decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
The Psystar Public License
Friday, December 05 2008 @ 01:04 AM EST

This is for all you "freedom lovers" who got it in your heads that Psystar was fighting against EULAs. Here you go, a reader sent me Psystar's very own Psystar Public License, version 1.0.

1.0. Chortle. Get it while it's hot. That's my advice.

Please allow me to give you a brief tour, hitting the highlights. We'll start with the opening paragraph:

Please read this License carefully before downloading this software. By downloading or using this software, you are agreeing to be bound by the terms of this License. If you do not or cannot agree to the terms of this License, please do not download or use the software.
OMG. You mean I have to agree to Psystar's terms or I can't use the software? Like... um... that meanie Apple? Wait. Wait. How can that be? I thought Apple was supposedly the "bad guy" and Psystar was going to liberate its code for the good of mankind?

Folks, did you really think Psystar was fighting to overturn EULAs and set software code free? If you did, please keep reading.

Here's the charming next paragraph:

1. General; Definitions. This License applies to any program or other work which Psystar Corporation ("Psystar") makes publicly available and which contains a notice placed by Psystar identifying such program or work as "Original Code" and stating that it is subject to the terms of this Psystar Public License version 1.0 ("License"). As used in this License:
It applies to "any software Psystar makes publicly available". So... let me guess. Is that legalese for letting us know Psystar has proprietary software it doesn't share with us? Why, yes, I think it must. No? Ask your lawyer. It's surely fair to ask: why wouldn't Psystar share everything with us, and with Apple, for that matter? It wants Apple to share with the world Apple's "Original Code".

What is that funny smell? Flaming hypocrisy?

Let's not leap to conclusions. The next stop in our tour:

1.1 "Applicable Patent Rights" mean: (a) in the case where Psystar is the grantor of rights, (i) claims of patents that are now or hereafter acquired, owned by or assigned to Psystar and (ii) that cover subject matter contained in the Original Code, but only to the extent necessary to use, reproduce and/or distribute the Original Code without infringement; and (b) in the case where You are the grantor of rights, (i) claims of patents that are now or hereafter acquired, owned by or assigned to You and (ii) that cover subject matter in Your Modifications, taken alone or in combination with Original Code.
Well, well. What have we here? Psystar has patents? And it only shares them freely up to a point? "...but only to the extent necessary to use, reproduce and/or distribute the Original Code without infringement"? It's good to know Psystar recognizes the concept of infringement.

You might have to pay to license Psystar's patents, then? Red colored text means my eyes are bugging out. Let's skip down to paragraph 5, the next one that talks about patents:

5. Limitations on Patent License. Except as expressly stated in Section 2, no other patent rights, express or implied, are granted by Psystar herein. Modifications and/or Larger Works may require additional patent licenses from Psystar which Psystar may grant in its sole discretion.
Modifications may require additional patent licenses from Psystar, eh? So, information doesn't really want to be free after all? Only Apple's information yearns to be free so Psystar can have it? Well, your patents share Apple's yearning:
3. Your Grants. In consideration of, and as a condition to, the licenses granted to You under this License, You hereby grant to any person or entity receiving or distributing Covered Code under this License a non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable license, under Your Applicable Patent Rights and other intellectual property rights (other than patent) owned or controlled by You, to use, reproduce, display, perform, modify, sublicense, distribute and Externally Deploy Your Modifications of the same scope and extent as Psystar's licenses under Sections 2.1 and 2.2 above.

4. Larger Works. You may create a Larger Work by combining Covered Code with other code not governed by the terms of this License and distribute the Larger Work as a single product. In each such instance, You must make sure the requirements of this License are fulfilled for the Covered Code or any portion thereof.

Wait a sec. If I contribute modifications, I grant a license to *all* my IP, not just patents? So my trademarks are Psystar's to use and the world's? And my copyrights in the code? I give up everything on my modifications, but I might have to pay for a license to some of Psystar's patents? Does Apple ask for anything even close to that? Uh oh. My dancing baloney meter just rang. But surely these Psystar freedom fighters are going to let us use their code freely and do whatever we want with it, no? Actually, no. Not exactly.

Here's some language I don't understand, or more accurately I understand to mean more than one thing conceivably:

2.2 Modified Code....

(c) If You Externally Deploy Your Modifications, You must make Source Code of all Your Externally Deployed Modifications either available to those to whom You have Externally Deployed Your Modifications, or publicly available. Source Code of Your Externally Deployed Modifications must be released under the terms set forth in this License, including the license grants set forth in Section 3 below, for as long as you Externally Deploy the Covered Code or twelve (12) months from the date of initial External Deployment, whichever is longer. You should preferably distribute the Source Code of Your Externally Deployed Modifications electronically (e.g. download from a web site).

You have to distribute it with source under these terms for a year? Then what happens to the license terms? I don't know. Ask your lawyer. I think they mean to express how long the source code must be displayed. But the phrase about under these terms means to me, conceivably, that at the end of the term, maybe there could be new license terms. And the part I'm not clear on is, what happens if you've handed over all your IP rights with your license, and then Psystar takes it all under a new license? I don't know.

Here's a bit of a warning:

2.4 Third Party Rights. You expressly acknowledge and agree that although Psystar and each Contributor grants the licenses to their respective portions of the Covered Code set forth herein, no assurances are provided by Psystar or any Contributor that the Covered Code does not infringe the patent or other intellectual property rights of any other entity. Psystar and each Contributor disclaim any liability to You for claims brought by any other entity based on infringement of intellectual property rights or otherwise. As a condition to exercising the rights and licenses granted hereunder, You hereby assume sole responsibility to secure any other intellectual property rights needed, if any. For example, if a third party patent license is required to allow You to distribute the Covered Code, it is Your responsibility to acquire that license before distributing the Covered Code.

3. Your Grants. In consideration of, and as a condition to, the licenses granted to You under this License, You hereby grant to any person or entity receiving or distributing Covered Code under this License a non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable license, under Your Applicable Patent Rights and other intellectual property rights (other than patent) owned or controlled by You, to use, reproduce, display, perform, modify, sublicense, distribute and Externally Deploy Your Modifications of the same scope and extent as Psystar's licenses under Sections 2.1 and 2.2 above.

Personally, I'd redline that part about other people's intellectual property rights and how Psystar won't lift a finger to help you if you end up getting sued. But the whole wording is like someone put the GPL through a computer translator and it comes out not only garbled but sounding like it's saying the opposite.

If you sell support or indemnification, you have to indemnify Psystar, so if anybody sues you, it's not Psystar's problem:

6. Additional Terms. You may choose to offer, and to charge a fee for, warranty, support, indemnity or liability obligations and/or other rights consistent with the scope of the license granted herein ("Additional Terms") to one or more recipients of Covered Code. However, You may do so only on Your own behalf and as Your sole responsibility, and not on behalf of Psystar or any Contributor. You must obtain the recipient's agreement that any such Additional Terms are offered by You alone, and You hereby agree to indemnify, defend and hold Psystar and every Contributor harmless for any liability incurred by or claims asserted against Psystar or such Contributor by reason of any such Additional Terms.
But, then, in paragraph 8, Psystar expressly states that the code might not work, and they offer no warranty. Here's the opening part, before they start to shout in all caps:
8. NO WARRANTY OR SUPPORT. The Covered Code may contain in whole or in part pre-release, untested, or not fully tested works. The Covered Code may contain errors that could cause failures or loss of data, and may be incomplete or contain inaccuracies. You expressly acknowledge and agree that use of the Covered Code, or any portion thereof, is at Your sole and entire risk.
Put that together with the quoted paragraph above it, and what do you get? Trouble? Right here in River City? If you sell support, it's all on you, your mistakes and their "pre-release, untested, or not fully tested works." What? Are you nuts? Ask your lawyer.

What about trademarks? Psystar keeps those all for itself, revealing themselves as lovers of IP rights in all their forms, so long as Psystar is the beneficiary:

10. Trademarks. This License does not grant any rights to use the trademarks or trade names "Psystar", "Psystar Corporation", "Open Computer", "OpenPro", "Open Computing", "OpenServ" or any other trademarks, service marks, logos or trade names belonging to Psystar (collectively "Psystar Marks") or to any trademark, service mark, logo or trade name belonging to any Contributor. You agree not to use any Psystar Marks in or as part of the name of products derived from the Original Code or to endorse or promote products derived from the Original Code other than as expressly permitted by and in strict compliance at all times with Psystar's third party trademark usage guidelines which are posted at http://www.psystar.com/legal/guidelinesfor3rdparties.html.
So, let me get this straight. They can sell stuff using Apple's trademarks, and yours, but woe betide us if we use Psystar's? Anybody note an imbalance in the universe here? But I saved the best for last:
11. Ownership. Subject to the licenses granted under this License, each Contributor retains all rights, title and interest in and to any Modifications made by such Contributor. Psystar retains all rights, title and interest in and to the Original Code and any Modifications made by or on behalf of Psystar ("Psystar Modifications"), and such Psystar Modifications will not be automatically subject to this License. Psystar may, at its sole discretion, choose to license such Psystar Modifications under this License, or on different terms from those contained in this License or may choose not to license them at all....
Well, well. You gave them rights, but when it's their turn, it's maybe they will, and maybe they won't. They might not license their stuff at all? And *Apple* is a meanie because it has license terms? Puh lease.

And one last cherry on top, Exhibit A, includes this term:

This file contains Original Code and/or Modifications of Original Code as defined in and that are subject to the Psystar Public License Version 1.0 (the 'License'). You may not use this file except in compliance with the License. Please obtain a copy of the License at http://www.psystar.com/opensource/ppl/ and read it before using this file.
You have to comply with Psystar's license or you can't use the code, even if you didn't say I agree? Well, I declare.

Psystar is promoting Open Source "in every way possible?" That's what they told us [Google the license by name], before they revamped their web site.

And Psystar is fighting to prove EULAs are from the devil?

I think not, m'lords.

Update: Some are saying that this license is just a cut and paste of the Apple Public License. That would be damning enough, if it were true, in that Psystar is in court claiming Apple's EULA is the spawn of the devil and all. But the two licenses are not identical. Here's one paragraph from the Psystar license:

2.2 Modified Code. You may modify Covered Code and use, reproduce, display, perform, internally distribute within Your organization, and Externally Deploy Your Modifications and Covered Code, for non-commercial purposes, provided that in each instance:
And here's the same general paragraph from Apple's:
2.2 Modified Code. You may modify Covered Code and use, reproduce, display, perform, internally distribute within Your organization, and Externally Deploy Your Modifications and Covered Code, for commercial or non-commercial purposes, provided that in each instance You also meet all of these conditions:
See the difference? It appears Psystar took the Apple license and then made it *more* restrictive.

  


The Psystar Public License | 532 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Errors here
Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Friday, December 05 2008 @ 01:08 AM EST
Please put the nature of the error in the Title

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic here
Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Friday, December 05 2008 @ 01:09 AM EST
Please make all links clickable!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks discussions here
Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Friday, December 05 2008 @ 01:11 AM EST
Please state which News Pick you're talking about in the Title.

Thanks!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Psystar's Supporters
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2008 @ 01:57 AM EST

Interesting. Thanks P.J.

This, combined with the recent comments that were so Pro-Psystar that they even refused to acknowledge the DMCA as part of copyright law, suddenly puts those comments in a slightly different perspective.

I wonder how many of the Pro-Psystar comments were actually astroturfing.

RAS

[ Reply to This | # ]

Paragraph 11.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2008 @ 02:56 AM EST
I think paragraph 11 is not the worst of the lot. Psystar is the owner of the
code it writes. It can choose to license it under any license, and if it does
not want to license the modifications of its code under the same license, it
looks ok to me.

If I write application A, publishes A under GPL, I'm not required to publish any
modification of A under GPL. I can choose to license A.b under Artistic License,
original code A is dual licensed and b is only Artistic License'd. Obviously
this remains true only if A contains only *my* code and not anybody else's, but
paragraph 11 looks, to me, that way.

Loïc

[ Reply to This | # ]

Anti-EULA != Pro-Paystar
Authored by: Mark Levitt on Friday, December 05 2008 @ 03:08 AM EST

I think EULAs are anti-consumer and unfair.

I think it's not right that a consumer is told that they are "buying" software in a "sale" only to get home and discover that they were actually only purchasing the opportunity to accept a one-sided contract for the use of something.

I think the courts have been wrong to allow corporations to leverage copyright law to give software a special status where they can sell you a copy, but then claim you are merely licensing the right to use it, even though the copyright law specifically allows making a copy in order to run software.

I think, like any other good, such as a music CD, book, or car, the manufacturer of that good should not have the right to restrict your use of it, or your ability to give it away or resell it. Imagine no used music or book market? The situation with software is downright anti-free market and anti- competitive.

I think some courts have already made the right decision on this (Autodesk v. Vernor) and hopefully higher courts will resolve the different decisions from lower courts in a sane manner.

All that being said, I believe Paystar are shipping Apple copyrighted code without a licence (i.e., modifying Leopard so it will boot on non-Apple hardware and distributing it). This is a copyright violation.

I believe Paystar may be treading on thin ice regarding the use of Apple trademarks.

I believe Paystar may be backed by someone who wants to cause trouble for Apple.

So, yes, PJ, I would like my freedom protected, but that doesn't mean I support Paystar.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sounds a bit like MPL
Authored by: Henning Makholm on Friday, December 05 2008 @ 03:42 AM EST
Much of the language here sounds like it has been cribbed from the Mozilla Public Licence or one of its descendants. Except perhaps for the patent bits, the parts quoted here do not sound particularly more disagreeable than other licenses in the MPL lineage. Note that the 12-month public distribution appears to be an alternative to always distributing source in the first place; GPLv2 allows the licensee a similar option. Nor are trademark shenanigans unknown in the free-software world (think Firefox/Iceweasel).

But of course the devil is in the details. It appears that every project or company that decides they want an MPL-like license has to rewrite it under a new name. A prospective user then needs to read through the whole gob in order to make sure that no horrible riders have been slapped on during the rewriting.

The best unsung advantage of the GPL is that it is the same every time you consider some software that uses it. Make sure that it doesn't screw you over once, and that knowledge is applicable again and again.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Make up your mind
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2008 @ 04:09 AM EST
Is an EULA allowed to have unenforceable clauses within and be acceptable by you
or can it not be acceptable with unenforceable clauses.

If the Pystar EULA has elements like Apple's EULA, either

a) You must accept them as just as valid as Apple's
or
b) Accept that you can ASK for the moon on a stick in an EULA but that's all
you're doing

You can't go pigging on about how the EULA is just like Apple's after you've
spent so many words saying that Apple are allowed to use unjust law and unfair
contract of adhesion clauses and slate just Pystar's EULA. They're both EULAs.

Me? I don't accept that the Pystar EULA is not acceptable. However, a HUGE
difference: you at least get to see the EULA BEFORE you get the content.

Get that with a OTS Apple Mac OS X copy?

No.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple is not worth defending
Authored by: nitrogen on Friday, December 05 2008 @ 04:36 AM EST
First, I acknowledge that the general interest in this case is more about
whether EULAs are valid, not whether Apple or Psystar is "better."

Now that that's out of the way, I really don't understand the outright mocking
of Psystar and the treatment of Apple as the de facto source of all that is
right (I may be exaggerating). Apple is far worse than Microsoft when it comes
to vendor lock-in and total control. That's one of the major factors that cost
them the PC market in the first place. Consider the recent DMCA complaint
against developers trying to figure out the database format used by the newest
iPod software.

The only thing Apple does right in my view is design. If my sole decision in
purchasing a computer was based on visual and interface design, I would choose a
Mac running OS X. Honestly, if they opened up a bit and sold OS X to advanced
users who want to run it on different hardware, with a disclaimer that full
compatibility is only guaranteed on Apple hardware (and no dirty tricks to make
non-Apple hardware perform worse!), then I would buy it without hesitation.
Currently, Apple doesn't have a moral leg to stand on.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The license is gone!!! Are they embarrassed or not?
Authored by: crs17 on Friday, December 05 2008 @ 05:08 AM EST
Nothing like a company that is proud of their work. I followed the link above
to the Psystar license, wanting to read it myself first before letting groklaw
guide me through it. (As PJ always encourages, "Read it yourself")

But no good. The referred page is protected by a login (with password). And to
show how scared Psystar seems to be, the whole site, excluding a retail
component (store.psystar.com) is now behind a login, with no obvious way to
register as a user. This leads to the interesting conumdrum that the store
provides numerous options to buy psystar licenses (they are sold as a separate
product, without executables) but there is no way to read the license before you
buy it.

Sigh..... (or is that psy....)

Methinks that Psystar knows it has some things to hide.

[ Reply to This | # ]

LOL pwned!
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2008 @ 06:04 AM EST
Looks like Psystar just used some standard legal copypasta and global-edited the
names. To me it shows extreme naivity and lack of attention to detail, which you
*really* can't afford if you plan legal action against someone like Apple -
giafly

[ Reply to This | # ]

It's a copy of the Apple Public License
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2008 @ 06:09 AM EST

Working link to Psystar license - Google Cache

This license is a copy of the OSI-approved "Apple Public Source License 2.0", with "Apple" changed to "Psystar" and the list of Apple-owned trademarks replaced with a list of Psystar-owned ones. As far as I can tell there are no other differences (but I was checking by eye, not automatically).

As such, the Psystar license is an Open Source license (i.e. it meets the Open Source Definition).

[ Reply to This | # ]

What is Psystar After?
Authored by: z80kid on Friday, December 05 2008 @ 08:18 AM EST
I have to admit, I'm one of those who originally hoped that this might be an attempt to attack EULAs in court. I guess that hope is out the window.

I don't believe in EULAs because of the "End User" part. I believe that I have the right to run any code I have just like I have the right to read any book that I have. "Copyright" (literally right to copy) IMHO refers to copying and distribution. That requires a license.

I hope to see that clarified by a court case someday.

But in the meanwhile, what is Psystar after? Even if they had the right to do this (and I think that they may), nobody in their right mind would produce a product that relies upon a highly antagonistic vendor who would like to see that product fail. Nor would anyone in their right mind buy such a product. It's just too easy for that vendor to make your life difficult (Apple Genuine Advantage, anyone?). Psystar has to know this.

So I just can't imagine Psystar actually went into this business for any reason other than to trigger the lawsuit. But why? What are they hoping to achieve with this suit?

Whatever it is, they seem to be off to a bad start.

[ Reply to This | # ]

be fair - The Psystar Public License - What? Psystar Has a EULA? Just like... Apple?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2008 @ 10:16 AM EST
PJ,

"Be fair". They did also say:

"and which contains a notice placed by Psystar identifying such program or
work as "Original Code" and stating that it is subject to the terms of
this Psystar Public License version 1.0 ("License")."

So there are two additional "and"s to the code that is being
released under this license. Not only are they releasing it to the public, but
they are releasing "Original Code" (presumably original with Paystar,
as opposed to Apple or from another open source) and they have included in each
piece of source code they are providing that it is licensed under this specific
open source license. So it should be relatively easy to find out exactly what
code they are licensing. I would think probably in the same way that SCO has
the rights to the post-APA code.

It would be interesting to look at Psystar's financials to find out exactly how
much revenue they've made with their product since the lawsuit was filed.

Their market was a nitch of a nitch to begin with.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Psystar ideas
Authored by: designerfx on Friday, December 05 2008 @ 10:46 AM EST
So, beyond that Psystar is clearly trying to shoot for the moon (and not exactly
doing so in the smartest way), I still wonder something:

If Psystar had done it differently, would there be a legal way for them to
distribute and get running the apple OS on non-apple hardware?

Is there a legal way for any of us to get the apple OS running on non-apple
hardware?

[ Reply to This | # ]

OMG Psystar IS Slimy
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2008 @ 11:05 AM EST
So what's new! It is as if SCO, Psytar and one or two other businesses are
the only slimy businesses in the USA. Common ... it the USA's business
model.

Did you not watch the Big Three Auto Boys groveling (pretending to grovel)
for 34 Billion, no ... no ... wait it might be 44 Billion ...no ... no .... it
might
be 56 Billion no ... no ... wait .. well it's actually 156 Billion! (And we
will
give you some of that back for election purposes next time round)

I defy anyone here to:
a) prove that laws, politics and business are not one in the same.
b) describe the ethics of doing business (big business) in the USA.

[ Reply to This | # ]

PJ, Seriously?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2008 @ 12:59 PM EST
Psystar never claimed they were against EULA's. Apparently that's something YOU
claimed they claimed.

They claimed they were against the particular terms in Apple's OSX eula that
prevent you from using it on the hardware of your choice. And that's what they
are fighting about. That's it. They aren't trying to end all EULA's.

Furthermore, their EULA is little more than cut and paste word for word from
other common EULAs. I guess from that we can deduce that they actually agree
with the common EULA terms, given that they themselves use them.

Why, one might even come to the conclusion that the only problem they have with
EULAs is the terms in Apple's OSX eula that they are fighting over.

This entire article is a ridiculous strawman attack on psystar over hypocrisy
YOU invented.

Furthermore, if you REALLY think there is something truly unique and
unconsciounable about Psystar's eula, take them (and anyone else who has that
clause) to task for it. But it should be entirely separate from the
Apple/Psystar dispute.

Its intellectually bankrupt to claim that because you don't like something about
psystars eula that it makes THEM hypocrits for disliking something about Apple's
eula.



[ Reply to This | # ]

The Psystar Public License
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2008 @ 02:39 PM EST
Hey PJ: When are you going to write us a nice article on the relationship
between license terms and the basic limits on copyrights, like first sale? If
Addison-Wesley can't forbid me reselling a book I bought from them, why should
MS be able to use license terms to forbid resale of my OEM copy of Windows? And
is that any different from Apple telling me that I can't run the software I paid
for on someone else's box? Is it any different from limits on what I can use to
play the music I bought? Can Addison dictate my brand of lamp, or forbid me
reading in the bathroom? (That book is just too dignified! Sounds like
something Apple would try.)

And, of course, if there are serious limits on what a license can require, what
happens to the GPL? Some of us rather like that one.

S'pose you can you lay all this stuff out in an orderly fashion?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Psystar Public License and the GPL
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 07 2008 @ 09:02 AM EST
What's the big issue here? If, for example, you don't agree to the terms of the
GPL, you cannot use software licensed under
the its terms either.

All software, except such that is explicitly released to the Public Domain, is
covered and protected by copyright laws and
licensing terms - and that includes all FLOSS (Free, Libre and Open Source
Software) as well. So mocking Psystar's license
because it has a "you must accept this EULA" clause in it is
ridiculous - everything FLOSS comes with the very same
condition.

However, you could write an even sinister article about the GPL v3 and its
attitude towards patents and intellectual property.

The importance of the entire Psystar business is that we will soon know whether
Apple's EULA is valid - in the United States
- or if soon everybody can enjoy OS X on non-Apple hardware without violating an
EULA.

But even if Apple's EULA is deemed valid in the US, that doesn't mean that it is
also valid in the rest of the world. Microsoft
had to learn some hard facts about their OEM licenses in Germany, where their
OEM & Systembuilder licenses were found
invalid by the Bundesgerichtshof, allowing every customer to buy an OEM licenses
-without- a hardware bundle and (re-
)selling their OEM software -without- any bundled hardware. I'm convinced that
Apple would be in the same shoes here in
Germany. If Psystar were a European company, Apple might not have sued them.

I don't really care about the legal situation in the United States, because I
don't live there. But for all I can tell, the entire
Psystar business would be perfectly legal in Germany - including their patching
and pre-installing of OS X (after all, they
purchase and sell OS X retail boxes with their computers).

Regards,
Winfried Maus

www.wmaus.net

"If you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to
reform." - Mark Twain


[ Reply to This | # ]

The Psystar Public License
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 08 2008 @ 10:18 AM EST
1.0. Chortle. Get it while it's hot. That's my advice.

You have to wait a while for that - Apple's lawyers still have to prove that it's "hot". For now, you can only get it while it is allegedly hot. (I'm sure that P.J. was not really urging people to rush out an acquire stolen intellectual property. :-)

John Macdonald

[ Reply to This | # ]

Basic Contract Question
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 08 2008 @ 11:51 PM EST
It has been many years since some business law classes, but the excellent, but
very short, memory seems to recall that a contract is a mutual agreement between
two parties. So, given that, take it or leave it is not much of a negotiating
ploy, not having the ability to offer modifications would fly in the face of
contract law. So, a EULA, would seem to be an unenforceable agreement, since the
End User is not allowed to make any changes to the agreement. Course, I would
like to strike things, and adding things would be dangerous. Maybe changing the
fact that a printer driver is only valid for one computer could be changed to
'all computers within the household.'(You have only installed that driver on one
computer and have one backup copy?) </windoze>

[ Reply to This | # ]

This smells similar to SCO and its PIPE
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 12 2008 @ 07:30 PM EST
This language sounds like something the as yet named PIPE for SCO might
present in a EULA. Here's hoping Apple has better success at following the PIPE

to its source in Redmond.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )