Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 28th Oct 2009 14:09 UTC, submitted by Cytor
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 391690
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Comment by kaiwai
by bitplane on Sat 31st Oct 2009 01:51
in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by kaiwai"
Member since:2009-10-31
I don't see what is legally dubious about a EULA. If you don't like the EULA then buy something else that doesn't have one.
What's legally dubious about an EULA is the fact that they're restrictions placed on a product after the sale. If you signed the EULA before handing any money over and the product came without the software installed then it might be a different story, but as it stands EULAs aren't enforceable in most of the world, specially not on operating systems which come pre-installed.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2007-01-22
I don't see what is legally dubious about a EULA. If you don't like the EULA then buy something else that doesn't have one.
Apple doesn't have to support non-macs but once these non-macs take over significant share, Apple will have to deal with the new reality. You know that Microsoft looks bad every time they release a new OS because of 3rd party drivers that don't work anymore. People will blame the OS company.