Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 14th Feb 2006 22:49 UTC, submitted by jayson.knight
Mac OS X It seems like flee-in-Apple's-fur, cracker 'Maxxuss', has succeeded in cracking Mac OS 10.4.4 for Intel. "We were just about to hunker down and wait through the cold winter and a wet spring until we saw some results on the OS X 10.4.4 for Intel hacking efforts, but it looks like we're getting a little Valentines present from 'Maxxuss' who has already broken through Apple's heightened security that is present in their shipping version of the OS. It's just a preliminary release, not all hardware is supported and it requires a bit of futzing around to get it to work, but seeing as we weren't expecting this kind of breakthrough this early, we really can't complain."
Thread beginning with comment 95651
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
rayiner
Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't care whether or not the EULA is enforcable, Rayiner. For me, it's something personal. I see an EULA as a contract, and as such, when I agree with it, I'll have to adhere by it. You may claim that EULAs are unethical, and I respect that viewpoint.

I'm not claiming that EULA's are unethical (though I think most are), but rather that EULA's do not have enough legal foundation to be able to say that breaking them is illegal. Most EULA's are full of clauses that likely would not stand up in a court of law. Microsoft's Windows EULA says the license is only transferable a single time. That means if you're the third owner of a used computer, you're violating the EULA. If Microsoft sued you for that, do you think they'd win? Companies put all sorts of crap in EULAs that they know they likely cannot enforce, just because they know most people will not challenge them. It's fine if you want to voluntarily play that game, but don't attack people who call it as being the bullshit it is.

However, I'm getting pretty annoyed over people calling me names just because I happen to want to adhere to a contract I agreed to.

You were the one who lashed out at the people who cracked OS X. It's fine if you want to follow the EULA because you like Apple. However, don't confuse "being nice" to Apple with fulfilling your legal obligations to Apple.

Reply Parent Score: 5

somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

I'm not claiming that EULA's are unethical (though I think most are), but rather that EULA's do not have enough legal foundation to be able to say that breaking them is illegal. Most EULA's are full of clauses that likely would not stand up in a court of law. Microsoft's Windows EULA says the license is only transferable a single time. That means if you're the third owner of a used computer, you're violating the EULA. If Microsoft sued you for that, do you think they'd win? Companies put all sorts of crap in EULAs that they know they likely cannot enforce, just because they know most people will not challenge them. It's fine if you want to voluntarily play that game, but don't attack people who call it as being the bullshit it is.

What you've described is that some EULA licenses are stupid and contain discriminatory measures, which is agreed. Such licenses must be corrected.

But, for author not to be possible to have anything to say basic things about how and what is allowed conduct with his product? Why do you use his product then, if you disrespect him so much? Sometimes licenses for commercial software are like marriage, take it or leave it.

Edited 2006-02-15 01:07

Reply Parent Score: 1

rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

But, for author not to be possible to have anything to say basic things about how and what is allowed conduct with his product?

No, not really, not beyond whatever powers are granted to him by copyright law. If I want to buy a copy of an author's opus and use it as toilet paper, I'm entirely within my rights to do so.

It is important to remember the nature of copyright. In the United States, at least, works, when created, belong to the people, not to the author. That is the "state of nature", as it were. Copyright was explicitly couched as a temporary artificial measure designed to make the creation of new works more profitable. In this mindest, the idea of the "natural right of authors" has no meaning. The rights of the author are whatever copyright law afford them. The Berne convention is a very approachable legal document http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html. Could you please show me where in here it says authors have the right to control the use of reproductions?

Why do you use his product then, if you disrespect him so much?

Respect and disrespect are social constructs. They have no meaning in the world of law. All that exists is "legal" and "illegal".

Sometimes licenses for commercial software are like marriage, take it or leave it.

More like prostitution, but even that analogy is flawed. At least when you pick up a hooker, you agree to a verbal contract about what he/she will or will not do for your money. If software vendors want to set up official contracts for the use of their software, more power to them. That's entirely within their rights. However, they want to have their cake and eat it too. They don't want to introduce the hassle of a real contract, because that'd reduce their sales, but want to have the power to enforce restrictions as if they had a real contract. Well, they can't have it both ways!

Reply Parent Score: 5