|
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.
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- Psystar - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2008 @ 01:18 AM EST
- "redine" -> "refine" ? - Authored by: baskitcaise on Friday, December 05 2008 @ 04:31 AM EST
- lords? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 07 2008 @ 12:37 PM EST
|
Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Friday, December 05 2008 @ 01:09 AM EST |
Please make all links clickable!! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Creative Commons Asks How You Define "Non-Commercial" - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2008 @ 03:06 AM EST
- The genetic inheritance of Spain and Portugal - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2008 @ 03:26 AM EST
- Watch out lordshipmayhem - Authored by: Erwan on Friday, December 05 2008 @ 04:23 AM EST
- Advert on British radio - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2008 @ 04:36 AM EST
- Uni group aims to lead web future - Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, December 05 2008 @ 08:08 AM EST
- NASA presentation [pdf]: Science & Exploration - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2008 @ 12:09 PM EST
- Bill Gates and the Obama administration - Authored by: TedSwart on Friday, December 05 2008 @ 04:59 PM EST
- Smart mobile can turn on heating - Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, December 05 2008 @ 05:57 PM EST
- A Red-Eye Revelation - Authored by: Imaginos1892 on Friday, December 05 2008 @ 11:46 PM EST
- On The Media - click through agreements and patents - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 06 2008 @ 07:36 AM EST
- Time Lords - Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, December 06 2008 @ 07:39 AM EST
- Intel, Google Asked to Help Revise EU Data Protection Laws - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 06 2008 @ 11:58 AM EST
- A billion mice...... - Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, December 06 2008 @ 03:09 PM EST
- Useful UK legal site - Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, December 06 2008 @ 03:38 PM EST
- A Problem - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 07 2008 @ 11:46 AM EST
- Might Void your Warranty! - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 06 2008 @ 05:57 PM EST
- Shuttleworth Foundation - 2008 Annual Report - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 06 2008 @ 10:46 PM EST
- Wikipedia madness and UK ISP censoring - Authored by: TiddlyPom on Monday, December 08 2008 @ 05:27 AM EST
- 29 Schoolkids fail exam due to document format incompatibility - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 08 2008 @ 09:45 AM EST
- Save New Orleans - at a price - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 08 2008 @ 12:57 PM EST
- SCO/Caldera Linux now listed as discontinued by DistroWatch - Authored by: TiddlyPom on Tuesday, December 09 2008 @ 05:08 AM EST
|
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 | # ]
|
- M2E Power to Launch Battery Charger Juiced by Kinetic Energy - Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, December 05 2008 @ 09:28 AM EST
- News Picks discussions here- Sun releases JavaFX SDK under GPL - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2008 @ 10:43 AM EST
- Mattel given control of Bratz dolls - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2008 @ 03:59 PM EST
- Bratz - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, December 05 2008 @ 04:06 PM EST
- Bratz - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2008 @ 04:48 PM EST
- Bratz? - Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, December 05 2008 @ 05:20 PM EST
- Bratz? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2008 @ 08:04 PM EST
- Joe Satch vs Coldplay - Authored by: gribnick on Friday, December 05 2008 @ 06:36 PM EST
- Open iMac from Argentina - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 06 2008 @ 12:16 AM EST
- You will never again be stuck in traffic on the Moon - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 06 2008 @ 05:23 AM EST
- Pantented method to cover a bald spot - Authored by: stegu on Sunday, December 07 2008 @ 05:50 PM EST
- A no-fly zone to protect Linux from patent trolls - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 08 2008 @ 05:38 PM EST
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- Paragraph 11. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2008 @ 03:16 AM EST
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|