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 385193
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 11:16 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by lurch_mojoff"
lurch_mojoff
Member since:
2007-05-12

A contract has to be agreed on, before a deal is done.
Later one-sided changes to a contract only are lawful, if the either the not-changing party benifits from this change, or if a change of laws demands this change.


I don't know how things are "in your country", but in general in the law around the world that is not true. In
most jurisdictions there is the legal concept of implicit agreement or implicit contract. If there wasn't, as I said in my comment above, things like software licenses would be completely void.

What is the agreed on contract when I go to the shop, and buy a OS-X CD?
Well, I agree that may use the OS-X CD as Software CDs usually are expected to be used: Install it, and use it, on one computer.


Even if we overlook the fact that you are not buying a CD but rather a license to use the software, and the CD is just a convenient medium thrown in the package, there is no inherent "[way software] usually [is] expected to be used". A good example for that is a volume license, say a "family pack", with which you also receive one CD, but you are given the permission to install the software and use it on up to a certain number of machines. And the thing that makes a "family pack" a "family pack" is the exact same software license, as detailed in the respective license agreement, that you say is bunk.

Reply Parent Score: 2

The1stImmortal Member since:
2005-10-20

IANAL of course, and I'm also from Australia rather than the US where all these legal games tend to be played, but given what scraps I've picked up over the years, I see it this way (be warned, it's late and I'm trying to force my brain to express concepts it doesn't fully understand!):

Whether it's a cut-and-dried contract or not seems to depend not only on the wording used, but on the type of sale. If someone (legally) buys a product, sold with the intention of people using it, there's somewhat of a presumption that the person should be able to use it. The license would just be codifying and refining that presumption in terms of copyright law.

Most commercial EULAs (or whatever they are called for a given product) include a severability clause. Why? Because it's possible for a court (or government agency in some cases) to rule that a given provision in a license is unfair or unenforceable, and software developers and users still want the license to apply otherwise. (I'm not sure if this applies to Apple license but I'd expect so)

It's entirely possible that at some point it may be ruled that the restriction in the OSX license against running the software on non-Apple PCs is in conflict with the implied terms of sale of the product originally, or that it's unfair, or that it's illegal. In those cases they may be overridden. The rest of the license stands to continue to allow use. On the other hand, it may be found perfectly fair and legit. That's for lawyers to fight out, we will probably never have a say in that one.

Interestingly - the GPL doesn't have a severability clause - the opposite. It says, essentially, that if anything's not able to be adhered to, then there is no license! (or rather, strictly speaking, there's no right to distribute.) Since most GPL software is distributed (or at least available somewhere) for free or near-zero cost, and is generally freely useable, then the sale type issue may not be as important.

Anyway - I hope that made sense somehow ;) I'm off to bed!

Reply Parent Score: 2

marafaka Member since:
2006-01-03

If implicit contracts could be created by any company, I'd be rich. The paper and whatever put in the box is just that, a paper. It doesn't matter what it says nor did you sign it anywhere. License pop-ups can be ignored as unwanted application features or bugs no matter what they say. I recomend complaining to the manufacturer anyway. This is a real world folks, magic is not supposed to work here! Wake up!

Reply Parent Score: 2