Slashdot Mirror
How Encrypted Binaries Work In Mac OS X
An anonymous reader writes "By now we know that OS X uses encrypted binaries for some critical apps like Dock, Finder and LoginWindow. Amit Singh explains the implementation of this protection scheme which makes use of the AES crypto algorithm and a special memory pager in Mach. The so called Do Not Steal Mac OS X (DSMOS) kernel extension helps along the way by decrypting things for the special pager when apps get executed. A funny thing is that if you print the pointer at address 0xFFFF1600 in your own app you get as output Apple's karma poem for crackers! According to the article there are 8 protected binaries in OSX including Rosetta and Spotlight meta data demon. Interestingly Apple's window server is NOT one of those."
This is not the first "Do not steal Mac OS" they've done, although the first version never really got tested in action.
n tosh&story=Stolen_From_Apple.txt&sortOrder=Sort%20 by%20Date&detail=medium&search=stolen
:D
http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Maci
History repeating!
"Good news, everyone!"
WM's are huge apps and decrypting one before every startup would add a lot of work that has to be done at boot. According to the article, "the SystemUIServer binary within SystemUIServer.app", is encrypted and that is presumably a larege component of the WM. Also, it's virtually useless without the the dock and finder anyway.
Disregarding the content of your comment, you're still confusing encryption with obfuscation.
What you see here is obfuscation.
So what? OSX is based on BSD and does not need GPL compliance.
The problem with signed binaries is that you either have a list of binaries that are signed, that is hardcoded into the kernel to check (BAD), or all binaries have to be signed (BAD). The only workable alternative is have a list of files and have that file signed.
What MacOS X does, is try to start the application. If it's encrypted, it's decrypted as part of the load process into memory. If not, well, it's not. I'm certain you can replace OS X's encrypted binaries with unencrypted ones of equivalent functionality - it just won't go through the same code path since it doesn't need decryption. This way, during development, the software isn't signed and it's trivial to get working (rather than having to constantly resign it as part of the build process). Once finalized, it's encrypted, and unless the kernel has a bug, it should work the as if it was unencrypted.
Anyhow, when has DRM really stopped anyone determined to break it? Those who are going through the effort to break this are either doing it for fun, or aren't buying a Mac. I can think of one way to grab the decrypted code right out of memory... (requires external hardware). I'm sure someone else creative can figure it out. There are probably another dozen ways to do it without needing external hardware as well.
Even though the source is not available, binaries can be reverse-engineered
Just wondering. How easy is it to reverse-engineer a massive closed-source piece of software (like, say, MS Windows)?
Such a reverse-engineering job would be of obvious commercial interest (especially to parties who work in countries with lax regulatory regimes), so there is an obvious incentive to do it.
However, my "armchair" estimation is that it is nearly impossible, since there exist parts of the world with large numbers of skilled computer scientists, and lax copyright laws. But so far there is no evidence that anyone has reverse-engineered Windows, or anything similar, on a large scale (e.g., I am not aware of any Russian web sites where you can download source of closed programs).
However, I am not a software engineer. Are there any experts out there who can enlighten me? I'm rather curious.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
And honestly,unless your Mac is pretty old the Dock is hardly that massive of a resource hog.
It doesn't really matter what they protect, they are simply trying to make copying OS X wholesale more cumbersome. Functionally, there is nothing in OS X that would be worth disassembling for anybody: there are already open source implementations of Spotlight, Finder, SystemUIServer, Doc, and all the other stuff, and arguably, the open source versions are technically better. The thing that makes Macs shine and sell is the packaging and integration, not the technology.
Actually they're up to about 6% marketshare in the USA, and I think about 8% in the EU. And as for relevance, Apple, like Google are figureheads. When Apple do something, the rest of the market take notice. Like Widgets in OS X 10.4.....after Apple released this, Microsoft weighed in with 'Gadgets' (Yes, I know widgets come from Konfabulator, but Apple made them famous, and after Apple did so, Yahoo! bought Konfabulator, something that wouldn't have happened without Apple copying it in Tiger). So what Apple do is important because you tend to find 6 months after Apple do something, everyone else does too. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Microsoft use the encrypted binary idea in Vista SP1 or whatever comes after Vista (too late to put in Vista). I also wouldn't be at all surprised if Microsoft totally screw it up.
The truth shall always be free: Boris Floricic is Tron.
By now we know that OS X uses encrypted binaries for some critical apps like Dock, Finder and LoginWindow.
Actually, I *didn't* know that. I'm not going to "steal" the OS, why is Apple hiding parts of it from me? What else is hiding in there?
Apple seems to be very slowly turning evil again. *sigh*
"Freedom is when you don't have to do nothing or pay for nothing,
I want to be free!" - Frank Zappa, "Teenage Wind"
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
I think a patent was just filed for this kind of technology.
The parent was referring to the FSF's definition of "free software", not the GPL. And while the GPL's requirements are based on this definition, the definition itself has nothing to do with the GPL.
If the eyes can see it, it can be copied. If the ears can hear it, it can be copied. If your mind can imagine it, it can be made. All it takes is time.
Thank you JaS.
http://www.kore-net.com/office/1.png
When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. - Jefferson
"Hi, I'm a PC."
"And I'm a Mac. My insides are all scrambled up. It protects me from dangerous crackers."
"All scrambled up?"
"Yep, that's right, my most important parts are very heavily scrambled."
"Does it hurt when you poop?"
"like you wouldn't believe"
ôó
I know... I shouldn't feed trolls.... Maybe I should have taken offense at the insinuation that all GNU freaks have beards (including the women) instead....
The so called Do Not Steal Mac OS X (DSMOS) kernel extension...
DSMOS - Do Steal Mac OS?
Basilisk Digital
Actually, it's copy protection written into the firmware. By locking down the hardware side, and making their software incompatible with anything else, they've DRM'd the software while making you feel fresh all day. But we all know what that smell is covering up.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I LOLed
Everyone, including Apple, knows that no copy/license protection system is foolproof. The best you can ask for is something that's difficult enough to break that it effectively deters the mainstream "casual pirate" - remember, even bank vaults are rated on how long it would take a skilled safecracker to open the lock, and never guaranteed to be impenetrable.
Microsoft would love to do the same thing,
and would I guess that they are planning to, but letting Apple pull it first, as Apple can get away with it.
Microsoft: "Apple used DRM music first, so locking everyone into our music player with DRM/Encrypted-Music is no worse".
Microsoft: "Apple used DRM binaries first, so locking everyone into our OS and Applications with DRM/Encrypted-Binaries is no worse".
I'm running 10.2.8 - quite old. Printing 0xFFFF1600 as a string with printf causes a seg. fault on my box.
well that's one hell of an Easter egg!
You're totally missing the point, which is that Mac OS X users aren't made to feel like criminals like Windows users are. The software has no copy protection, as I said. As long as you are using it legally (as in, you are running it on a Mac), you just install and run it with no product key or activation or any other bullcrap. It's quite refreshing compared to Windows.
Thank-you. Maybe I should expand on the question as: "This is a curious little piece of technology, and something similar could no-doubt be hacked into Linux or BSD with an a few hours' coding, but I doubt ordinary users of said OSs would use or tolerate such a thing. So, other than discouraging reverse-engineering and attempts to run OS X on non-Apple hardware, precisely how does this benefit those who will use the system? And does this really merit a Slashdot story?"
Same here, version 10.3.9.
The thing is, Apple's implementation of Widgets is very well done. 10.5 is going to improve it with better memory management and the easy creation of widgets from any section of a webpage. The MS sidebar is a clunky and cumbersome implementation, probably because MS can't design a really good user interface to save their lives.
"Critical real estate on the menu bar"? Exactly how big is your Spotlight icon? Mine is less than half the size of my little fingernail on my 12" iBook, as big across as the menu bar is thick. I hardly call that "critical" but if that's your opinion, then so be it.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
Oh yeah.. let's just add MORE overhead to processing instructions.
I don't need to test my programs.. I have an error correcting modem.
On the contrary: Mac users are treated like criminals, they just don't know it. Microsoft wants you to wear the orange overalls and walk with your eyes facing the ground. Apple want's you to take the blue pill.
Neither are exactly consumer friendly. Luckily for Apple, they're control over the hardware make the hacking scene very small. Nobody makes a fuss because there are very few who even care. That and the fact that Apple doesn't really depend on software for revenue (not like MS does, at least).
Apple has managed to a bad thing properly: they've locked down the software (bad), but they've made it transparent to the end user (good). The check is still there, every time you boot up, but you never have to fool with it.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Where do you think iPods come from?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
TFA says dsmos_page_transform() decrypts the page. Fine, but where does this get the decryption key? It's essential to store the key in a secure place, but this article doesn't mention it ...
Except that "locate" doesn't index the contents all your files... including Email. That is what makes spotlight powerful. But yeah, it sucks what the indexer starts at really bad times. Like if you plug in a Firewire drive.
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
OK. So what? OS X is not Open Source. Parts are but on the whole OS X is a closed source application. Secondly Encrypting some vulnerable application help prevent future viruses from infecting some key applications To hide running apps, Logging passwords, etc... I am actually happy to hear this it shows that Apple care about security and are actively preventing future hacks from spreading in the future.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Apple never claimed to have invented encrypted binaries. God I hate ignorant tools.
...because the first image that pops into my head when I read DSMOS is an android with hot pink hair that kicks ass.
The article explained lots of specifics, but none of the general ideas behind it. Are the binaries encrypted, or just signed? Does the hardware have a public key hardwired into it, and if so, can someone just extract that key from a particular mac, for everybody else to use? Can Apple's mechanism be used to forbid people from running software that doesn't come from a vendor that's registered itself with Apple? Are the components we're talking about open-source, or not?
Find free books.
I think the point is that most of the people who are running OS X on PC hardware did NOT pay for a copy of OS X. It specifically says "pirate" in the poem there. Now the question of paying for it then running it on your PC hardware IS another story. Personally I see no problem with this, but I wouldn't bother, legal or no. Stability and having things "just work" is nice. Criminalizing this activity seems silly, but Apple's also not the kind of company to say "Here's a supported configuration, you can install on other configurations but we won't support it." They like to sell an experience rather than individual units of utility. It may be stupid, but it is certainly well withing their rights to take this kind of action.
Almost as much as I hate people who don't read post's properly. The AC clearly didn't see that I never claimed apple invented encrypted binaries, merely that because of Apple's standing in the computer industry, Apple using encrypted binaries will most likely cause a cascade effect with companies such as Microsoft 'ripping off' the idea of using said technology. The fact Apple may not have come up with said technology is fairly immaterial; the point is that the mere act of apple using it causes it's popularity to increase dramatically.
The truth shall always be free: Boris Floricic is Tron.
did anyone else notice that DSMOS is an anagram of MS DOS?
HD Trailers
Introducing the new iPoop from Apple
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
The fundamental purpose of Copyright law is to allow a creator to control how their works are disseminated. Obviously, Apple wants you to buy their hardware if you want to run their software, and they're perfectly within their rights to do so.
Say Chevy offers Radiohead $1 Million to use one of their recordings in a stupid truck ad, and Radiohead refuses. By your logic, Chevy should then have the right to use the recording anyway, because since Radiohead refused to sell them the song they're not losing any money.
You may think it's right, but hundreds of years of copyright law would disagree.
ENDUT! HOCH HECH!
They may be within their rights, but I'm also within mine to not give them money. Luckily, they don't have a monopoly, so it's still pretty easy to avoid this particular company.
--
Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
Oh, I should also add that they are within the law, not "within their rights," as nobody possesses the innate right to prevent other people from copying ideas. Rather, copyright is an artificial (i.e. government-imposed) force to impinge on the rights of its citizenry in the interest of promoting something--here, software development.
--
Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
Apple isn't locking everyone into their OS and applications. They're just locking some people out.
OS: They have released software that's specifically designed to allow you to run more than one OS on your computer. Microsoft, on the other hand, has a long history of making it damn hard to dual-boot.
Applications: You aren't required to run any of these encrypted apps. Heck, if you don't want them you aren't even required to pay for the operating system - you can download a pretty heavily stripped down version of the OS for free.
Yeah, copyright law is fucked, I thought we all agreed on that. Here's the thing, when I get on the bus and I only have a $50 note, I say to the driver: you can give me change or I ride for free, I don't apologise and get off the bus because he refuses to take my money.
How we know is more important than what we know.
>> Apple using encrypted binaries will most likely cause a cascade effect with companies such as Microsoft 'ripping off' the idea
:)
Sort of like digital signatures/signing?
Since when is 5% marketshare a monopoly?
Is Apple try to equate "stealing" with getting something that you paid for to work on the hardware you want it to work on?
But dear, if any Joe Bloe is permitted to take existing programs and make them work for himself and others, then who is going to write crippled software and sell it for a lot of money? If you follow this road, you could as well say "good bye" to innovation.
That, my friend, is idiotic. Sure, in the extreme one might reverse the bins to get an idea of what's going on. But in practice, it's much easier to listen on the wire and see who's saying what. Then reverse the protocols that way.
In short, GNU's #1 freedom may be violated by this in principle ( were it to even apply to this, which it doesn't ), but in practice it's just a silly jump to make.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
He's talking about Mac OS X updates.
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
Actually Apple made it famous. Xerox invented the GUI on the Alto.
The recording industry has certainly been using that as the definition of "stealing" for about half a decade now. Of course Apple has been to, but most of their customers are too stupid or brainwashed to notice what's going on.
Everyone is born right-handed; only the greatest overcome it
Yeah, but what about the guy who only carries a $50 because he knows four bus drivers out of five won't want to make change? While US currency is legal tender for all debts public and private, that only applies for goods or services already rendered. The bus driver is well within his right to decline a rider who can't produce reasonable change.
Er, no.. the fundamental purpose of copyright law is to enrich the public domain by providing an incentive to authors to create new works, which will eventually make their way into the public domain, where anyone--yes, even Chevrolet--can use them as they wish. Granting control over distribution can be part of that incentive, but it doesn't need to be; the fundamental purpose would be served just fine if Radiohead were legally required to sell the right to use their song in a truck ad, because $1 million is still a pretty big incentive.
Our legislators may have lost track of that fundamental purpose, but that doesn't mean we should forget it too.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
You're thinking of the Zune.
And yep, it works in Tiger (weird characters at the end): ./a.out
$
Your karma check for today:
There once was was a user that whined
his existing OS was so blind,
he'd do better to pirate
an OS that ran great
but found his hardware declined.
Please don't steal Mac OS!
Really, that's way uncool.
(C) Apple Computer, Inc.U??VWS?5P
Clearly if you buy a copy of MacOS X then it's not "stealing" and you can do whatever you like with it - the fact that Apple equate breaking their artificial OS/Hardware lockin with "stealing" speaks volumes about their corporate culture. I do not think this is enforcable using copyright law, just like most EULAs are not enforceable.
They've internalised the idea of hardware-independent operating systems as being equivalent to piracy. What a huge step backward. Whoever wrote this should consider why Windows has stagnated whilst PC hardware has continued to improve rapidly over time, and they should ponder whether a monopoly of Apple would actually be better. Or they could continue writing stupid poems.
I'm running 10.2.8 - quite old. Printing 0xFFFF1600 as a string with printf causes a seg. fault on my box.
That would probably because this is specific to the Intel version, and Intel wasn't supported before 10.4.x. Even Tiger PPC doesn't have the Don't Steal extension.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Oh So if the Neo Nazi's want to use my art work to promote their agenda I should not be able to say NO. I should be required to sell them my art? You can not force me to, by proxy, endorse something I do no endorse by forcing me to allow them to use my work. F THAT.
OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink
The point is that if you are an Apple hardware buyer, then you'll never have to deal with false positives disabling your system, unlike WGA.
And if you are not an Apple hardware buyer, then they don't want you as a potential customer anyway.
A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
It isn't and never has been illegal to run a legally purchased copy of OS X on non-Apple hardware, despite what they would like you to believe. No more than it's illegal to write word processors using Visual Studio, for instance.
Bullshit. You have no right to refuse sale based on a lack of change. If I buy something for $49.50 and give the attendant $50, they are required to give me 50 cents change. If they don't have 50 cents, but they have a dollar, they are required to give me a dollar change. If they don't have a 50 cents but they have five dollars they are required to give me five dollars change, etc. The moment I ask "how much?" and they tell me, they have entered into a contract to supply the goods at that price or a lower price if they can't make change. And yes, it is perfectly legal to carry around a $50 note and refuse to give any other legal tender if you know bus drivers are arrogant enough to demand "exact change". And no, it doesn't matter if they put up a sign. The supreme court has overruled prior restraint about a dozen times. The pretty coloured notes in my pocket have a promise on them that they are legal tender in this land, failure to accept them is against the law.
How we know is more important than what we know.
"Critical real estate on the menu bar"? Exactly how big is your Spotlight icon? Mine is less than half the size of my little fingernail on my 12" iBook, as big across as the menu bar is thick. I hardly call that "critical" but if that's your opinion, then so be it.
Maybe he's talking about placement. Corners are considered critical because the user can flick the mouse to them without having to get angle or distance right. Although, you can also set your mac to use these "critical" corners for expose, like I do. Then you always end up accidentally activating things when you try to click on corner icons. Doh!
Widgets did not come from Konfabulator, they are a revamp of Apple's own desk accessories.
I wish the whole "ripped off from Konfabulator" presumption never got off the ground, or at least, would die.
Well, be that as is may (I don't have a lawyer around to ask if you're right or not), just try to get on a NYC bus with a $50 bill. Back in the days when a token only cost a buck I was refused entry even with a dollar bill because the machine won't take it (it only took tokens and change).
Of course now they don't take money at all, so you'll have to get all upset at the Metrocard machine if it refuses to give you change for a 50.
-- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
You wouldn't be endorsing it. That's just ridiculous.
If the local Nazi party has a parade and they're driving Ford trucks, does that mean Ford endorses them? If they're wearing clothes from the Gap, does that mean the Gap endorses them? Of course not. They're just using something they bought, and no reasonable person would hold those companies responsible for what someone does with their products.
On the other hand, if they put a message in their ad saying "AgNO3 endorses the Nazi party!" then that's fraud and/or libel and you can sue their asses.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
At the moment there is NO way to legally buy a copy of OS X for Intel without hardware, so your point is moot.
A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
How is this stealing?
Well, right now, you can't buy a retail copy of OS X with Intel binaries on it. So the only way to get it is from an installer disc included with a new Mac, which was provided specifically for that computer. (it also may not install on any other model without patching, as it is a "restore disc")
Eventually, when 10.5 is released, they'll have to put Intel in a retail box. Then we'll see.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Not exactly. The promise says they're legal tender for all debts. If you owe the power company $25, then they have to accept a $50 note. But if you haven't bought something yet, there is no debt, and they can simply decide not to sell it to you.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
OSX is denying the user one of the fundamental Freedoms. Although it is not the worst offender (*cough microsoft cough*) it is moving in the same direction as Vista. The user is not fully in control of the computer system. There are parts of the computer system about which the user is not permitted to know.
You are not buying a copy of OS X. You almost NEVER buy software, you buy a license to run it under the restrictions that they spell out. Sucks that it works this way but it does.
I don't apologise and get off the bus because he refuses to take my money.
Speaking as a former city bus driver...
...if you do it regularly, I'll request police at your stop, they'll give you a nice fat ticket and tell you to stay off the buses for a year, and you get to experience the warm, friendly comments from all the other passengers whom you've just delayed by 15 minutes.
RTFM. "Exact change only" is in the documentation (timetable, website). For copyright, basics such as this example are covered in the U.S. (or appropriate nation) Code. And the ethics aren't on your side here either -- ethically, maybe it's OK to use my copyrighted work for your own personal use, but you sure as hell can't use it to make a profit from selling trucks without securing a license from me first.
Sure there is. You can buy a Mac, then take the included copy of OS X and install it on a PC.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Yeah, that's one of the scarier things about modern society. Replace person with a non-rational token vending machine and then show "zero tolerance" for people who don't have a token.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I still don't see how that is stealing. Maybe if you broke into someone's house and took their installer disc it would be stealing. But let's just say we're going with the whole "Apple is losing revenue by you copying this" argument that this is stealing.. if it is impossible for me to buy it, then how can they be losing revenue? Are they trying to say that my willingness to download a copy of their OS from the Internet is somehow implying that I'm willing to go buy their hardware to get it? And therefore they are missing out on a hardware sale? That's a pretty ludicrious implication.
How we know is more important than what we know.
The US Treasury would disagree with you: http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/currency/lega l-tender.shtml#q1. Then again, what do they know?
> But yeah, it sucks what the indexer starts at really bad times. Like if you plug in a Firewire drive.
:/
It used to do that all the time for me too for my USB drive, but when I reformatted it with Mac OS X Journaling file system, the problems went away (just indexed once, and then updated as necessary.) It seems as though the indexing system doesn't really work to well with FAT32 file systems, so if you only use your drive on your Mac, you might benefit from reformatting it to a Mac file system.
However if you already do have a Mac file system on the drive, and it still indexes all the time, then I'm sorry but I don't have any more suggestions.
Agreed. The NeXTSTEP UI is/was much cleaner than Finder. Given a proper desktop where files and folders could be dragged and dropped, it would have been a winner. Unfortunately, Apple was tied to making OS X look somewhat like OS 9 in order to make the transition easier for the n00bs.
I also can't stand spotlight. It is a resource hog and doesn't work well
Also agreed. Not to mention that Spotlight is a screaming c*nt to get to work with networked directories. It fails if you try to get it to search NFS automounted shares unless they're users' home directories. If you manually mount a network share in Terminal, it also craps out. The only way to get a searchable share, at least in 10.4.7 and 10.4.8, it seems, it to mount it through Finder, either via "Go/Connect to Server" or via the Applescript "mount volume ..." command. Then you have to run a shell script (as real root, not as an "admin" user!) that tells Spotlight to index the share using the mdutil command. Then keep your fingers crossed, because if several Macs are indexing the share, the system sometimes fails. Basically, Spotlight is an immature product that would have been best released after developpment was complete.
-b.
"How is this stealing? I mean, if I'm willing to accept the somewhat unsound argument that if person X aquires a copy of a program from person Y instead of person Z (the owner of the program), then person Z is missing out on revenue from person X, and I'm willing to call that "stealing", even if that is all true, that isn't what is happening here. Person X can't by a copy of the program from person Z that will run on his PC. Person Z is refusing to sell it to him, so how is person Z losing out?'
Simple. When someone owns something and won't sell it to you, you don't have any right (legal OR moral) to take it from them without permission. Yes, even if you're just taking a copy.
He knows he's fucked because the stupid bus company policy of not having enough float to cover legal tender ties his hands. He can't even ask me ahead of time if I have exact change because the moment he tells me how much the ticket is he's offered the sale. Not to mention the fact that it's $3.50 we're talking about here, there's no reason to get uppity about it. I don't want to give the wrong impression here. I typically try to have correct change, but on the rare occasions that I've gotten on a bus and only had a $20, I'll either get this response or I'll get $16.50 change in coins.. bus drivers appear to have figured out their own solution to the $50 dilemma, don't give notes as change to anyone except those people.
Of course, maybe one day all this shit will go away. It's pretty funny that I've got to deal with the same issues today that Isaac Newton had to deal with. Today it's a $50 note, back then it was a gold guinea, and when they "made change" they really made it: a "piece of eight" was literally a spanish silver coin cut up into eight pieces by a blacksmith. If there was no blacksmith around? The shopkeep would write it down in a book and you got credit.
How we know is more important than what we know.
According to the treasury dept you are wrong, the G.P. is correct.
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/currency/leg
"You can buy a Mac, then take the included copy of OS X and install it on a PC."
Well you can TRY and install it on a PC. It probably won't work (yet). You may not, according to the license agreement however, install it on anything other than a Mac.
"Software License Agreement for Mac OS X:
2. A. This license allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so."
The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
The fundamental purpose of Copyright law is to allow for individuals to profit from their intellectual property. This does not imply having complete control over how their works are distributed. It seems that in the history of copyright law it was assumed that in order to profit from one's intellectual property the individual or publisher must have control over its distribution. However modern times have illuminated the fact that this is not the case. The very existence of other models where one does not control distribution and at the same time allows for the creator to still profit shows the precedent set by "hundreds of years" of copyright law needs to be changed.
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
No, failure to accept them is NOT against the law. Failure to accept them in the course of a sale is against the law...but if you walk up to a little girl's lemonade stand with a $100 bill and demand $99.50 in change or free lemonade, not only are you a jackass, but you've got no leg to stand on legally. The same carries across to big corporations. They have every right to decline the sale or decline to perform a service for you individually.
No establishment is forced to enter into a sale or service agreement with you simply because you have money. The bus system, which runs on coins or small bills almost everywhere I've lived, has no obligation to let you ride if you don't have change or small bills. Generally, if you're short on fare or you only have a $10, they'll let you ride for free as a courtesy. They certainly don't have to.
As another case in point, try demanding that a vending machine accept your $50 bill. Bus drivers aren't cashiers--that's what the fare machine is for. Pompous ass.
Owning a Mac does not entitle you to run whichever version of Mac OS you like. While there is no technical barrier to running, say, an unlicensed copy of 10.4 on a Mac which came with an earlier version, if you haven't got a license for 10.4 you're still breaking the law.
Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
Maybe in your juristiction that would work, but around here the bus company doesn't have any special rights. Hell, the local council buses don't have any special rights. You wanna take money off people, you have enough float to accept legal tender. In my area, if you were to refuse me a ride on your bus (and you'd have to do it with force cause I'm a pig headed bastard) I'd have you arrested.
How we know is more important than what we know.
"Brown University? We have one of those in Providence!" -- Outside Providence
Wrong. If you purchase a copy of any media containing intellectual property, be it a book, a CD, or a software disc, your *ownership* rights extend to the physical medium, not to the content.
You may do as you wish with the disc, but you can't do what you want with the IP. Hence, if you can insert a Mac OS X DVD into your PC and install it, without modifying the disc in any way or using additional software or hardware to bypass restrictions and checks on that DVD or in the PC hardware, then yes, you are within your rights, practically speaking, to install OS X on that machine. But you don't own anything about OS X itself, and you've got no rights to it.
That was badly phrased. You have to have a Mac recent enough to run 10.4, of course. It aint gonna work on your Quadra...
Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
Well that was useless.
Where is the tutorial on how to get our own apps loaded into this special no-pageout protected memory area so that they aren't screwed up by idiots clicking "yes" on a web popup? Every bit of protection helps.
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
Secondly Encrypting some vulnerable application help prevent future viruses from infecting some key applications
Malware writer: "Darn, I can't easily infect the Spotlight indexer. Guess I'll just have to infect the kernel instead".
I am actually happy to hear this it shows that Apple care about security
Unfortunately this isn't the kind of security that's beneficial to actual users.
(Nifty retro website btw).
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Carry a fuckin' float, what is hard? Little girl lemonade store can't afford it, I can understand that, but why can't the million dollar bus company afford to put a freakin' float on their bus? As for vending machines, they're not people, they're not held to account on these things, and yes when they were first introduced there was an uproar about them not accepting legal tender.
How we know is more important than what we know.
It's just crazy. Imagine getting a license with the water pump for your car:
"Spare Part License Agreement for Ford Torus Water Pump:
2. A. This license allows you to install, use and run this Water Pump in a single Ford Vehicle at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Water Pump on any non-Ford-labeled vehicle, or to enable others to do so."
Ford would be laughed out of court. This kind of shit has long ago been ruled anti-competitive and illegal.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Say I'm a black man. I go into a store to buy some bread to feed my family. The shop keep says "that bread aint for sale". I say I have a moral right to take it. Irrefutable.
Nice strawman. Because we all know, any attempt to control my property is equivalent to trying to starve a poor black family.
Your razor blade argument is equally crap. Those blades belong to the store owner. I don't care what you thought, you have no moral or legal right to steal more blades or to force him to give them to you. End of story. Irrefutable.
If you don't like it, shop somewhere else.
Clear, Dark Skies
"Say I'm a black man. I go into a store to buy some bread to feed my family. The shop keep says "that bread aint for sale". I say I have a moral right to take it. Irrefutable."
Uh, no. You go somewhere where they will sell you bread (like 99.9% of places, even in the South). I think most people would find your analogy in poor taste--you're not the victim of bigotry because the software you want isn't available on the hardware you want.
"Again, I ask the shop keep how much for just the razor blades, he says they are "not for individual sale". The guy is clearly trying to cheat me."
You never established in your example that a) he was withholding blades that did exist or b) that those replacement blades were available for individual sale elsewhere. If this man is your only source for those blades, and he won't sell them to you, then you made a poor choice buying the razor from him. You still have no right to steal from him, just because he, like you, is an ass.
"Fuck what Apple says we can and can't do with Mac OS X. They can't stop us." Wrong. Intellectual Property is in fact a very easy concept, but one which is extremely difficult to balance between the rights of consumers and owners (largely because there is a lack of trust on both sides). Your attitude is exactly why owners of IP are increasingly unwilling to share it freely--yes, you might claim that restrictions frustrated you and made you seek to avoid them--but you should have focused your energy on getting the broken system fixed, rather than contributing to the propagation of "bad" practices. It's a chicken and egg problem, and you're not helping. OS X isn't yours. None of it belongs to you, in fact. Apple chose to share it, with restrictions, to the world. That is their natural right; they have no obligation to share it and no obligation to allow what they don't like. Past good faith, which allows you to fudge the edges of fair use, has fast faded and now people like you seem to think that they own, in toto, everything they've ever contributed a penny toward.
The Spotlight menu bar item is infinitely large, as it occupies the top right corner (Fitt's Law).
The grandparent poster is aware of this, and would apparently like to populate it with something that they would utilize more than spotlight. Frankly, I agree, as I tend to key command to spotlight anyhow, then always bring up the window because I want to see the file path, not open the file.
Now, so that you understand why it is infinitely large:
Close your eyes. Move your mouse to the top and right. Give it enough movement to reach it and click. Open your eyes. You will have the spotlight menu open. (Unless you are not in Tiger, then you will have whatever is in the top-right corner)
Repeat this exercise, choosing different starting positions and different lengths of movement. Notice that you always end up on top of the Spotlight menu. (Unless you under-hit it, which is irrelevant because you don't have a penalty if you over shoot it.)
This is the reason the Mac menu bars are at the top- You only have to aim on the x axis, not the y. It is also why contextual menus are handy (you don't have to aim to get to where your cursor is _right now_).
But then you are installing OS X on 2 different machines, even though you only purchased one copy. And before you say it, I seriously doubt you're going to buy Apple hardware, then wipe it clean so you can install Linux or XP on it, then take that copy of OS X and put it on a different machine. Why would you go through the trouble?
A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
I'm guessing you're in the UK. It's hard for me to imagine the law there is that much different from that in the US, where I am.
If the buses are owned and operated by the government, there are most likely code sections providing that passengers endangering public safety or disturbing the peace (and if I or the police have to use force on you, you fit in at least one of those categories) lose their riding privileges. You couldn't have me arrested for anything; I could have you trespassed from the buses and arrested for assault or disturbing the peace. Incidentally, in my jurisdiction, assault on a transit bus driver earns you a felony conviction and significant prison time.
If the buses are privately owned, as you seem to be implying, then the same rules would apply to them as to any other private property. I (as an agent of the owner) don't want you on board for whatever reason (other than racial discrimination or such)? Great! I tell you to get off, and as soon as you don't, you're trespassing. Again, I can have you arrested, not the other way around.
When I drove, I really didn't take well to people making threats, either empty (like yours) or otherwise. I asked them if what they had said was a threat. If they said no, sit down, and shut up, no problem. If they said yes or any other answer other than no, the police were summoned and the bus wasn't moving until the offender was gone. 99% of passengers play by the rules and pay the correct fare without dumb little games (all of which the driver has seen countless times before, by the way). The inconvenience and danger caused by the other 1% are very unfair to the law-abiding public and shouldn't be tolerated.
Incidentally, in the US at least, no urban bus system has made change for decades. In my system, we eliminated it in 1979 after someone shot one of our drivers for his change purse, and we were one of the last ones. Also, at least in my jurisdiction, for businesses that do make change it is completely legal (so they can keep smaller quantities of change, to reduce the risk of a holdup) to reject bills larger than US$ 20.
Why should bus drivers be forced to carry cash, putting them at risk for becoming targets for drug addicts and general criminals? Again, the drivers are not cashiers--they're drivers. They assist in collecting fare and perform several other ancillary functions, but they're there to drive. If you don't have proper fare for the machine, you instead rely on the good graces of the driver to allow you to ride, and there was a time when they would almost never turn people away. Then people began expecting to have their way.
It's your responsibility to carry appropriate fare. If the driver (or anyone on the bus) happens to have change for you or decides to allow you a free ride, that's great. But you're not entitled to it, $50 in hand or not, and it's not the responsibility of the driver, the bus company, or society to accomodate for your lack of planning or other misfortune.
They nicked it from Xerox.
Correction: Apple LICENSED technology from Xerox, and develeoped the GUI far beyond what Xerox had done.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The fundamental purpose of Copyright law is to allow a creator to control how their works are disseminated.
At least in the US, the purpose of copyright is "to promote the arts and useful sciences". That publishers often profit from it is a side effect, not the ultimate goal. (At least, that was the idea until publishers started buying Congressmen).
Obviously, Apple wants you to buy their hardware if you want to run their software, and they're perfectly within their rights to do so.
Copyright does not to equal absolute control over how a product is used after you sell it. I see no moral issue buying a Mac mini, sticking Linux on it, and either using the OS X install discs on a PC or selling them to someone else. If that's illegal, it's not because of copyright. (Again, using the traditional meaning of copyright as the *right* to *copy*, rather than its mutated form of "whatever Disney/Sony/Apple says has the force of law").
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Now, there are 150,000+ virii for Windows. So, if your argument holds water, then Mac's should have a paltry 5% of that sorta figure, or at least 1% (taking into account scaling issues and cascade thresholds). Sadly for you, there's not 1,500 Mac virii. Not even 150 (.1%).
You are ignoring the profit-motive of virii. If it's more profitable to make a Windows virus, why even bother with the 5% of Mac users? Even if it weren't more difficult to make a virus that affected Mac OSX, there still wouldn't be 5% of the Windows virii... the only ones there would be are the ones made as proof-of-concept or just for attention, none of the profit-driven ones that make up a large percent of Windows malware.
I'm not saying I disagree with everything you say, I'm just saying I believe your use of percentages in this case is very flawed.
How is what stealing?
Meh, he's selling a service, he should have adequate float to cover legal tender. If he's worried about his safety he should get a safer job. Next you'll be saying convenience stores and gas stations shouldn't have to have sufficient float to cover legal tender because they get robbed all the time.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Uhh, if BMW was to make it a condition of purchase of one of their vehicles that you only buy spare parts from them, that would be anti-competitive. This is much the same thing.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Don't they have 100% marketshare of Macs?
After all, Macs aren't PCs apparently.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
No, for any number of reasons. 1) Convenience stores are fixed locations, not vehicles which spend most of the day in motion and can't be "restocked" with cash. 2) Convenience stores do substantially more business than a bus. At $1.50 per rider, a typical bus does about $75 an hour in business. A gas station convenience store easily tops $1000/hour. 3) A robbery at a gas station puts some people in danger, but a holdup on a bus puts a large number of people in danger and also creates an unpredictable traffic situation.
There are, of course, other reasons, but the point is this: like parking meters and vending machines, if you know you're going to use them, carry change. Creating an incentive to hold up a bus is not an acceptable price for making life easier for a few people who can't be bothered to carry small bills and change.
In my area, if you were to refuse me a ride on your bus (and you'd have to do it with force
Nah, he just has to call the cops and sit there waiting until they show up. If nothing else, they'll charge you with creating a disturbance. If you try making him drive they'll get you for hijacking, too.
That's if the passengers don't lynch you for delaying them.
-- Alastair
Grandparent: At the moment there is NO way to legally buy a copy of OS X for Intel without hardware,
Parent: Sure there is. You can buy a Mac,
That sure seems like buying it with hardware to me.
-- Alastair
Tiger for Intel. The PPC version doesn't not include this feature.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
I'm not going to bother debating that, since that's a whole other topic.
But, do you really think OS X is going to run better on non-Apple hardware??
A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
Our buses have a sign on the coinbox saying EXACT CHANGE ONLY
-uso.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
Reverse engineering does not require inspecting the original code, binary or otherwise. You have the freedom to devise your own algorithims that mimic/use the functionality of the original, Apple has the freedom to make R.E. of it's products difficult.
Don't like encrypted binaries? - Don't buy an Apple.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
So why don't you have to jump through hoops to install OS X? It has no annoying activation or some Apple Genuine Advantage (tm) daemon or anything. All they really do is request you don't illegally redistribute it instead of assuming that you're going to redistribute it and stopping you at any cost.
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
Second, there are many instances of Compulsory Licenses, where the creator can NOT refuse your use of their work. If you write and record a song, I have a legal right to cover it and distribute it commercially provided I pay you royalties. You can not refuse me and you don't even get to set the price (although you are free to accept a lower price or waive the fees, etc).
Chevy may not have the right to use the original Radiohead recording, but they DO have the legal right to record a cover of the song and use that. They'll have to pay, but Radiohead CAN'T refuse.
The purpose of Copyright law is not to give artists control, it is to give them an incentive to create.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
GUIs were around in academia long before Xerox. Xerox, not knowing what to do with all this stuff coming from the lab, invested in Apple and let them wander through. None of that made it into the myth, kinda anti-climatic.
Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
OSX is denying the user one of the fundamental Freedoms.
Uh, it might be a "fundamental Freedom" if you had a "fundamental Right" of some sort to do as you wish with other people's IP. Unfortunately, you don't. A significant number of people make a good living for themselves and their families working for companies that, while being very understanding and supportive of the free software movement in its proper place, gain competitive advantage over their peers by employing the best intellectual talent to solve problems with technological solutions that if copied would eliminate any sort of advantage that company may have in solving a certain problem.
"Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman
That might be exactly the case. If the Nazis happen to be broadcasting on the radio the mandatory license rules apply. That measn as long as the station is paying their fees to the licensing authorities they can play ANY song. Ask the Pretenders if they approved of Rush Limbaugh using their My City Was Gone for his theme song. Hint: like most artists they aren't even close to being on the same planet politically.
Your problem, like most people, is buying into the concept of "Intellectual Property" and believing you "own" your art. You don't, it belongs to humanity as a whole. To encourage you to create art and then share it most governments (for the most part the Berne Convention signatories) grant creators a limited monopoly over reproduction and public performance. But those monpolies have exceptions like the mandatory licensing rules, fair use, etc. Property Rights do not have to balance so much.
Democrat delenda est
"What the fuck is this? What the fuck am I going to do with this?"
"Pretty much what I was thinking when you gave me a $50 note."
He learned his lesson.
Actually Douglas Engelbart invented the GUI with the oNLine System.
English is easier said than done.
My eyes! The plural of 'virus' is 'viruses'. I can't take anyone who thinks it's 'virii' seriously, sorry.
"post's"? It's "posts". Learn some damn English. What unholy purpose does randomly putting an apostrophe in a word serve?
No, the fundamental purpose of copyright is to encourage people to create works by providing way to cover the financial cost of those works.
The right of a vendor to refuse sale to any person, excepting a few prescribed categories (e.g. racial discrimination) has been long established. (The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co. vs Cream of Wheat Co., U.S.C.C.A. 2nd Ct., 1915 being the earliest I could find.) If you are quoted a fare to get on a bus, or for any other good or service, and you attempt to pay for it with some large bill, the vendor is not obligated to provide change. They could at that point inform you that they didn't have change, and wouldn't be required to give you the service or good for free -- that would be ridiculous. It amounts to legitimizing a theft of services, or requiring everyone to carry around change sufficient to break the largest available denomination of legal tender (in the U.S., several thousands of dollars); if it was true, everyone would be walking around with thousand-dollar bills. That you have been able to get away with it on public buses may be indicative of an internal policy of the bus company or their desire not to create a problem, but I do not see how they are legally obligated to let you ride.
If I go into a penny-candy store and ask to buy 5 cents worth of something, and try to pay with a $20, and the seller doesn't have 19.95 in change, I can't just demand the candy for free. In order to create the oral contract, both parties need to agree to the other party's offer. If my offer is "this candy for five cents," and your offer is "I've got a twenty and I want change," we haven't come to an agreement yet. Both parties make an offer, and then there is consideration, and then there might -- or might not -- be agreement. Only after both parties agree to the terms is there an oral contract of sale created. Just saying 'five cents' doesn't carry with it an implied promise of change from some arbitrarily large denomination of currency that you might want to use, and which could require the vendor to do any number of potentially time-consuming activities (close the store, go to the bank, get change, etc.).
It's not even clear that businesses are required in all U.S. states to accept cash as payment. There is at least one business I know of that absolutely refuses cash, and made it into the national press as a result. A lot of people questioned whether this was legal, and they were in the clear. (It was the cafe "Snap" in the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington, DC. Story here.) And this doesn't even get into the countless thousands of fast-food joints and gas stations which flatly refuse to accept large-denomination bills (usually $100s or larger, although some refuse $50s as well); I haven't heard of any problems with any of them.
If you're claiming that this widespread practice is illegal, then I think the onus is on you to come up with some factual evidence as to why it is.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Well, if the only reason to find a convoluted loophole to legally install OS X for Intel on a regular PC is to prove a point, then I don't see much incentive for Apple to help you do so.
A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
... is not what you said.
...
"Congress shall have the Power
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors
and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
The fundamental purpose is "to promote the useful arts"; giving rights to authors is the means.
We are debating how best to promote the useful arts.
Don't mess with The Phone Company. Piss them off and you'll be using two tin cans and a piece of string.
That's what software makers say. That's not necessarily what a judge would say. I would love to see Microsoft try and defend their "no office suites" clause in Visual Studio, for instance.
When you have to use your key to get into your house, are you being treated like a criminal by the door? Chill, man.
Thanks for the perfect analogy.
No, I don't have to use a key to get into my house. Once I've bought the house I have every right to grab an ax and hack down the front door and walk in.
And for some bizarre reason there are some people here trying to claim that there is something with doing that.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
It's a big problem with commercial software nowadays, they concentrate far more on anti piracy measures like this than actually improving the product...
Their developers are struggling against the cracking groups instead of improving the product, and every end user has to waste processor cycles running this crap and decrypting these binaries. Meanwhile, every version will eventually get cracked and put up on a p2p network.
Whatever Apple do, people will run pirate copies of OSX... But it doesn't run quite so well, it's slow and unstable... Even so, it lets far more people get experience with the OS than would have otherwise, i know several people who ran pirated osx on generic whiteboxes and then went out and bought a mac. Widespread piracy never hurt microsoft either, do you really think windows would be so prevelant in asia and russia if everyone had to pay full price for it?
A pirated OSX is a sub standard experience, like running a demo, and the people who pirate it are people who would never have bought macs to start with... Isn't it better to give them a taster in the hope that a few of them will change their opinion and buy a mac having had a small experience of osx?
From my experience, one of the guys i mentioned above hadn't used a mac since the days of system 7, and didn't like those old versions of macos at all. He'd heard OSX was much better, but had never used it and wasn't willing to buy a mac just to try it... Having run a pirated OSX for a couple of weeks, he bought an imac and now has a macbook too.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
And they would be free to do that.
You wouldn't lose anything by buying a vehicle from another manufacturer instead, VW, Ford etc.
It's not like you need to buy new garages for the new brand of vehicles, and have your drivers take a new driving test before they can drive the new brand of vehicles....
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
No, you are quite wrong about this. The purpose of copyright law is to prevent unauthorised copying of works. It is not in any way to control how works are disseminated. What copyright law allows Apple, or MS, to do is prevent you from making multiple copies which in turn leads to their ability to prevent you installing it on more than one machine.
What copyright law cannot do is allow them to specify which machine you install on. Or whether you have to stand on your head while doing it.
Are you implying that OSX wasn't released under a GNU license?!?
No, they are not free to do that. There's anti-trust laws that prevent them from doing that. That's the only reason why they don't do that. The difference between Apple and BMW is copyright, nothing more, nothing less. When you throw copyright into the mix things get murky because copyright is a blank check handed out by the government with absolutely no accountability.
How we know is more important than what we know.
This is not legal advice, which I am not qualified to give.
I believe you are almost right, but are leaving out one fundamental thing: how you got the software. The seller has no legal or moral obligation to sell you his software apart from his hardware. However, once you have a legally bought copy, the seller has no right to tell you what to install it on.
There are a few things that people get terribly confused about, but the situation is in fact perfectly clear and quite simple.
1) You cannot install on more than one machine without violating copyright
2) They cannot tell you which machine or type of machine its to be.
3) If they try to stop you by Eula, this will not hold up.
4) This is not because Eula clauses cannot be binding, they can.
5) It is because they cannot tell you what to do with something once you've bought it, whether they try to tell you in a Eula or any other way.
6) The reason for this is that attempts to restrict how you use what you have bought, and in particular what you use it with, are post sale restrictions on use, which are not enforceable.
7) The reason for this is that they are anticompetitive.
8) They can void your warranty. However, this does not make the post sale restrictions on use enforceable.
9) They can make it technically impossible or hard to do. However, this does not make post sale restrictions enforceable.
10) When you buy a copy of OSX or XP or whatever, you have bought it, not licensed it or leased it.
Its really pretty simple. Buy a copy of OSX (with or without hardware, new or used). Install it on whatever you want as long as you comply with copyright. Similarly with Vista. Install it on any kind of machine you want. But not on more than one at once. Similarly with Office. Install it under Wine or anything else. One copy at a time.
One other poster is right about Apple. Pirating, ie copying X in violation of copyright, is stealing. Installing a bought copy on one non-Apple machine is not stealing. No-one will ever get arrested and charged with stealing for doing this. They may get charged with DRM type violations, but that's different, and they will have the defence of seeking to gain interoperability.
I agree somewhat, it might have been nice to have had the Mac brought to the masses instead of the grey pc box. Then perhaps users today would be smarter IT-wise! :-D
;-) ).
:-(
But I suspect that if Apple had had a 'clone war', there would be no Apple today: It's no secret that Apple is first and foremost a hardware vendor, and an OS vendor second (if that's their *second* priority, way to go MS
Let's say Compaq would have clean-room-copied an Apple ROM, and successfully marketed a clone. (I'm not even sure you could get the OS in a separate box in an Apple Centre back in the early days, but that's not my point.) My point is that if Apple had [been forced to] live off of OS sales instead of hardware sales, they would probably not have made enough money to survive -- and they would probably have had to resort to what I'll call unsportsmanlike behaviour such as protecting their drivers. Shock! Gasp! We'd have had DRM in the 80ies.
So the bottom line is, it can hurt the consumer. What if Apple had been couped, what if the entire Mac product line had gone the way of the Newton?
"Good news, everyone!"
precisely how does this benefit those who will use the system?
It doesn't. It's not supposed to. It's supposed to benefit Apple, who are essentially a company which sells the whole system, hardware and all, as an "experience".
If MacOS X was that easy to pirate, the "experience" would be damaged becuase people would be expecting it to work on any old POS hardware, so piracy wouldn't necessarily lead to better sales as the perception of Mac OS would be of a buggy, unstable OS.
Even if this problem could be solved, Apple would then find themselves competing with Dell on Dell's own terms - as anyone could go out and buy a Dell and install a store-bought copy of OS X on it.
...Not only that, but the components which are encrypted are technically not part of the OS itself, but are "enhancement applications" so to speak, bundled with the OS in order to provide enhanced functionality. You can boot OS X without all the encrypted Apple proprietary stuff, it's called Darwin.
Is it against the GPL for me to distribute a proprietary, closed-source binary for Linux? Absolutely not, as long as said binary does not contain GPL'd code. That's pretty much what Apple has done here.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
I agree with part of what you're saying, hence why I said, ok, so there won't be 5% the number of virii for mac as windows, maybe just 1%. Or even .1%. maybe even .01%. There's not though, and there's my point. Surely some hacker out there, motivated by nothing more than pride in his/her work and the desire to do something no-one else has managed to would have coded up a Mac OS X virus by now? Except that it's really really hard to do so. I'm sure at some point there will be one. But the security hole it exploits will be patched instantly by Apple. Even the proof-of-concept one that floated out about a year back wasn't that. It didn't work. It was a social engineering malware, sure, since it tricked (really really) stupid users into giving u their admin password to a dodgy app. But that's not what a virus, trojan or worm is. It's not self-replicating, and it can't self-execute.
The truth shall always be free: Boris Floricic is Tron.
Your choice of words (ie. "do as you wish with other people's IP") is revealing here. Software that you've (legally) acquired, running on your machine? Why shouldn't you be able to investigate and modify it as you like? Note that I said "modify", not "redistribute".
If you purchase a physical item, do you still think of it as the seller's property after you've paid for it and taken it home?
Fundamentally, the whole concept of "intellectual property" just doesn't work in the same way as physical property. I guess that's why many (most? all?) software vendors try to suggest that their software is "licensed", not "sold". Pity that most consumers don't see things quite the same way. :)
Anyway, your link between "fundamental" freedoms/rights is a little hazy. It doesn't have to be enshrined in the law for people to support it as a freedom (or indeed to consider it a right).
It's not something that has to apply to all software - the point is more that you can choose to only use software that guarantees those freedoms.
Your view of the world is not valid in pretty much all western civilisation. Get a new view. You have no inherent right to products or services just because I cannot make change. If you think this is different, find me a law which says so.
"Do Not Steal Mac OS X (DSMOS)"? Where's the "N"? Surely DSMOS actually stands for "Do Steal Mac OS"!
Sorry QuantumG, but you are banned from my shop.
Please, it is _not_ "virii". There's nothing worse then someone trying to be clever and failing miserably. "virus" is not a latin word. And if it was a latin word, the plural would be "viri" and not "virii". "virii" would be the plural of "virius", and there is no such word.
Wrong analogy. What you mean is: If BMW was to make it a condition of purchase of one of their spare parts that you can only use them in a BMW, that would be anti-competitive. Which of course it wouldn't. BMW is absolutely free to refuse to make spare parts for Mercedes, Honda, or whatever other cars.
'' The moment I ask "how much?" and they tell me, they have entered into a contract to supply the goods at that price or a lower price if they can't make change. '' Of course "they" haven't. Where do you get that nonsense from?
Though I agree, in a sense. Any list of "fundamental" rights is going to be subjective. Mine includes the right to tinker, though.
And why on Earth would you distribute it? It cannot run on non-Macs and every Mac comes with a copy of the OS. So why would you go looking for a pirated OS when it's necessary to buy their hardware dongle anyway, and that dongle is conveniently packaged with the OS to boot?
Global warming is a cube.
Once you've transferred the operating system to a PC, you can sell the Mac with no OS to someone who wants to run Linux or XP on it (or his own copy of OS X, say from an older Mac he's throwing away). Easily worth the trouble if you like OS X but you want to run it on an $1100 HP laptop instead of a $2000 MacBook Pro.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
The obvious answer to this is a that it's just not a part of the contract you agreed to by buying/using the software. If this doesn't suit you, you shouldn't be using it.
On the other hand, though, this is still reasonable reason to complain about it. If you make a decision not to use something, and you think it's justified, you might feel inclined to tell other people why you made that decision.
Except your little parable would only work if what was happening with Mac OS X was that Dell decided to start selling it with their computers. On the other hand, if I decided to try installing OS X on my generic PC, it would be more like if someone decided they wanted to use their skills with Premiere or whatever to put a Radiohead soundtrack on a Chevy ad, and not even upload it to Youtube. Copyright law is supposed to let the creator control the copying and distribution of her/his work, not what people decide to do with it in the privacy of their own homes.
Apple's protection limits use, not copying.
This isn't something new, btw, they have done similar things without encryption for earlier versions of OS X to force people with old Macs to upgrade to newer, even when there's no sensible reason to do so. Panther won't install on my Wallstreet Powerbook, even though it works very well[1] when installed with a third party hack named XPostFacto. And since Apple always decide to introduce new APIs and feature sets in new versions of OS X, you'll soon be forced to upgrade if you want to use new software. For instance, NeoOffice and QuickSilver won't work with Jaguar.
Very easy, we are the guys (Mac computer owners) who pay for hardware and hardware sales funds the OS X development. So when you run it on white box PC, our funding goes to some guy which runs OS which was not intended to run on that machine first place.
Go support Linux and great overlooked window managers like WindowMaker , support the projects trying to convince Apple to support OpenSTEP.
Every cracked OS X on White Box PC is a loss for Linux/FreeBSD desktop in fact.
I have a guest right now and he has never used a Mac in his life, he saw my Quad G5 with Finder running, he said "So this is Macintosh, it doesn't have viruses or crash yes?"
It takes decades to get that image. Apple is right to protect that image with all costs. Making some nerds, "lets try this too" guys mad is cheaper than going Chapter 11 and leaving IT scene without Apple.
No it ain't. The fundamental purpose is, and I quote from the US constitution:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts
*THAT* is the fundamental purpose. It *achieves* this purpose (or attempts to) by rewarding creators with limited exclusive rigths. Primarily the rigths to copy and to publically perform their work. Nowhere is dissemination protected, unless it involves aditional copying. So, for example, the doctrine of "first sale" ensures that you can legally re-sell a copyrigthed work that you are in legal posession of, regardless of what the original author thinks about the resale.
Windows XP running on Apple machines...
Encrypted binaries....
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
It's possibly not to prevent copying, but more to prevent you from running it on non-apple hardware, and to prevent subversion of critical code through malware.
Remember there are many reasons macs are not infested with malware, and arguably the largest reason is that apple takes a highly proactive approach. They don't wait for a garage-door-size hole to appear in the OS and then start down a 6 month make-another-patch project. They build it (relatively) secure from the get-go and are continually improving security internally even though they are not under attack. This makes it a tougher nut to crack from day 1. This is probably just another way to tighten security. People are scratching their heads asking why apple is doing this because they can't wrap their minds around the idea of making it more secure before someone has busted down the door. If nothing else, this mitigates the damage should someone find and take advantage of an exploit. Breaking it up the way they do with mulitple layers, Instead of owning the entire system, a hacker is more likely to gain control over a small subsection of the OS and have a much less devostating effect on the system as a whole.
As for why only certain binaries are protected thusly, apple most likely has researched their OS and determined that those are either the most likely points of attack, or that those systems, if subverted, would give the attacker a very large degree of fredom (a "big hole") to work with so they are more important to protect. They may also see those systems as more vulnerable to subversion by their design and requried functionality and thus in need of additional protection. Look at how heavily unix protects "sudo", and for good reason.
Without knowing the details I would be guessing, but I suppose it's possible that the systems being protected are all linked by a network of trust, and that if one is taken over, the others would all fall easily, making it important to protect them as a group.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
I'm getting pretty fed up with Apple's hardware. I don't like it. I don't like my Macbook Pro much at all, and if there was a legal way to run OS X on a Thinkpad I'd jump to it. Well, after dealing with bank account issues.
How about buying a Thinkpad and a Mac mini Core Duo, destroying the mini, and running that licensed copy of OS X on the Thinkpad?
Probably still illegal, but should be on firm ethical ground. Apple got their money, and I'm not running the OS on two machines.
I hope you're just playing word games to get a rise out of me. I'd hate to think that you actually believe what you just said. But I'll jump on it anyway, 'cuz I have some time to kill this morning.
Yes, PC is often used to mean "IBM-Compatible Personal Computer", but that doesn't mean that a Mac is not a personal computer, too. It's also true that Apple is just about the last living company outside of the heavily commoditized Wintel segment, but that doesn't mean that a Macintosh is a fundamentally different product. There are other manufacturers who make similar hardware/software pairs - RISCStations and PegasOS computers come to mind. There used to be a lot more of them. Do Acorn and Genesi also have monopolies over their respective products?
Or is your problem that Apple makes both the hardware and the operating system? In that case, Sony has a monopoly on Playstations, Microsoft has a monopoly on XBoxes, and Nintendo has a monopoly on GameCubes; Nokia, Kyocera, Motorola, and Sony Ericsson all have monopolies on their particular lines of cell phones; and Tivo, Applanix, Sun, IBM, and Lego have monopolies on their DVR boxes, GPS systems, servers, workstations, and mainframes, and toy robot kits. While we're at it, we might as well initiate retroactive litigation against Commodore, Atari, Sinclair, Apple (for both the Apple II and the Lisa), HP, DEC, SGI, Honeywell, and whatever's left of Genesi and Symbolics.
So when you run it on white box PC, our funding goes to some guy which runs OS which was not intended to run on that machine first place.
... support the projects trying to convince Apple to support OpenSTEP.
OK, I'll buy a Mac and a white box PC, and destroy the Mac so I can't run two copies of my one licensed copy of OS X even if I wanted to. Apple got their money.
Go support Linux and great overlooked window managers like WindowMaker
Or FreeBSD? I switched to Mac from FreeBSD/Windowmaker + Windows for the stuff that just doesn't exist for free UNIX. Support? I'm an early 386BSD patchkit-era developer, I did the patchkit that got "make world" to run to completion for the first time. I ran the Windowmaker website mirror back when Windowmaker was young. I use FreeBSD for servers... it still kicks OS X pasty butt there.
But on the desktop there are still only two options if you want to run commercial software: OS X and Windows. Every solution to this problem I've seen eventually comes down to supporting Windows one way or another... dual-booting, two machines with a KVM, VMWare, Wine, it's all sending money to companies that only support Windows by buying their software.
Meanwhile, OS X is a FreeBSD derivitive (don't get on my case about Mach, Mach isn't a complete OS and there's FreeBSD kernel and usermode code all through OS X, and the whole Mach/BSD relationship is incestuous anyway). Apple supports FreeBSD. OS X has the same core API as any other UNIX version. Any solution that lets you run OS X software supports the OS X ecosystem *and* the UNIX ecosystem far better than anything involving Windows executables.
URLs? And wouldn't supporting GNUstep be more useful? Oh, that's pretty much dead...
Every cracked OS X on White Box PC is a loss for Linux/FreeBSD desktop in fact.
Do you mean Gnome or KDE? They're dead ends, both of them. The closest thing you can get to a FreeBSD desktop today is OS X.
If you purchase a physical item, do you still think of it as the seller's property after you've paid for it and taken it home?
When I purchase a car, the car is my property. Honda is not trampling on my liberties by not giving me all the CAD files and whatnot that were used to make my car.
You're infringing my Fundamental Freedom to visit a Slashdot site without any comments by you on it.
It doesn't have to be enshrined in law or recognized by anyone except me to be a Fundamental Freedom. It doesn't even have to make any sense. I say what's Fundamental. Neener.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
Not only is your position tenuous (actually wrong, but nevermind), but it sounds like you haven't even stopped to consider that maybe, regardless of legal obligations, just maybe, you're being a misanthropic jackass.
iFeed?
It's the great new Apple nutritional management program. Sure some people complain about the way they use DRM to prevent food sharing, but that's a minor quibble.
Clear, Dark Skies
1) CoreData is open source (well, maybe not what's in Tiger specifically, but EOF is, as are the storage backends).
2) CoreImage has no equivalent. Although I would argue CoreImage is an API and scene manager, not a specific technology. The technologies are Quartz and QuartzExtreme (and ultimately OpenGL). GEGL, libart and Compviz are implementing non-overlapping subsets of what CoreImage provides, each with different purposes.
3) CoreAudio? I think jack and lapsda on top of alsa pretty much cover that. What's missing is support for more plugin types demanding more complicated controls (UI framework is not covered), so you don't get nice looking VST interfaces or anything.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
The way I read it, portions of the app are actually encrypted with AES; which is interesting because it implies the decryption key must be part of the kernel, which implies the key is fixed.
So, I'm not sure what this actually accomplishes - I mean, it prevents you from easily disassembling binary, but how does it prevent you from running on non-Apple hardware?
Maybe the key is physically burned on some chip in the hardware?
Clear, Dark Skies
Under copyright law, I have first buyer rights.
I will not enter into a contract negotiation, leaving just copyright. It's my copy. It is NO LONGER the vendors copy. They sold it to me.
Apple never refused to sell me OS X. Since I never entered into a contract with them, I am bound only by copyright.
Ratboy
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
I didn't say it should be yanked now. I said that it should be improved from what is essentially a beta product. And you're forgetting the business world: some of them would really like to be able to switch to OS X *and* have indexed/searchable network shares. Anything that increases Apple's business market share is ultimately good for Apple.
-b.
It's maybe illegal in the US (I'm not aware of a decision either way on whether their EULA is upholdable). On the other hand, I understand it would probably be legal in the EU - there are laws prohibiting post-sale restrictions there, so once you own a copy of the OS, any license that forbids certain uses of it is void.
I am not a lawyer, any attempt to take a slashdot posting as legal advice is highly silly
What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht
I agree. Being able to launch my apps with out reaching for my mouse makes me work so much faster.
An interpreter script is a text file that traditionally begins with the #! characters followed by a path to the interpreter. Files not containing the #! line are treated as shell scripts--not by the kernel, but by the execvP stub in the C library. If the stub gets an ENOEXEC error from the kernel when such a file's execution is attempted, it reattempts execution by using "/bin/sh" as the first argument to execve() and the file as the next argument.
/bin/sh is pretty forgiving. I'm pretty sure if you told it to execute a saved email or HTML file it would happily try every line in the file looking for valid commands. It's not hard to imagine this feature being one link in the chain which enables some exploit. After all, it's relatively easily to get shell commands into a users mailbox or web cache files. Making it possible for the system to natively execute a mailbox or HTML file just seems dangerous. Maybe that's just me.
I think Linux does the same thing, although I haven't checked. Somehow, this just feels wrong to me. If it's not a valid binary, and doesn't start with #!, why not just fail? Why keep trying?
Excellent answer. If the process of purchasing or otherwise licensing the software involved me viewing and signing my informed-and-competent-adult agreement to a legally binding contract, then that is perfectly reasonable.
This is where some of us start to mutter that lending any legal weight to sight-unseen shrinkwrap EULAs is just plain dumb, such things are ridiculous and (should be) unenforceable, and giving them anything approaching the status of actual contracts is cartwheeling into crazy land.
Well, at least that's what I'm muttering. Should I mutter louder? :)
In NYC at least, you can buy Metrocards from retail stores and give your money to a human, if you really want to. Token booths with humans inside existed until the Metrocard rollout.
I'd argue that machines are inherently rational at their intended function - in this case, exchanging money for tokens - but then you can argue rationality as common sense rather than as a system of rules, and it becomes a semantics game.
Full-quoting because it was inappropriately downmodded (and it saved me having to think enough to type essentially the same thing).
anoncow:What he said. :)
I can do this with my computer, too.
It's worth pointing out that reverse engineering and disassembling/decompiling are not the same thing. The latter might be useful for helping with the former, but the law doesn't say that anybody is required to make sure reverse engineering will be easy. It just says that that you're allowed to do it for various reasons. Nor do I think anyone has an ethical responsibility to make reverse engineering easy. In fact, if you're looking to reverse engineer something it's probably in your best interests to not disassemble any Apple binaries, since you'll want to be staying on the safe side of copyright law. This is why the Wine folks down't want anybody who has seen the source code to Windows getting involved in their project. Similarly, both AMD and Intel would probably think twice before hiring somebody who has worked on the other company's chip designs.
Probably. The problem here is that, whether we like it or not, software is sold as a licence rather than as a product. I'd personally expect EULAs to stand up in court simply because there'd be legal and financial pressure upon them to do so; at the moment, they're just "expected" to be valid.
I don't think contracts are going to leave, though. If EULAs are found to be invalid, it'll just change the way that they are distributed to something that's more legally sound, and very little else.
Underhanded? Probably. But I suppose that this is where the whole "vote with your feet" thing should (in a perfect world!) come in.
"If your mind can imagine it, it can be made"
... and lo, Satan created software patents.
---
We spoke for about a half an hour. I don't recall a thing we said. - Colorblind James Experience
Your morals may tell you to take them, but then you would have the morals of a criminal. You have no "right" to take them. As a matter of law and common sense, it is you who would be cheating the shop keeper by taking his property without permission or compensation.
Keep in mind that, in a free market economy, there is no such thing as a "fair" price. There is only the asking price of many competing vendors. If you paid a $10 for your razor blades, and then later found a place on-line that sold them for $2, you did not get cheated. Assuming the razors are of quantity, you either paid a premium for quality, convenience, and service, or you were too lazy to get off your ass and shop around.
Taking this back to the OP, there are many competitors in the computer hardware and OS markets. If you feel Apple is charging a premium by selling razor and blades together, go buy Windows blades or Dell razors. The only reason you would give money to Apple is if you feel they offer greater quality, convenience, and service, or you're too lazy to get off your ass and research alternatives. Note that in none of these scenarios has anyone "cheated" you.
--
I'd say it's ALL people who run it on their non Apple hardware pirated it. You can't buy OS X for Intel hardware in any store, it only comes with a Mac purchase. So either they purchased a Mac and used that copy(stupid idea) or they downloaded an already cracked version(much more likely).
I think you have that backwards.
Just like Next executed a "reverse takeover" of Apple, Apple is in the process of taking over Intel.
We will know when the process is complete when Intel goes big-endian.
Have a nice rainy day.
Sincerely,
The Hawaiian Skiing Duck-Billed-Platypi Team.
Same on 10.4.8. The description could also be read that the pointer points to another pointer, but that still causes a segfault.
By "copyright law", you are not referring to our traditional, historic copyright law but to the DMCA, which is anathema to the societal concept of "fair use". Many people and even aspiring politicians are finally coming to realize that the DMCA was a Bad Thing based more on greed than the well-being of Americans at large. It does more societal harm than good.
Our original and traditional copyright law allows things like "decompiling" without penalty... as it should. A program is not conceptually different in any way from a recipe book. It is nothing but a set of instructions. Obfuscating those instructions so that the average person can not read them does not convey to the author any right to make reading or analysis of the contents illegal.
Before you argue that programs are different because they can control machines, note that this very issue was decided by congress and the courts 100 years ago -- in 1906 -- in the context of player pianos. The rolls of paper they used were both "music", and "programs" that controlled machines. Gee... sound familiar? Modern hardware brings no new issues to the table. It is Deja Vu all over again...
The concept of "no decompiling or reverse-engineering" is in principle identical -- in every way: moral, ethical, and legal -- to telling people that it shall henceforth be illegal to study the contents or parse the sentences or analyze word frequencies in a book they have purchased. As a legal concept, the very idea is ludicrous.
So by your logic, MSFT has a monopoly on Xbox, Sony has a monopoly on PS and PS/2 and Nintendo has a monopoly on GameCube. Do you expect to have interoperability between game consoles as well?
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
You are a complete asshole, and there is no jurisdiction in the world where your warped understanding of the meaning of "legal tender" is remotely true. I'm sure you've bullied people into agreeing with you, but it's no secret that underpaid bus drivers are unlikely to argue with the occasional violent asshole who demands a free ride. Your rationalization of this crime isn't really particularly creative, and nobody believes it but you. Spend that $50 on an anger management counseling session.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
Antitrust only comes into play when someone has a monopoly... Neither Apple nor BMW do.
But your right about copyright being a blank cheque....
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Um, no...I'm saying that maybe Apple has hardware issues, and maybe they don't. Probably no worse than any other company. But that's not the point anyway.
A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
I love the fact that someone modded you up for this insane response. You *are* aware that "dollar" is used in other countries right? Fuckin' americans.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Unfortunately the article doesn't explain in any way the really interesting points. For instance:
- How is the decryption key protected ? If it is included in the kernel binary you can read it.
- How is the kernel protected? Can you write a modified kernel that use the kernel extension unmodified and allows you to look at the decrypted code ?
- Can you run the kernel on an emulator (on a mac) that relays the calls to the TC chip so that the kernel thinks it is on a Mac while making it possible for you to look at the decrypted code and package an unencrypted binary back ? If not, why ?
These are some of the things I'd be interested in knowing.
The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.
We do have a fundamental right, just as chinese dissidents have a fundamental right to free speech. Just because our governments don't recognise our rights doesn't mean we shouldn't.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I use butler now and like it. Thank you. I'll check out Quicksilver.
yanked - no. given the OPTION to remove it - yes.
the way to "remove it" now is to muck with system files and rename the directory the executable live in, and maintain the hack on each OS upgrade.
Fair enough, but although the GP claimed the point was moot, it isn't. You can buy OS X with Apple hardware, then sell the hardware and run OS X on a PC.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Nope, that's not how it works. A debt is payment for something that you've already received. Until you've accepted ownership of the product, you're just negotiating a sale, but in your scenario you don't have the ticket until the very last step. If he gives you the ticket first, then maybe there's a debt.
However, he might argue that the presence of a conspicuous "EXACT CHANGE ONLY" sign means that paying with exact change was an implied condition of the sale, which is perfectly legal. Therefore, by offering to buy a ticket when you didn't have exact change, you simply obtained the ticket under false pretenses, and there was no valid sale.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
There are MANY examples of proprietary software in the world. Apple can set ANY rules they wish. There is NOTHING anticompetitive about it. Your analogy is misplaced. People can simply choose to use another OS if they want to purchase a PC. If they purchase a Mac they can numerous OSs if they choose. However OS X is only made to run on a Mac. Apple doesn't make it to run on anything else. They are under no obligation to do so. If your argument were true then every single piece of software in the world would have to run on any piece of hardware and any OS. That's just a ridiculous argument, and would stifle development as costs skyrocket.
The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
All over the UK there are charity shops. They sell a lot of cast off Land's End clothing. Now suppose that on the label of every Land's End T shirt it said: By opening this package and donning this garment you have assented to this End User License Agreement. This article is licensed for wear on one and only one body, the body of first wearing. Any further transfers to other bodies is unlicensed and will subject the wearer to legal penalties, fines and so on.
Let me ask you: do you think any European court is going to declare this to be a license rather than a sale? Would this really stop people buying used T shirts? It doesn't matter WTF they call it on the label, it doesn't matter what the Eula says, there are certain restrictions on use post-sale that are simply not valid under EU law. This is one of them. You did not license it, you bought it. You cannot change a purchase into a license simply by calling it by a different name. The act you performed was legally an act of purchase.
What you cannot do of course is violate copyright on the article you have purchased. That's different. Copyright does not give the seller or holder any rights to impose post sale restrictions on use of what they have bought. It does restrain copying and onward distribution however.