as far as I'm aware, are separate from the copyright which says one can't duplicate the software for redistribution or resale.


You can't do this, this, this, this, this, this or this.. Sounds awfully like some open.... no, free software licenses.

Reply Parent Score: 0

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

For one that is absolutely not true - there are few, if any, jurisdictions in which software license agreements are explicitly non-binding.

It depends what is in them. A lot of EULAs contain restrictions and agreements that try to get around pre-existing law or are just simply illogical and unenforceable.

And for two - the exact same can be argued about open source licenses.

Open source (free) licenses are not contracts or EULAs and users don't need to agree to them. They only come into play when copying or modifying and especially distributing.

Reply Parent Score: 4