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 95771
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Thom, you are missing something. It is legally possible in Europe to impose some kinds of conditions on use in a Eula. But the kind of conditions on use which prevent you from running bought software on the hardware of your choice are not among them.

This is because in general, post sales restrictions on use, imposed by conditions of sale, are unlawful in the EC. There are a variety of reasons. One is they lead to anti competitive linked sales. Two is they violate the EC regulations which are embodied in the UK consumer protection and sales of goods acts - you can't as a manufacturer impose unreasonable conditions, or use your greater power in the market with respect to consumers to impose conditions of sale.

This is why MS cannot stop you, by Eula, from running Office under Wine or Crossover.

Now, do you have a moral obligation to only run software on the systems specified in the Eula, and as specified? I would have thought exactly the reverse. The supplier has the moral, as well as the legal obligation to respect the culture and laws of the region he is selling in. If the law prohibits certain kinds of restrictions on use, he is quite wrong to try to incorporate them in a Eula. Effectively this borders on fraud. It leads the buyer to believe he has assented to binding conditions which are not in fact binding, and which no EC court would enforce.

You have no more a moral or legal obligation to only run your bought copy of OSX on a Mac, than you do to refrain from reading the latest novel you bought in the bath - no matter what the Eula says, in either case.

Of course, Apple is not obliged to support you. That's a different matter entirely. You can limit your support obligations to some conditions of use, to some extent at least, in a Eula.

Reply Parent Score: 4