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 385198
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by lurch_mojoff
by lurch_mojoff on Mon 21st Sep 2009 11:43 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by lurch_mojoff"
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

RE[7]: Comment by lurch_mojoff
by lemur2 on Mon 21st Sep 2009 11:59 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by lurch_mojoff"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

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.
"

Yes.

In the context of what we were discussing, so what?

Copyright law is the thing that forbids. Licenses give (some) permissions that over-ride copyright law restrictions.

The GPL gives some permissions that copyright law withholds by default (absent such permission). That is all that it does. Therefore one does not need to agree to it.

EULAS also typically give some permissions that copyright law withholds by default (absent such permission), but generally they will also attempt to impose restrictions which copyright law does not impose.

As examples, one such restriction might be to try to prevent re-sale, or to try to prevent disassembly of the binary code, or to try to restrict the type of mahines on which the software may be used (such as the case with the Apple EULA).

In order to be bound by such restrictions (that are not part of copyright law), you must agree to be bound by them. Hence the business of having to "agree" to a EULA. This is not the case with the GPL.

Edited 2009-09-21 12:01 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

The GPL does impose restrictions, tho. And it is a legally binding agreement. It is the license for the code (/application) that you're trying to use, which you implicitly accept by using the code (or application). If your analysis where correct, then companies could take GPL code, close it up, modify it, and charge for binaries built with it.

Reply Parent Score: 1