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 385201
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 11:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by lurch_mojoff"
lurch_mojoff
Member since:
2007-05-12

While former grant additional rights on top of normal copyright law, the latter place additional restrictions.

BULLSHIT! Both give you additional right and both place additional restrictions. GPL, for example, gives you the additional right to freely acquire and modify the source code, but places the additional restriction that you have to distribute any code that you add under the same license. The same for software licenses, they give you the additional right to use the piece of software, but add the additional restriction to do so, for example, on only one, and in the case of Apple - Apple branded, machine.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by lurch_mojoff
by lemur2 on Mon 21st Sep 2009 12:15 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by lurch_mojoff"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"While former grant additional rights on top of normal copyright law, the latter place additional restrictions.

BULLSHIT! Both give you additional right and both place additional restrictions. GPL, for example, gives you the additional right to freely acquire and modify the source code, but places the additional restriction that you have to distribute any code that you add under the same license. The same for software licenses, they give you the additional right to use the piece of software, but add the additional restriction to do so, for example, on only one, and in the case of Apple - Apple branded, machine.
"

You misunderstand utterly.

It is NOT the GPL that prevents you from being able to distribute code that is not yours (i.e. code that you did not write). It is copyright law that prevents you from being able to do that. Read the law, it is perfectly plain. It says that in order to distribute code that is not yours (i.e. code that you did not write), you are required under the law to obtain permission to do so from the person whose code it actually is (i.e. the person who did write the code, or the entity that that person sold rights to).

OK, with me so far?

Now, the GPL extends to you some permissions, some of which are unconditional, and one of which is conditional. In order to get the permissions granted, you must follow the conditions that apply ... otherwise you are not given the permission.

Unconditional grants given to you by the GPL include the rights to run the code, to copy the code as many times as you like, to run it on as many machines as you like, to study the code, and to modify it as you please for your own use.

However, when it comes to redistribution of the code you received, the GPL grants that permission also but with one condition: you must pass on the code (and any modifications you made to it, if that is what you are passing on) under the same conditions (i.e. the same license) under which you received it.

That is NOT a restriction imposed by the GPL ... that is merely a condition on the permissions given to you by the GPl (which conditionally over-rides the copyright law restrictions).

Edited 2009-09-21 12:27 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 9

lurch_mojoff Member since:
2007-05-12

That is NOT a restriction imposed by the GPL ... that is merely a condition on the permissions given to you by the GPl (which conditionally over-rides the copyright law restrictions).


Once again, you are nitpicking on semantics - restriction, "conditional permission" - same difference.

And by the way, the GPL is the absolutely worst license one can pick when arguing against the equivalence, or even outright equality, of source code and software licenses (or fairness thereof). Because the GPL, unlike software licenses (baring some legally contested clauses, present in some past licenses), the GPL takes away from the offeree (the one who accepts the license terms) ownership. The particular clause we both mentioned says that changes I have made, and the copyright to which the law exclusively grants me, have to be released under the same license regardless of my wishes. That is in effect taking my exclusive ownership away from me.

Before people get their tighty-whities in a bunch, I want to stress I'm not arguing against the GPL. I'm not particularly a fan of it, because I think that the ideological part of it often spills into the software written under it, making it more ideologically driven than technologically driven, a good example of which, in my opinion, is GCC. However, I do understand that for many people the ideology behind it is important and as result I fully support its existence, its use in open source projects, and its legal defense. I'm merely trying to illustrate that this distinction - FOSS code licenses good, SLAs, and Apple's in particular, bad - is very much arbitrary and a matter of point of view.

Reply Parent Score: 2

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Since FOSS licenses are not EULAs (End User License Agreements) and are not for an end user to see then you're tapping away on your keyboard for nothing I'm afraid.

Reply Parent Score: 4

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

bb]BULLSHIT! Both give you additional right and both place additional restrictions. GPL, for example, gives you the additional right to freely acquire and modify the source code, but places the additional restriction that you have to distribute any code that you add under the same license.

Your ignorance is showing. In the absence of a license, copyright law gives no rights whatsoever to do anything at all with the copyrighted work beyond the rather nebulous, and very limited, concept of "Fair Use". And if the source code itself is not distributed, I'm not even sure that Fair Use has any meaningful application.

Copyleft licenses only grant rights. They just may not be all the rights which you might greedily want.

On the other hand, many EULAs try to restrict rights that the purchaser would otherwise have. And in my ethical opinion, still has, despite the invalid clauses of any click-through EULA.

Edited 2009-09-21 19:56 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4