Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 5th Oct 2009 21:45 UTC, submitted by JayDee
Hardware, Embedded Systems Just when you thought you saw it all. So, we all know about Psystar, the two lawsuits between them and Apple, and all the other stuff that's been regurgitated about ten million times on OSNews alone. Well, that little company has taken its business to the next level - by announcing an OEM licensing program.
Thread beginning with comment 388045
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Oh no..
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 7th Oct 2009 07:32 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Oh no.."
Member since:

I am against EULAs, yes, that's right. It has nothing to do with Apple. I hate Microsoft's EULAs just as much.

If all you can come up with is the tired old nonsense about me being anti-Apple - even though I probably sent more money their way than you have - then your position is weaker than I already thought it was.

As for cases - we've got Softman/Adobe, and the recent Autodesk/Verner. Both cases stated quite clearly that software is purchased, not licensed, and as such, you can resell it, and make the necessary copies for installation, or allow an other to do so. Those are the issues at the very heart of the matter. Esp. in the Autodesk/Verner case, the judge argued his decision by buikding upon A LOT of previous cases strengthening his decision.

However, you seem in agreement with companies like Apple and Autodesk, and don't mind that companies can bind you to whatever bullshit they want in their EULAs. That's your prerogative.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Oh no..
by wirespot on Wed 7th Oct 2009 10:58 in reply to "RE[7]: Oh no.."
wirespot Member since:

However, you seem in agreement with companies like Apple and Autodesk, and don't mind that companies can bind you to whatever bullshit they want in their EULAs.

No, I'm not. And you're being childish.

Is it that hard to understand that there are different issues at stake here?

I happen to personally agree with and enjoy the fact that copyright extemption and first sale have been upheld in Verner vs Autodesk. But that has nothing to do with Apple vs Psystar. And no matter how much you and others wish for it to be so, it's just not the case, sorry!

Apple vs Psystar is not about the right of the individual buyer to resale. You're free to resell OS X. You're free to find certain ways of making OS X run on any hardware you want. Do it and enjoy it.

But you can't let a company do this for you, at cost. Because Apple made OS X, and they get to say how it can be distributed and modified, and Psystar is in clear violation. The copyright extemption, the one upheld in Verner vs Autodesk, is for the individual buyer. Psystar can't use it. And you, the original buyer of OS X, can't grant them this right, because it's not yours to give. It's Apple's, and Apple are not granting it.

Furthermore, Psystar is using methods of circumventing the stuff in OS X that makes it run only on Apple hardware. That's being regarded as a DMCA violation and has already been upheld in MDY vs Blizzard.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can spell it. Perhaps I should take your example and come up with colourful pictures.

If anything, I'm being the more clear-headed between the two of us, Thom. I don't let my personal feelings in these matters cloud the fact that the US law is what it is. What would be the point? Regardless of how you or I feel about this, wishing for something won't make it true.

Reply Parent Score: 2