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:2006-02-15
References
There's atleast this one: http://www.osnews.com/story/22270/Judge_Sides_with_Vernor_Slams_Aut...
Licenses are transferable, but you still are bound by the conditions of the license.
In this case (and the Finnish one) the license forbids selling the software forth.
Different to a free software license how? Have you looked at the GPL? You are not arguing on principle: the right for a company to license as they want.
As I already tried to explain, GPL does not tell you how you can use the work you've obtained. It only limits how you can distribute it forward. And as said, distribution of copyrighted works does fall under the copyright law.
But EULA tries to limit the ways you can _use_ the work, not how you can distribute it. And copyright law does not govern such.
That is the difference and it is a big difference.
Member since:2008-08-25
The court did not dispute that use of software copies can be licensed while the copies themselves are sold.
The license tried to overreach by placing conditions on the media. This doesn't change the basic nature of the agreement.
It has to, it is a license, that's its purpose!
GPL S2. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program.
Member since:2008-06-02
Okay, since you made the claim: post a link to the official page page on Apple's website where I can view the OS X EULA prior to purchase.
Waiting...
Member since:2006-09-10
The difference is the GPL doesn't *restrict use*, it grants a copyright exception provided you meet its conditions.
If I sell you a CD with a piece of GPL software you can do what you like with it without being in any way affected by the GPL, *unless* you're making copies, at which point the GPL comes into affect.
The key thing here is that the GPL grants you an *additional* right you don't have by default (the right to make copies, provided you meet the GPL conditions). An EULA restricts your existing rights.
So when receiving a piece of GPL software you are not bound by the GPL at all. You are however bound by copyright law as you would be with any other piece of software. The GPL offers you a conditional exemption to that copyright law, *if you decide you want to take up that exemption*. Otherwise you can ignore the GPL completely and carry on under normal copyright law.
Member since:
2008-08-25
References? Licenses are transferable, but you still are bound by the conditions of the license.
Different to a free software license how? Have you looked at the GPL? You are not arguing on principle: the right for a company to license as they want.
The EULA does not appear magically only after the software is bought. Neither does the GPL. Even then if you have second thoughts you can refund your money.