Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 29th Dec 2009 20:21 UTC, submitted by OSGuy
Hardware, Embedded Systems Earlier this month, Psystar suspended all sales of its hardware products, honouring the court's decision which favoured Apple. This week, Psystar has also temporarily halted sales of Rebel EFI while the former clone maker confirms the tool's legality with the court. Psystar also announced it will continue hardware sales in the coming days - with Linux rather than Mac OS X.
Thread beginning with comment 401605
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Lets count days...
by JMcCarthy on Wed 30th Dec 2009 00:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Lets count days..."
JMcCarthy
Member since:
2005-08-12

Yeah, I don't understand these people myself. Everybody must abide by proprietary licenses and it's no big deal, but they got all offended when they have to abide by the GPL.

They moan about a supposed sense of entitlement, yet they feel entitled to take code that wasn't created by them and do the only thing they're forbidden to do; close it.

Reply Parent Score: 9

RE[3]: Lets count days...
by mike3 on Thu 31st Dec 2009 21:26 in reply to "RE[2]: Lets count days..."
mike3 Member since:
2009-12-31

Yeah, I don't understand these people myself. Everybody must abide by proprietary licenses and it's no big deal, but they got all offended when they have to abide by the GPL.


A lot of people don't abide by proprietary licenses. Most of the time, they don't get caught. Which goes to show that freedom is what the people want, though they "get" it illegally that way. The GPL makes it possible to have that freedom legally, provided you abide by its one requirement, which I discuss below.


They moan about a supposed sense of entitlement, yet they feel entitled to take code that wasn't created by them and do the only thing they're forbidden to do; close it.


Usually it's not that they want to close the other's code, but rather they want to close their own code, while using portions of (even small portions, as long as their "non-trivial" or whatever the legal term is for something over the copyrightable threshold) th other's and so reaping the benefit without contributing anything (or in the case of the GPL, everything, at least insofar as the program in which you included the code is concerned) back as the GPL requires, or they want to make customized versions of the software but then want to propriet away such customized versions. The GPL is designed this way, because its backers believe in software freedom, and by doing it this way it is made to generates more freedom. Some even go further, with the ultimate goal of abolition of most "intellectual property" restrictions and favor the death of the idea of intellectual/intangible works as a sort of "property" that can be "owned" like how I can own trinkets.

Edited 2009-12-31 21:30 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2