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 388047
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Oh no..
by wirespot on Wed 7th Oct 2009 07:42 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Oh no.."
wirespot
Member since:
2006-06-21

Then we have the two cases of Vernor vs Autodesk and Softman, in which it has been found that to purchase a retail copy is a purchase transaction, and not a license.


Verson vs Autodesk is not relevant to Apple vs Psystar. See here why:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2009081716312060

So we start out with the position that for me to make or authorize someone else to make any copies or modifications of my retail copy of OSX is lawful under copyright, as long as those copies or modifications are essential to use with a machine.


Whoa there. "Modifications?" Verbatim copy is one thing, modification is another. The law says "adaptations", and if you think that means "modifications" then you have a suprise coming your way.

This is hallucination or fantasy. The maker of software, whether its Apple, you, me or Microsoft, does not get to tell buyers of retail copies what they can do with it.


Yes they can.

You probably read US law, most likely 17 § 106, and thought "here's what the copyright owner can do".

You're wrong. Yeah, that's a set of rights the software maker automatically gets. But the thing is, you, the buyer, GET NOTHING. You don't have ANY rights to that piece of software. You can't do anything at all with it.

The only thing that grants you ANY rights is the copyright license you get from Apple. You don't have to agree to it. If you don't, you're back to square one (no rights at all).

If Apple (or Microsoft, or anybody writing any software) say "you have to stand on your head when you use this piece of software", they can.

Now, it doesn't mean it applies. Taking some of your examples, we see that they infringe on fundamental liberties of the individual, so they won't apply.

But Apple is making provisions that are perfectly sensible and DO apply. Because they have to do with modification and redistribution of the software, and that's very much the realm of copyright law.

Yes, you can make copies for personal use. Yes, you can perform adaptations of hardware and software so you can run OS X (because the law made an exception saying you can). But a company cannot necessarily make a business out of doing this for you. It's alright with, say, Linux or Windows, because their licenses allow it. But the OS X license doesn't.

Edited 2009-10-07 07:45 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Oh no..
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 7th Oct 2009 10:11 in reply to "RE[6]: Oh no.."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Verson vs Autodesk is not relevant to Apple vs Psystar. See here why:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2009081716312060


As much as I respect PJ, I don't trust her one bit when it comes to the Psystar case. She is seeing a major consipriacy here, where she thinks Microsoft is behind it all, and that it's all part of an elaborate attack on the GPL, tied to the SCO case.

I can't take her assessments seriously anymore. She lost a lost of credibility in my book when she started that black helicopter nonsense.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Oh no..
by wirespot on Wed 7th Oct 2009 11:03 in reply to "RE[7]: Oh no.."
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

Don't change the subject. We're not talking about PJ's conspiracy theory (BTW, she was right about the SCO case).

We are talking about what cases are relevant to Apple vs Psystar. PJ quotes extensively from a decision from an US judge, on a case very similar to Apple vs Psystar. And it's that judge, not PJ, who explains why Verner vs Autodesk doesn't apply.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Oh no..
by alcibiades on Wed 7th Oct 2009 19:23 in reply to "RE[6]: Oh no.."
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

You probably read US law, most likely 17 § 106, and thought "here's what the copyright owner can do".

No, I read 17 § 117, and Vernor vs Autodesk, and suggest everyone else does, too.

Reply Parent Score: 2