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 392628
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[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[11]: SERVICES != PRODUCTS
by TObYv on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 21:08
in reply to "RE[10]: SERVICES != PRODUCTS"
Member since:2008-08-25
It has to, it is a license, that's its purpose!
Actually, its purpose is to tell how you can DISTRIBUTE the copyrighted work, not how you can use it. Two very different concepts.
Actually, its purpose is to tell how you can DISTRIBUTE the copyrighted work, not how you can use it. Two very different concepts.
Did you read my comment? Section 2 of the GPL? Have you read the GPL? Have you looked up the definition of 'license' in a dictionary?
An argument cannot be made BY CAPS-LOCK ALONE :-)
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).
RE[11]: SERVICES != PRODUCTS
by TObYv on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 21:57
in reply to "RE[10]: SERVICES != PRODUCTS"
Member since:2008-08-25
Which is basically just an affirmation/confirmation of rights that the user would already have under copyright law.
All rights are reserved under the Berne convention, with exceptions for fair use etc. No such 'unlimited permission' is ever granted by default, which is why it is explicitly mentioned.
The rest of the GPL is almost entirely focused on DISTRIBUTION terms, not USAGE terms (unlike an EULA).
So the licenses emphasize different things. I don't dispute this.
The principle is if software publishers have the right to license their software on their terms. It does not matter if the license is GPL or some EULA, the principle is the same.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
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.