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 95746
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: hmm..
by Johan on Wed 15th Feb 2006 05:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: hmm.."
Johan
Member since:
2005-06-30

damnit, i was going to hit reply but accidentally modded you up. oh well consider it a gift.

I'm sorry, but if Apple choses the wrong business model, it is their own problem. They are free to sell their products any way they choose, but that doesn't mean that the model they chose is sound...

If their model is not sound, then it their freedom to run it to the ground. No one else has the right to decide their business model for them. Does it make it right for me to steal more fruits from the grocer if i think they are overcharging? No, but i do have the power to not buy from them.

Thieves can't get away with the excuse "i don't think their business model was right". Neither can we.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: hmm..
by rayiner on Wed 15th Feb 2006 05:34 in reply to "RE[5]: hmm.."
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

Does it make it right for me to steal more fruits from the grocer if i think they are overcharging? No, but i do have the power to not buy from them.

The grocer has the right to charge whatever he wants for the fruit (actually, he doesn't because there are all sorts of regulations, but let's pretend). He doesn't have the right to say that you can only buy strawberries if you dip them in the sweet cream he also sells. I'd like to see that trial in a court of law.

Thieves can't get away with the excuse "i don't think their business model was right". Neither can we.

Because thievery is illegal. Breaking a EULA is a different matter entirely.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[7]: hmm..
by Johan on Wed 15th Feb 2006 05:44 in reply to "RE[6]: hmm.."
Johan Member since:
2005-06-30

godammit, i keep modding people up by accident.

Again you're still equating legality to ethics. Many unethical practices has happened within the confines of the law.

If you don't like the way he sells the strawberries, then don't buy. But to agree to that rule, and then break that agreement when in fact you don't, therby wasting everybody's time and the grocer's money, then that very unethical. You're free to walk, but you're not free to lie.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: hmm..
by alcibiades on Wed 15th Feb 2006 07:57 in reply to "RE[6]: hmm.."
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

Yes, Rayiner is quite right.

Even if the conditions on use in a Eula are enforceable in law (and most though not all of them violate some consumer protection and competition law), breaking them is not a criminal matter. It is a civil matter.

The company could try to claim damages from you. But you have broken no law. There is no law against breaking a contract. Whether it is enforceable depends on the contract.

It is not breaking the law to run Office under Wine. It is not stealing either. Whether the courts would award damages, is an interesting question. My bet is that if the Eula forbids it, at least in Europe, it would be held in violation of competition law.

Which is why none of these cases ever come to court.

Reply Parent Score: 2