Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 18:08 UTC, submitted by JayDee
Hardware, Embedded Systems As if selling non-Apple labelled computers with Mac OS X pre-installed and licensing the technology to do so to third parties wasn't enough, Psystar has now moved ahead and has started offering its Rebel EFI package for everyone to buy and use. It makes it possible for just about anyone to install Mac OS X on a non-Apple labelled computer.
Thread beginning with comment 390716
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Open/Free Source
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 20:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Open/Free Source"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

Pystar has no respect for Apple's IP/Licensing.


No respect? They are buying legal copies of Mac OS X, and they then resell those to their customers. I'm failing to see the not respecting part here.

I've done the same thing numerous times, as I'm sure a lot of Mac users have. Does this mean all those people have no respect for Apple's IP either? Or is Psystar magically special?

Copyright law applies to companies and individuals all the same, so if Psystar has no respect for Apple's IP, then it means that anybody who has ever resold a legal copy of Mac OS X does not respect Apple's IP either.

You see how idiotic that is?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Open/Free Source
by VTPower on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 20:23 in reply to "RE[2]: Open/Free Source"
VTPower Member since:
2007-04-06

No respect? They are buying legal copies of Mac OS X, and they then resell those to their customers. I'm failing to see the not respecting part here.


OMG! You must be kidding! Apple's license specifically states that the os can not be installed on any non apple hardware. Yet that is what pystar does. So yes, they do not respect apple's license.

Copyright law applies to companies and individuals all the same, so if Psystar has no respect for Apple's IP, then it means that anybody who has ever resold a legal copy of Mac OS X does not respect Apple's IP either.

You're completely off in left field now. You're mixing two different scenarios to try and justify your position. It's obvious your a pystar supporter but it's also obvious you lack any knowledge of existing ip/licensing law.

Edited 2009-10-23 20:26 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Open/Free Source
by merkoth on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 20:34 in reply to "RE[3]: Open/Free Source"
merkoth Member since:
2006-09-22

Pardon my ignorance, but I can't help but notice that most people seem to be unable to put an S after a P, consistently writing Pystar. Or maybe I'm missing some sort of joke / insult?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Open/Free Source
by obsidian on Sat 24th Oct 2009 05:45 in reply to "RE[3]: Open/Free Source"
obsidian Member since:
2007-05-12


(snip)
Apple's license specifically states that the os can not be installed on any non apple hardware.
(snip)

Interesting...

That's like saying that if I buy a car from Apple(tm) Motor Co, I can only drive it on Apple(tm) roads and fill it with Apple(tm) gas.
Sheesh - what a draconian license.

This reminds me of the "DVD Jon" scenario, where (iirc) he bought a DVD and couldn't play it on his Linux box, so he tinkered away until he could.
He won that legal battle, and I'm sure that a legal case could be won against this clause.

If I were a lawyer, I would love to challenge that clause in court. Apple might have it in their license, but I wouldn't mind betting that it is unenforceable.

If I buy a legal copy of the OS, I should be able to install it on whatever I want - my PC, toaster or clothes-dryer.

There must be a section of law which covers this area.
"Restraint of trade" probably isn't quite the one, but that's what I'm getting at - the freedom to use a legally-purchased product in whatever way you see fit.

If I bought Apple's software (completely legally), but got my hardware from elsewhere, what business is it of Apples?

Edited 2009-10-24 05:57 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

Failing or choosing not to?
by mrhasbean on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 23:00 in reply to "RE[2]: Open/Free Source"
mrhasbean Member since:
2006-04-03

No respect? They are buying legal copies of Mac OS X, and they then resell those to their customers. I'm failing to see the not respecting part here.


For starters your summary of what they are doing is incorrect. They are indeed "buying legal copies of Mac OS X" and then yes they also "resell those to their customers", but it's the bit in the middle that you CHOOSE to overlook.

Maybe in Pixicornland where you reside most of the time Thom you can claim that "I didn't sign anything therefore that agreement that I clicked the AGREE button for is invalid" but in the real world those sorts of agreements are presented all the time, and people opt in to agreements like that millions of times every single day. They are the base on which a significant portion of online business is conducted.

It just so happens that Apple's agreement contains a clause that says the product can only be installed on an Apple branded machine. Now unless that clause is successfully challenged it is part of a contract that Pystar (and anybody else) agrees to whenever they install OSX on a machine. So at that point, if they proceed, they are immediately in breach of civil contract law if the machine they are installing on isn't an Apple branded machine.

Breaching a contract that you have agreed to, just because you don't like one of the clauses, without successfully challenging that clause, is the height of disrespect, whether you choose to see it or not...

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE: Failing or choosing not to?
by haydenm on Sun 25th Oct 2009 05:05 in reply to "Failing or choosing not to?"
haydenm Member since:
2006-10-29

Isn't this what the Apple/Psystar case is trying to resolve?

Right now everyone has their own opinion or interpretation of this area of law, when and only when we see the verdict we can start pointing fingers and saying "you were wrong mrhasbeen."

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Failing or choosing not to?
by mat69 on Mon 26th Oct 2009 18:12 in reply to "Failing or choosing not to?"
mat69 Member since:
2006-03-29

Any written contract is based on that people can read and agree on it _before_ buying something. Just calling something "contract" does not make it a contract.

Lately I see messages like "When buying this you agree on the license on the CD in the box." and that is plain rubbish and void, at least where I live.

If you were presnted with the license beforehand it would be different, yet that does not mean that the restrictions imposed would hold (depending on the country in fact).

The above is roughly valid (I'm not a lawyer) for consumers where I live, companies aren't guareded that much.

Reply Parent Score: 2