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 390878
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
double post FTW
by Abstract on Sat 24th Oct 2009 18:19 UTC
Member since:

tried to edit my original post, but i guess i missed the window.

Further comment on EULA and License Agreements in general:
I have never open the packaging Mac OSX came in, inserted the disc read the License Agreement, and been like "no, i don't agree to that" and bring it back to where i purchased it and asked for a refund since i don't agree to the License Agreement. Which is one of the things I mean when i say the issue is with how the EULA is presented and when. So I do not know if the reseller would refund your money or not.

Further comment on the car analogies.
The car analogy would only be valid on Apple hardware, which apple does not restrict you in the use of it in anyway. You do not have to run OSX on apple hardware, you can run any OS and/or software you want on their hardware, which is the "can only use gas made by the car manufacture or drive only on the roads made by the same people who made your car" would even be valid. Apple gives you BootCamp to run other OSes on their hardware.
So again this is the Software License, that you are disputing, and I will say it once more, you do not own the OS, you license it, and therefore you are bound by that License in the manner in which Apple allows you to use it. If you do not agree to the terms and conditions of that License Agreement, then do not purchase it.

Edited 2009-10-24 18:20 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: double post FTW
by alcibiades on Sun 25th Oct 2009 07:18 in reply to "double post FTW"
alcibiades Member since:

No, its not just about how its presented. There are contractual clauses that have been presented in the right way and executed in the right way that are nevertheless not enforceable.

For instance, they breach consumer protection laws, or trading standards, or competition legislation, or (and this is probably a killer for this clause in the UK) they seek unlawfully to retrospectively modify the terms of a previous completed contract, ie the sale.

EULA clauses in general may be valid or not, it depends entirely on the clause. If they are valid contractual clauses, that is because they would be valid no matter if they were executed in a EULA or in some other way. If they are not valid, they would not be valid even if sworn before a notary public after reading every word aloud.

By the way, the only scenario in which breaking a EULA clause is 'illegal' is in the US, if Blizzard holds up to appeal. If it does not, and every place else in the world regardless, you have done nothing illegal, you have just placed yourself in breach of contract, and can be sued for damages by the person with whom you have entered into the contract. Its not illegal.

Reply Parent Score: 2