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 391625
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by ari-free on Wed 28th Oct 2009 18:32 UTC 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[4]: Comment by kaiwai
by ari-free on Wed 28th Oct 2009 23:10 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai"
ari-free Member since:
2007-01-22

They also don't want to have to deal with 5 zillion hardware/driver configurations.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai
by alcibiades on Thu 29th Oct 2009 08:53 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

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.


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

This is why they should not be obliged to allow anyone to install competing products on Windows, like different browsers, or OpenOffice.

Oh, sorry, for a moment I forgot. This is Apple, so of course the rules are different. Different matter altogether. Sorry about that.

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[4]: Comment by kaiwai
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 30th Oct 2009 00:45 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

and thus probably needs some form of protection above physical goods.


We call that copyright.

Reply Parent Score: 1