Anyone who hangs around on websites with information about installing Mac OS X on non-Apple labelled computers has probably already encountered this report, but it's newsworthy anyway. The upcoming release of Mac OS X 10.6.2 will remove support for the Intel Atom line of processors from Mac OS X.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2008-08-25
Software is a service: acquiring a CD of software is not the same as acquiring usage rights to that software. And attacking me personally does not prove your point.
I do not own any apple products and do not approve of their business practices. Defending their right to license their property how they want does not make me a mac zealot.
If apple does not want to license OS X to the competition, the should they not be forced to.
This is a double-edged sword: if apple cannot enforce their right to license how they want, should open source licensing be also be unenforceable.
Member since:2006-02-15
Software is a service: acquiring a CD of software is not the same as acquiring usage rights to that software.
Actually, software is a product. It was just recently reported here that there's a case in the US where a person was selling forward the software he had bought and court said it was indeed legal as the software was a product, not a service.
It's the same here in Finland too; several years ago already a similar case went to the court and the judge clearly ruled that software sold as a product is a product, not a service. If they wanted it to be a service they'd have to market and sell it as a service.
This is a double-edged sword: if apple cannot enforce their right to license how they want, should open source licensing be also be unenforceable.
Apples and oranges. You apparently don't understand the difference so I'll explain: open-source licenses are all based on the copyright law. They grant you permission to use and distribute copyright work; a permission you would not have without the license.
Commercial EULAs however try to imply that copyright law also allows you to dictate how, where and when your work can be used. The problem is that that is not part of the copyright law. Copyright law only handles about making copies of and distribution of copyright work, not how one can use it after one has legally obtained it.
Member since:
2008-06-02
If I buy time/storage in a cloud/cluster, they have the right to impose conditions on my use of their facility, even if I have PAID money.
SERVICES AND PRODUCTS ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
Sweet Jesus, how many times does the obvious need to be pointed out before Maclots give up on that disingenuous BS?
Which would be a valid point, except that Apple happily sold copies of their OS to Psystar without requiring them to agree to any special terms before or at the time of sale. So if there's fault here, it's Apple's for failing to license their software properly. A fault which they've compounded by attempting to use EULAs and post-sales restrictions for bait-and-switch purposes.
It's just another example of Apple believing they deserve special treatment, and getting it in the minds of their faithful apologists. They want the protections (read: ability to impose restrictions) afforded by a legitimate pre-sales contract, but they're too lazy or cheap expend the effort to do it properly. So instead, Apple tries to use their EULA enforce post-sales restrictions.