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 392653
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[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.
RE[12]: SERVICES != PRODUCTS
by BallmerKnowsBest on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 23:09
in reply to "RE[11]: SERVICES != PRODUCTS"
Member since:2008-06-02
"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. "
No, the right to use the software is already implied by the fact that it was distributed/made available to you in the first place. So that term does nothing but explicitly state a right that was already implicitly granted.
"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. "
Not only is the emphasis difference, the individual types of terms are completely different too. The only similarity is that they're both licenses, which is like equating a human being with a trout because they're both chordates.
Aside from that, there's the fact that the GPL grants rights that would not normally be present under copyright, but which the copyright holder has a legally well-established right to grant. On the other hand, the post-sales restrictions in Apple's EULA attempt to remove rights that end users would normally have under copyright law, and those restrictions go far above and beyond the protections afforded to Apple as the copyright holder.
The principle is if software publishers have the right to license their software on their terms.
No, it has nothing to do with whether or not software licenses are valid. The relevant question is whether or not a copyright holder has the rights to use an EULA to impose post-sales arbitrary, post sales restrictions.
It does not matter if the license is GPL or some EULA, the principle is the same.
Except for the small fact that basic principle is precisely where the license differ from each other.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2008-06-02
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).