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 95817
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Apple EULA vs. DMCA
by nimble on Wed 15th Feb 2006 11:30 UTC
nimble
Member since:
2005-07-06

The EULA clause tying MacOS to Apple hardware is invalid in the US too. Have a look at DMCA 117:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117

117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. - Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner


Edited 2006-02-15 11:32

Reply Score: 1

RE: Apple EULA vs. DMCA
by kaiwai on Thu 16th Feb 2006 01:24 in reply to "Apple EULA vs. DMCA"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I've read that DMCA clause you provided several times, and like most legal documents, it can be interpreted in many different ways - its kinda like the bible, you can interprete it as giving freedom or heralding a life of bloody missery and control; all depends on how persuasive your arguments are.

With that being said, however, the clause in the EULA is simply added, not because of 'legal' issues but to implicitly outline what Apples obligations are when it comes to consumers protections in relation to their legal requirements - if they explicitly outline, "this is software, you use it with out computer in this manner", they've clearly outlined, as required, the purpose of their sofware and the intended use of that software.

In the New Zealand consumers protection legislation, the clause requires that products sold work as the manufacturer intended, in the same manner as the manufacturer intended it to be used - Apple has explicitly outlined that set, meaning, if at a later date MacOS X installations become a more mainstream event, they can legimately turn around and say, "they're not using the product as we explicitly outlined, there for, we have no legal obligations to provide support".

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Apple EULA vs. DMCA
by nimble on Thu 16th Feb 2006 07:22 in reply to "RE: Apple EULA vs. DMCA"
nimble Member since:
2005-07-06

I've read that DMCA clause you provided several times, and like most legal documents, it can be interpreted in many different ways - its kinda like the bible, you can interprete it as giving freedom or heralding a life of bloody missery and control; all depends on how persuasive your arguments are.

How? I thought it's as clear as legalese is ever going to get: it explicitly grants you the right install a program, no matter the reserved rights of the copyright holder. Therefore the copyright license just doesn't come into play, and hence things like VMWare's benchmarking clause are void too.

Support is unrelated to copyright, and Apple is under no obligation to provide it beyond what they advertise, so they're free to restrict that anyway.

Reply Parent Score: 1