Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 2nd Nov 2009 18:08 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
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.
Thread beginning with comment 392616
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[9]: SERVICES != PRODUCTS
by TObYv on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 20:48
in reply to "RE[8]: SERVICES != PRODUCTS"
Member since:2008-08-25
There's atleast this one: http://www.osnews.com/story/22270/Judge_Sides_with_Vernor_Slams_Aut...
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.
As I already tried to explain, GPL does not tell you how you can use the work you've obtained.
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.
RE[10]: SERVICES != PRODUCTS
by WereCatf on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 20:52
in reply to "RE[9]: SERVICES != PRODUCTS"
Member since:2006-02-15
RE[10]: SERVICES != PRODUCTS
by BallmerKnowsBest on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 21:39
in reply to "RE[9]: SERVICES != PRODUCTS"
Member since:2008-06-02
GPL S2. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program.
Which is basically just an affirmation/confirmation of rights that the user would already have under copyright law. The rest of the GPL is almost entirely focused on DISTRIBUTION terms, not USAGE terms (unlike an EULA).
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
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.