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 95673
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

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

And since you can't buy OSX legaly without buying Mac? Your point would be? (read the fine print: Requires Apple Computer).

More like prostitution, but even that analogy is flawed.

So, you can screw a hooker and run without paying completely legaly? If she doesn't want to give it for free you're entitled to take your self the right?

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!

True, but... not in case of Apple. Be a good boy. Pick up your PC, take it to nearest Mac vendor and try to buy OSX (and yes, demand installation as you're prepared to pay for it).

Guess what, they will decline this sale. Meaning, Apple does eat its pem cake.

No vendor ever asks for proof of ownership, they just assume no one would buy OSX without having ApplePC.

I can for example walk in any shop and buy Upgrade (in the end, it is cheaper) version of any software. No problem. Problem stated here is: "Can I really legaly claim ownership of license for that product?".

Reply Parent Score: 1

rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

And since you can't buy OSX legaly without buying Mac? Your point would be? (read the fine print: Requires Apple Computer).

The fine print is what is under contention here! It's not clear that Apple is allowed to attach those kind of terms to sale of the software license. Would a clause that said "you can only use this software while naked" be valid? What's the qualitative distinction between that and "requires Apple Computer"?

So, you can screw a hooker and run without paying completely legaly? If she doesn't want to give it for free you're entitled to take your self the right?

Um, how do you come to that conclusion from my statement? If you do what you said, you're violating a verbal contract with the hooker, so no, you are not legally in the right. However, the validity of verbal contracts is well-established in law. The validity of EULAs is an entirely different kettle of fish.

Again, let's be clear about this. My contention is not that installing OS X on a PC violates Apple's EULA, but rather that its likely that Apple's EULA has no power to enforce such restrictions. More generally --- EULA's take upon themselves vast, far reaching powers to enforce restrictions on the use of products, but its not really clear what laws give them such powers!

Reply Parent Score: 5