Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 28th Oct 2009 14:09 UTC, submitted by Cytor
Hardware, Embedded Systems When Psystar announced it Rebel EFI package, the company was quickly accused of simply taking open source code, repackaging it, and selling it for USD 50. While selling open source code is not a problem, not making the source code available if the license demands it is. Netkas, famous OSX86 hacker, and a Russian site are now claiming they have found the smoking gun.
Thread beginning with comment 391622
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by kaiwai
by CaptainN- on Wed 28th Oct 2009 18:03 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
CaptainN-
Member since:
2005-07-07

This is a company that put their necks on the line to support an idea that they think is right - that they can resell software they purchased if they want to. How can you so easily dismiss such an act, even if you disagree with them about whether they should have that right nor not (you seem to be on the side of not).

Pystar is a hardware company daring to ship OSX pre installed - if it took OSS to do it, that's even better, it demonstrates the power of the open source philosophy. The only gripe is with their disclosure practices, and it remains to be seen how they'll respond to this (I do have my doubts about whether they'll respond appropriately).

On the other hand, this could be just a skeezy company, trying to make a quick buck - on the other other hand they are fighting a tough and expensive court battle, and could just have been trying to get some warchest funds.

In any case, I don't see how to put them in a tiny box so easily - this is a fairly complicated matter, IMHO.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by ari-free on Wed 28th Oct 2009 18:32 in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
ari-free Member since:
2007-01-22

well, if you make an agreement that you're not going to use macosx on a non-Apple computer and then you use macosx on a non-Apple computer, you are breaking your agreement.

Apple isn't interested in open hardware. So why not just leave them alone and reward those that *are* interested?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by bousozoku on Wed 28th Oct 2009 20:52 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
bousozoku Member since:
2006-01-23

well, if you make an agreement that you're not going to use macosx on a non-Apple computer and then you use macosx on a non-Apple computer, you are breaking your agreement.

Apple isn't interested in open hardware. So why not just leave them alone and reward those that *are* interested?


How many times do we have to remind people that Apple is a hardware company? Of course, they're not interested in someone else selling competing hardware.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by CaptainN- on Thu 29th Oct 2009 22:07 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
CaptainN- Member since:
2005-07-07

They argue that they didn't enter into any agreement, not to resell the software they purchased. It's that EULA thing, either you think it's a contract, or you think it's BS. I tend to think it's BS.

That said, buying software isn't the same as buying a car. for one, when I buy a car from someone, the original owner loses possession of the car. Not so with software. Also, software (like music) is an infinite good - and thus probably needs some form of protection above physical goods. But a EULA - something like a contract, that end users automatically agree to when they install software or open a package - NO.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by Ed W. Cogburn on Wed 28th Oct 2009 20:44 in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
Ed W. Cogburn Member since:
2009-07-24

I don't see how to put them in a tiny box so easily - this is a fairly complicated matter


All that has gone on up till now may have been 'complicated', but if they violated an open-source license when they made this Rebel thing, then the situation will instantly become crystal clear to a lot of people, including folks who don't even care about Apple and their stuff.

The ends do not justify the means.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by tylerdurden on Wed 28th Oct 2009 22:57 in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

This company hasn't put jack squat on the line, they are trying to make money from other people's work: Apple and the OSX86 community namely.

Trying to turn that into some sort of valiant effort is mighty disingenuous, at best.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by ferrels on Wed 28th Oct 2009 23:12 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
ferrels Member since:
2006-08-15

Uh, that's what EVERY company does....makes money off the work of others, whether by those directly employed by them, thru licensing, theft of trade secrets or research and development.

All Pystar has done is to take an OSS bootloader, made it easier to use than the OSS version and charged a fee for it. More power to them. There have been plenty of companies who've used this same model to market their own flavor of Linux but I don't hear you Apple Fanboys whining about that!

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by CaptainN- on Thu 29th Oct 2009 22:04 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
CaptainN- Member since:
2005-07-07

I don't know. Taking on a large court case like this does open them up to substantial financial and legal risk. Maybe not as big as is perceived, but surely there's risk involved.

Reply Parent Score: 1