Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 21st Sep 2009 08:44 UTC, submitted by Cytor
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 385356
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Right to run OS X? Are you F*ing kidding me?
by Piot on Mon 21st Sep 2009 23:23
in reply to "RE[3]: Right to run OS X? Are you F*ing kidding me?"
Member since:2009-09-17
@dmantione
Can you clarify what you mean?
Does most software sold in the Netherlands come with a click-thru license?
Can you buy a single copy of Windows and load it on hundreds of PCs?
If you buy a book do you have the right to turn it into a blockbuster movie... as long as you don't actually copy it?
I am having a little trouble believing that the laws in the Netherlands, Austria, Germany etc seem to have such low regard for the concept of intellectual property.
RE[5]: Right to run OS X? Are you F*ing kidding me?
by dmantione on Tue 22nd Sep 2009 08:15
in reply to "RE[4]: Right to run OS X? Are you F*ing kidding me?"
Member since:2005-07-06
@dmantione
Can you clarify what you mean?
Does most software sold in the Netherlands come with a click-thru license?
Can you clarify what you mean?
Does most software sold in the Netherlands come with a click-thru license?
As a lot of of software is written outside the Netherlands and imported, a lot of software comes with click-tru license. They can usually be safely ignored.
Can you buy a single copy of Windows and load it on hundreds of PCs?
No, the copyright law will prevent you. Copyright law gives you permission to do the copying you absolutely need to do to use the copy of a program in a normal way. Installing is required to use a copy of a program in a normal way.
To install on hundreds of PC's you need a copyright license (not an EULA).
By the way, Microsoft is very well aware of the laws of the Netherlands. They still try to do something that looks like an EULA, but present it more like "terms of use" and describe the behaviour of Windows, for example that it will phone home for activation. It is written in Dutch language refers specifically to concepts in the Dutch law. As it doesn't try to forbid typical things like reverse engineering, it isn't immedeately illegal. It would be much more difficult to fight Microsoft EULA's than usual EULA's.
If you buy a book do you have the right to turn it into a blockbuster movie... as long as you don't actually copy it?
A blockbuster movie based on a book, is not an independend work. It is a multiplication of the story in the book. A story itself is already copyrightable, so this would again be prevented by copyright law.
I am having a little trouble believing that the laws in the Netherlands, Austria, Germany etc seem to have such low regard for the concept of intellectual property.
These countries have a high regard for intellectual property, but have a high regard for consumer rights too. Trying to force a consumer to agree to something after he already spent his money sounds unfair, and the law is in line with that.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-06
You are thinking of buying software to be somehow equal to buying hardware, which borders on sophistry. When you are buying software, you are not buying jack shit. You are transferring some money to the reseller, but you don't own the product you bought in a way you would own, say, a wrench you buy in hardware store. You are just licensing the software under whatever terms the whims of the license provider dictate.
The is the most common misunderstanding about buying software. People have been indoctrinated to believe it but it ain't true. Look in the laws, you will not find any article that states software is sold in a different way than books or televisions.
Still not convinced? The law defines what a sales is. I'm living in the Netherlands, our law defines a sale as:
"Koop is de overeenkomst waarbij de een zich verbindt een zaak te geven en de ander om daarvoor een prijs in geld te betalen."
Freely translated:
"Sale is the agreement whereby one commits itself to give a good and the other to pay a price in money for it."
Translation of laws is difficult. The limitation of this translation is that I translate "zaak" with "good", while "good" is actualy the translation for "goed". They mean different things in Dutch law, but luckily it is not relevant for this discussion.
As you can see the purchase of a copy of a computer program perfectly matches this definition, therefore, by law, software is sold, not licensed! Other countries have their own definitions of a sale, but none will exclude software.
Now, copyright law. Copyright law deals with copies, and by copying you create new copies. Copies can be sold. Conclusion again. Software is sold, not licensed.
By the way, it is legally not impossible to license a copy. That requires a special agreement that does not match the definition in a law what a sale is. Sounds extremely logical: If you pay in a shop for something that does not become your property, it sounds reasonable that you make a special agreement about it.
Now you can also understand why EULA's do not hold in most countries. If you own a television nobody except you has any right to tell what you do with it. The TV is your property. Once you sold a copy of a computer program, copyright law may prevent you from copying it, but as long as you will not violate copyright, nobody has a right to tell you what to do with the copy. The copy is your property.
This logic appears to be even valid for the U.S., where many people claim EULA's to be valid. However, it seems that in .us "sales agreement" needs to be more explicit rather than implicit for the logic to hold, it seems one can implicitely license software there, where in European countries one can be rather sure that any program you buy is a "sales agreement" unless agreed otherwise.
Edited 2009-09-21 22:40 UTC