Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 12th Oct 2009 18:25 UTC
Legal Now that all the nastiness of the discovery phase is behind us in the Apple vs. Psystar case, both parties are trying to get the case settled before it goes to court, much like the recent Vernor vs. Autodesk case. Both Apple and Psystar have filed motions asking for a summary judgement.
Thread beginning with comment 388862
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: OSNews legal analysis
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 12th Oct 2009 19:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: OSNews legal analysis"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

PJ has started writing drivel like this:

"This is what I saw from the beginning, that this is an attack on the GPL and on FOSS, using Apple as a smokescreen [...] I have believed from day one that Psystar's real goal is to undermine or destroy Open Source licenses, particularly the GPL. That was SCO's goal too."

The black helicopters are strong in that one. I'm sorry, but if you write unsubstantiated nonsense like that, then you lose credibility, no matter the good work she's done (and does).

She equates licenses like the GPL to EULAs, and as anyone with a sane mind will tell you, that's utter bullshit. I find it very, very odd that someone like PJ is writing such nonsense - in fact, I first thought her site had been hacked or something.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[4]: OSNews legal analysis
by rhavyn on Mon 12th Oct 2009 20:02 in reply to "RE[3]: OSNews legal analysis"
rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

PJ has started writing drivel like this:

"This is what I saw from the beginning, that this is an attack on the GPL and on FOSS, using Apple as a smokescreen [...] I have believed from day one that Psystar's real goal is to undermine or destroy Open Source licenses, particularly the GPL. That was SCO's goal too."

The black helicopters are strong in that one. I'm sorry, but if you write unsubstantiated nonsense like that, then you lose credibility, no matter the good work she's done (and does).


I'm sorry but do you know what the word unsubstantiated actually means? You can agree or disagree, but to say that she provides no substantiation is, as per usual for you, factually incorrect.

She equates licenses like the GPL to EULAs, and as anyone with a sane mind will tell you, that's utter bullshit. I find it very, very odd that someone like PJ is writing such nonsense - in fact, I first thought her site had been hacked or something.


The GPL (and other open source license) and EULAs rely on many of the same legal principles. Which, if you knew anything about contract law, you'd understand. Now, go do some actual research on how the Autodesk ruling and first sale rights with respect to software will effect redistribution licenses like the GPL.

Reply Parent Score: 0

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

The GPL (and other open source license) and EULAs rely on many of the same legal principles. Which, if you knew anything about contract law, you'd understand. Now, go do some actual research on how the Autodesk ruling and first sale rights with respect to software will effect redistribution licenses like the GPL.


Oh, you mean like this?

http://www.osnews.com/story/22233/The_Difference_Between_EULAs_and_...

The GPL is NOT, I repeat NOT, in ANY WAY like an EULA.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: OSNews legal analysis
by lemur2 on Tue 13th Oct 2009 09:49 in reply to "RE[3]: OSNews legal analysis"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

PJ has started writing drivel like this:

"This is what I saw from the beginning, that this is an attack on the GPL and on FOSS, using Apple as a smokescreen [...] I have believed from day one that Psystar's real goal is to undermine or destroy Open Source licenses, particularly the GPL. That was SCO's goal too."

The black helicopters are strong in that one. I'm sorry, but if you write unsubstantiated nonsense like that, then you lose credibility, no matter the good work she's done (and does).

She equates licenses like the GPL to EULAs, and as anyone with a sane mind will tell you, that's utter bullshit. I find it very, very odd that someone like PJ is writing such nonsense - in fact, I first thought her site had been hacked or something.


Well, PJ wasn't wrong about SCO. SCO's various cases amounted to nothing but an insane and utterly groundless continuing attempted attack on the GPL license, funded somehow under the table from external parties.

However, I think PJ has missed the main thrust of Pystar's argument. Pystar claims it has a right to re-sell a single physical Apple software CD (one individual copy) that Pystar had earlier purchased legally, via the first sale doctrine. Pystar is possibly correct in that claim ... but this first-sale claim of Pystar's clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with the GPL and its claims and provisions as a software license.

Reply Parent Score: 2