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 96104
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Apple EULA vs. DMCA
by kaiwai on Thu 16th Feb 2006 01:24 UTC 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

RE[3]: Apple EULA vs. DMCA
by kaiwai on Thu 16th Feb 2006 19:53 in reply to "RE[2]: Apple EULA vs. DMCA"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

But if they never outline it in their EULA, they would then be obliged to support all those who bought MacOS X and took the effort to circumvent the security which Apple has used.

Don't think a legal challenge is possible? there is now a moron suing Apple because of 'ipod hearing damage', forgetting the fact that the idiot later came out and said, 'well, my hearing isn't damaged, but it could!".

What ever happened to personal responsibility? it went down the toilet when the likes of the Conservatives and Left started using social welfare and other forms of social engineering thus removing any responsibility individuals had for their own lives and the choices they make.

The idiot with the ipod is responsible for the fact that he listened to the music for extended periods of time at a high volume level - what next? suing Metalica because the concert they put on was a 'wee bit loud, and caused some ringing in the ears'?

All you would have to do is have some moronic judge, skipping around on the crocked up mandate of 'consumer advocate' as to allow idiots to start demanding Apple support their bootleg version of MacOS X on their jucked up PC they assembled from computer parts they fished out from the local meet-and-swap.

Reply Parent Score: 1