Slashdot Mirror
Psystar Not Closing Up Shop
Despite several sources reporting that post-indefinite-injunction Psystar was closing their doors for good, the company's lawyer is claiming Psystar plans on going forward with PC sales — they just won't be pre-loaded with Apple's OS X. Psystar plans on selling systems pre-loaded with "other operating systems," including Windows, as well as selling their "Rebel EFI software" that allows consumers to load OS X on generic PCs.
Apple is engaging in anti-competitive behavior by tying its OS to its hardware. This behavior should be illegal for any OS, Windows, or OSX.
"it would continue to sell PCs with other operating systems, including Windows"
Does this mean what those words in that order are supposed to mean: that the company will sell computers with operating systems other than Windows and OS X?
--
Pystar might as well milk the publicity for more attention and sales. If they shut down now they won't be able to ride the wave.
That $2.7 million settlement won't pay itself.
Feeling rejected are we?
http://michaelsmith.id.au
is this gonna be like one of those places that sells "tobacco" pipes?
Hi, i'd like a 'good' windows pc, please?
Ah, yes right this way, step into the back room... lol.
Where is psystar 2 that will install osx not useing a image to install it?
also out side of the usa the laws are way more open on this.
Also what is stop them form useing a EFI apps that lets you install from the apple mac os dvd with out modding it?
You know, if you haven't been to the Psystar website (its down right now), they really did take the time to make good looking machines. Although one of the selling points of Apple's hardware has always been its aesthetics, Psystar wasn't simply putting their hackintoshes in beige midtowers. They had a nice line of an very different looking, (and I would argue), sleek and more professional looking machines running OSX than Apple - I actually would prefer their glossy black towers for business environments over Apple's chromes, whites, and bright colors. I think its good that the company has a plan B, and I don't think its any great loss to the consumer to have to buy a copy of OSX to load on the machines, if their hardware and loader is already totally compliant. Anybody creating a hackintosh of any sort has to pick up a copy...
They are legally stupid if they are going to try to keep selling that software.
Their best bet is to become a PC company and use only hardware known for being Hackintosh-compatible.
Any other company can probably sell software like Rebel but this company has legally poisoned its waters, any attempt to keep selling Rebel will be viewed as an act of bad faith and judges will be looking for every excuse and technicality to punish them. At best, they won't get any benefits of the doubt in future Apple trials.
If they really want to do the world a favor, open-source the code.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Will apple try the same carp on iphone unlocks soon? jailbreaks?
the LAW says that you can unlock a phone will apple try the same loading in to ram carp to stop that?
Probably not a carp. They're not a very sexy fish. Apple would likely slap jailbreakers with a tuna or salmon.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
I seem to recall reading that they are actually ripping off an EFI-emulation boot loader that was open source, removing attribution, violating the license, and claiming it as their own. If this is true, they should not be given the dignity, in press articles or otherwise, of having it called "theirs".
I realize this is an Apple story so people writing about it are going to be a little slow - still this is no excuse. :-) If it's not Pystar's original code, let's not call it that. Or if I'm wrong on that point, sorry, I must have misheard, move along.
A lot of people questioned Psystar's motivation considering that dogs could tell you that Apple would sue the shit out them.
Could this whole debacle be just a publicity stunt to launch a company that ends up selling vanilla Windows systems?
-Lou
Nah, its nothing but bricks down at the bottom of Jailbreak Sea.
"His name was James Damore."
Apple is certainly not a carp company.
More likely, Apple will try...
Grouper, in your choice of blackened or grilled. If that doesn't work...
Crab, boiled or baked. And as a last resort...
Barracuda.
I think they are more like the electronic equivalent of effeminate eunuchs.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
According to this, they are in fact shutting down.
Or maybe they'll try pan-fried carp - the sauce includes apples, after all....
Essentially their entire business model is based on piggybacking off Apple. They can't build and sell competitive PCs without the carrot of being able to install OSX. It doesn't sound like they are striking a blow for freedom so much as mooching off some one else's success.
Nah... hackintoshes are more like overly macho cowboy types (think New Zealand) that want to partake of showtunes.
They don't want the entire "sissy" package.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
... my big quaking ass. So-called "tying" is very much anti-competitive, because the MOTIVE behind it is anti-competitive. Just because all the other kids are doing it and getting away with it doesn't mean it's not anti-competitive. All it means is that the DoJ only has limited resources to go after every trivial anti-competitive abuse.
Frankly, the real problem is capitalism itself, because the motives that drive capitalism are in fact the desire to thwart competition and create monopolies. If Capitalism were an NPC in a D&D campaign, it would be "chaotic neutral", because there are no inherent ethics in Capitalism at all; they have to be artificially tacked-on, with threats of force attached to make them work at all.
From the ruling:
"Rebel EFI will not be expressly excluded from the terms of the injunction. It should be clear, however, that this ruling is without prejudice to Psystar bringing a new motion before the undersigned that includes real details about Rebel EFI, and opening itself up to formal discovery thereon. This would serve the purpose--akin to a post-injunction motion vetting a 'design-around' in a patent action--of potentially vetting (or not vetting) a product like Rebel EFI under this order's decree.
"Moreover, Psystar may raise in such a motion any defenses it believes should apply to the factual circumstances of its new product, such as the 17 U.S.C. 117 defense raised in its opposition and at oral argument. Whether such a defense would be successful on the merits, or face preclusion or other hurdles, this order cannot predict. What is certain, however, is that until such a motion is brought, Psystar will be selling Rebel EFI at its peril, and risks finding itself held in contempt if its new venture falls within the scope of the injunction."
So the judge already has Psystar in the crosshairs if it continues to sell Rebel_EFI as it currently stands.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Logic used to be the standard for audio production in Europe and for a lot of enthusiasts in America. It was cross platform and worked with almost any kind of interface.
Apple bought the company, ceased Windows development and support, and left a bunch of people out in the cold. This is the sort of thing that becomes anti-competitive once there's enough market share. It's when a company is so huge that they force people to use their products through acquisitions. It removes competitors from the market place, so the market literally ceases to become a market.
Isn't that a Japanese dish?
http://michaelsmith.id.au
So, if I acquire a piece of open source software, I should be able to use it however I want?
Yes, that is correct. GPL permits you to use GPL software however you want. Only if you choose to MODIFY AND DISTRIBUTE must you adhere to the rules of making available the source code with your changes.
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
Yeah, who didn't see this coming. It's pretty obvious that the injunction does not apply to the Rebel EFI software:
...defendant is permanently and immediately enjoined from:
....
4. Manufacturing, importing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to plaintiff's copyrighted Mac OS X software, including, but not limited to, the technological measure used by Apple to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers;
5. Manufacturing, importing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively protects the rights held by plaintiff under the Copyright Act with respect to its copyrighted Mac OS X software.
Well, at least it's obvious to Psystar. Maybe not so obvious to those of us possessed of a lesser level of legal sophistication ;-)
Buy a PC from Dell, or HP with Windows on it, and you can't legally transfer that OS to another PC. All OEM's do this. Most hardware manufacturers bundle their own OS with their hardware, from cars, microwaves, cable boxes, routers, mp3 players, DVR's, etc. Just because you may be able to get whatever software they bundle with their hardware working on some other piece of equipment, doesn't mean they must then sell you a license to do so. You can't force them to produce, manufacture, or license something against their will.
As to your point of tying Mac's to OSX, wouldn't the same apply to every other PC Manufacturer out there? Take laptops for instance. They bundle mobile graphic drivers specific to the hardware. It isn't necessary to run them, as any stock driver would work, but they purposely prevent you from using generic nVidia drivers for instance. You can't force HP to release their HP Customer Support software to Dell because it runs on an Intel Architecture. It might piss someone off, but you have no right to dictate what someone puts on their hardware, or who they decide to license their software to, as long as it isn't anti-competitive. Don't like it? Don't buy it. It's just that simple. There are too many alternatives out there for this to be any sort of anti-competitive stance. Microsoft, who already has a vast majority of OS desktop and laptop market, basically tried to force vendors to do their bidding by leveraging their market dominance. They were caught, and had their wrist slapped as a result.
Apple in contrast, is a little guy by comparison. Don't like something they are doing? Don't buy their products. There are a multitude of hardware manufacturer's out there, and a multitude of OS and OS variants, some free and some at a cost.
It's Apple's software, they can license it to whoever they choose. Would they come after Joe Windows User who decides to buy OS X, hack it, and install it on his Dell? Unlikely. If Joe then decides to do this and start selling his PC's for a profit as "OpenMacs"?
You betcha...
Just what the fuck in the GPLv3 are you claiming makes it a "USE LICENSE"? I call BU-U-U-U-L-L-L-L-SHIT!
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
The article absolutely does not say that Psystar intends to continue selling Rebel EFI after the court's recent decision. It says that earlier this month they stopped selling systems with OS X pre-loaded, and at that time kept selling Rebel EFI. It says absolutely nothing about their future plans, just that the website has gone dark, and that one lawyer claims they're not completely out of business.
True.
If they didn't have this power, do you think they would release OSX as easily hackable as it is, to the world?
Your position doesn't leave much room for their relatively unobtrusive stance on copying and DRM... either they would lock the OS down so hard (iPhone-like) or simply not exist as the company they are today.
What have you done to counteract the corporate intellectual property police state?
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Let's say that they make $40 on Rebel EFI. We'll call that one profit unit. Let's say they make $400 on each pc they sell or 10 profit units. Since they agreed to pay Apple 2.7 million, the first 67,500.00 profit units they gain go to Apple, then they can settle down to making themselves a living.
How much had they sold? Under 800 pcs? In a year?
Oh yes, how much do they owe their attorneys?
And let me understand the business model: sell a pc and a doodad, direct the customer to a website where someone else has posted instructions how to self-hack a Mac, and communicate to the customer - maybe via mime - that they will need to buy a copy of OS X and install and mess around with it. I imagine that would be without their help, otherwise they may be afoul of the injunction. And the customer would get service and support handled by two guys in Florida instead of an international top brand? Customers who magically laugh off any Apple updates to OS X that breaks the Rebel EFI, since they have fire in their eye, hackery mojo up the yin yang and who will roll up their sleeves, hack it back, nod their head in understanding when Psystar explains why they can't patch Rebel EFI in any way which appears to contribute to OS X infringement, and will be loving it? Oh. I see. It makes sense because the customer saves a few hundred dollars, doesn't want Windows, somehow hasn't heard of Linux and wants to stick it to Steve Jobs, so called Executive of the Decade. That's what they call a niche market. Well, that there's a business plan I can under...
Who am I kidding? That's insane. That's why the shutter up and Chapter 7 it out of town made a lot sense to me.
Instead of Psystar selling computers with Mac OSX on them, they could install their own version of Linux preconfigured to look and behave like Mac OSX. I'm still a Linux noob, but I already know that you can find a lot of themes on sites like gnome-look.org that will make Ubuntu look like Windows or Mac. This, I imagine, would not be too difficult to pull off.
Think about it: customers get something like Mac OSX, but probably cheaper and without Psystar having to deal with the legal hassle.
Holy crap. +96, Actually Hilarious Pun
Psystar ought to use the SAM440 PowerPC chip and build AmigaOS 4.1 compatible motherboards and systems because Amiga,Inc. does not care if AmigaOS is installed on non-Amiga branded PC systems. The Amiga was always better than the Macintosh anyway because the AmigaDOS/AmigaOS has a lower overhead but the same look and feel as MacOS or OS X and runs faster on older hardware with less RAM. I'll bet the Psystar AmigaOS systems will sell more than the Psystar Mac OS X systems.
Then again Psystar can just sell systems with Linux, *BSD Unix, AROS, OS/2 eComStation, and Windows, everything but Mac OS X and put Apple sales to shame and outmarket and outproduce Apple.
It seems there is a loophole in that Psystar cannot sell pre-loaded Mac OS X systems, but can sell the systems sans an OS and then sell the EFI mods to run Mac OS X on them separately and let the users install Mac OS X on EFI Rebel modified Psystar systems. Which means they will still sell Hackintosh systems but without the OS, and then make money on the EFI Rebel modification kits and let Apple sell Mac OS X to the Hackintosh fans because Apple has no verification system to tell if a user owns a Mac or Hackintosh when the EFI Rebel is done right to emulate Apple EFI and Apple hardware.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
I'm sure if someone started a business selling jailbroken phones or jailbreaking software, apple would go after them. But they've shown no signs of going after individuals who jailbreak their phones, nor after individuals who try to install OS X on their non-Apple hardware.
The CB App. What's your 20?
This is brilliant! I don't think those boys in the Mac Collective are going to be able to stop this one. Sorry, Mac, once you moved to common components you became a common company. Join the train.
Apple only sells upgrade licenses. The only way to get a full license is to buy Mac hardware, and as the EULA states, you can only use that license on that hardware. That Full license is not for just software alone. It is for only having that software (OS) installed on that piece of hardware.
Example: You already own one Mac with OSX 10.4 on it. Then you buy a second Mac with OSX 10.5 on it, but you intend to uninstall that OS and install Windows 7 (I know, not the best choice, but an example nonetheless). You cannot take the 10.5 OS and install it (Legally) on your other Mac, that has 10.4 on it. If you want to install 10.5 on that Mac, you have to purchase and "upgrade" for that OS.
Apple only offers Full Licenses as OEM Licenses.
And if you don't like it. . . don't buy it. Get over yourselves.
Self proclaimed wannabe geek. You know how it is. Most of us who read this stuff probably fit in that category.
You bought a round piece of plastic. You don't own a copy of the code. You are merely allowed to use the code, in the manner in which Apple wants to allow you to use it.
If I was a member of an organization that gives their paying members access to their facilities, and they have restrictions on the type of access and use of those facilities, and you violate those restrictions, that organization has the right to not let you use those facilities any longer, even though you paid for that membership access.
Wether you like it or not, that is how it is. So if you don't like it and think it should change, that doesn't mean you should break into those facilities, and use them as you see fit anyway.
The only difference here is you think there should be a difference in one from the other because my example is for physical access to a physical space, and the other is not "physical".
Self proclaimed wannabe geek. You know how it is. Most of us who read this stuff probably fit in that category.
Wether you think like Obama, that we should have a socialist state. . . Capitalism made America the super power that it is. The reason you have the rights and freedoms you have in the US is because of Capitalism.
Self proclaimed wannabe geek. You know how it is. Most of us who read this stuff probably fit in that category.
mod parent up.
Well said.
Self proclaimed wannabe geek. You know how it is. Most of us who read this stuff probably fit in that category.
Can't Psystar just make each computer they ship OS X install ready and ship a free OS X with it? Let each consumer take on the responsibility of installing their own OS X. I know not everyone can install an OS, but surely those buying this specific product are a little more tech savey than Mr and Mrs Joe Bloggs. And legal problems with this idea?
Has to make you more and more suspicious that Psystar as someone's shill.
They both ripped off a FOSS project and re-badged it "Rebel EFI" and they've been clearly warned by the judge in the case that distributing Rebel EFI will get them into to trouble so what do they do? Announce that they will continue to distribute Rebel EFI.
It's a civil case but contempt of court will still get you thrown in jail.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
It's not a pun it's alliteration.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
Just a little thing called a court order which explicitly forbids them to do any of this stuff.
And no it wouldn't be substantially different anywhere else as all major economies have signed up to the Berne convention and have copyright laws that are equivalent to those concerned here.
Perhaps you should try understanding the background before you go expressing your opinion?
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
Will apple try the same carp on iphone unlocks soon?
I'm Ulrich Drepper, and I approve of this message.
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5070#c1
Mac OS X isn't just "unix with a pretty look". Before OS X you had the choice of getting an OS that didn't suck, or software that didn't suck. Linux gets you the OS that doesn't suck, but there's negligible packaged consumer software for it. There's gobs of software for Windows, but Windows sucks so hard it could pull asteroids through pipettes. OS X gets you and OS that doesn't suck, and software that doesn't suck. Putting a pretty face on Linux won't change that.
Yes it is illegal and should be. Because you drive your sales of one (say the Hardware) with sales of the other (Software). Isn't that what everyone says the reason why clones would kill Apple? Because the only way they can sell the hardware at the cost they sell it is to make it the only way to get the software?
And that then is illegal tying.
It got modded flamebait because it's dissing apple, by the way.
It's very easy to argue just that: you can install Windows on the Macs. You can install Linux on the Macs. These OS's are not Mac OS, therefore there's no requirement for Max OS to be the operating system. Therefore they aren't naturally related.
Ever read the DMCA?
Interoperability is fine.
And Apple has no rights to how their product is used (including installation, read the US copyright act).
PS What's wrong with contempt of court when the court is contemptible?
First off is the price:They are down to $299 each
PLAYSTATION 3 has a lockout chip that prevents unapproved software from executing. The discontinued model had an approved hypervisor program that could run Linux in half the machine's RAM; the $299 model has no such program.
It also wouldn't hurt to leverage the Altivec instruction set
Does Cell even have AltiVec? I thought it had a half-dozen or so DSPs, and its PowerPC core was the same stripped-down version that the Xbox 360 has three of.
You bought a round piece of plastic. You don't own a copy of the code.
Chapter 1 of the United States copyright statute starts out by defining dozens of terms. For instance, "copies" are material objects in which a work is fixed, meaning that a disc with bits on the surface is a "copy". It goes on to grant exclusive rights to the copyright owner and then carve out exceptions for the owner of a lawfully made copy, such as the right to resell it (exhaustion of distribution rights at first sale; 17 USC 109) and the right to load a computer program into RAM (17 USC 117).
There is no exception in copyright law, to my knowledge (and please cite the law if I am wrong) that treats software any differently than any other copyrighted work.
17 USC 109 ordinarily exhausts the distribution right after the first sale. But this doesn't extend to the rental, lease, or lending of a copy of a computer program unless A. the copy is embedded in a device, B. the program is for a video game console, or C. a nonprofit library is lending the copy. On the other hand, 17 USC 117 specifically allows copying a computer program into RAM to run it. To find more cases, search the copyright statute for the words "computer program".
I'm pretty sure EULAs can't affect hardware anyway, since it is sold and not licensed (unlike software).
Hardware can be licensed. It's called "leasing". As long as the terms of sale are available to read before the sale, it doesn't matter whether it's hardware or software.
If Ford sold replacement bucket seats that were really nice, but wanted to sue anyone if they happened to make some adapters and bolt them into a Chevy, how well do you think that would go over?
Nowadays, it might go over as well as when Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo successfully sued to shut down Lik Sang.
The distinction is that the GPL, version 3, and Apple's license are USE licenses.
Nothing in your post says why you believe GPLv3 is a use license, and you don't give enough to form a Google query. What in the text of the GPLv3 makes it a use license? Is it the part about "You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force"? That says you can do anything you want with the work ("propagate" it) until you distribute copies to the public ("convey" it).
Would they come after Joe Windows User who decides to buy OS X, hack it, and install it on his Dell? Unlikely. If Joe then decides to do this and start selling his PC's for a profit as "OpenMacs"?
That would result in a lawsuit if only because "OpenMacs" would be a trademark infringement. Can you come up with an example that touches only copyright?
Good for them they are telling the man to shove it. Everyone should support these guys.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Its very, very pedantic, but I think its true that while the GPL2 didn't even give lip service to the idea that you might need a license to run the software, GPL3 tries to fix that for those of us in countries which don't have the US's somewhat enlightened* laws on fair use and the right to run software and make backups. The practical upshot is that, by acknowledging this, the GPL3 becomes a "use" license - albeit one where the terms of use are "do what you will".
This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program.
...
You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force.
(GPL3)
The second part could (if you feel argumentative) suggest that if you lose your GPL license (e.g. by breaking the distribution terms) you also lose your license to run the program.
The GPL 2, however just says:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted,
,,,which is somewhat self-contradictory but avoids implying that you need a license to run the program or that violating the GPL removes your right to run the software.
Yes folks, we're splitting hairs into quarters here...
I think that's the real concern with GPL3 - that by trying to "fix everything" it might have unintended consequences that, at the least, can be used to generate FUD.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Unfortunately, it took the 13th amendment to get rid of slavery. And, although IANAL, my understanding is that it may very well take a constitutional amendment to limit intellectual property as well. The problem is that copyright is an "enumerated power", granted to Congress--and so the courts tend to give Congress a lot of leeway. Furthermore, as I understand it it's a principle of common law that once government has given you something they can't arbitrarily take it back.
The alternative is a "copyright tax", which would be constitutional, and would penalize copyright excesses, and I actually think that's a great idea. But before anything can happen there's got to be a change in "hearts and minds." Right now, the vast majority of lawmakers see traditional, expansive copyright as a good thing--and so it was, for the most part, until the Internet came along and radically lowered costs of distribution. (In fact, I'll probably get pilloried for this, but I'm not sure slavery was as bad a thing until it got combined with global trade--at the very least, I think it's fair to say that it was a contained evil. You didn't see the sort of mass, race-based, slavery that you saw in the American South until it was fueled by King Cotton.) The point I'm trying to get at, without enough time to develop it properly, is that we're in a lag where law hasn't caught up with economics or technology.
This idea really deserves a better development than I'm giving it here.. because it's important. But hopefully someone can point to someone who has done a better job or read between the lines and understand what I'm getting at.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
I reread that. Damn, I can be a little incoherency at 0034 local, but I proved my point.
I would like to personally thank the moderator for selecting troll, I think I earned it. Also thank you for not using one of the cop out mods.
FYI - I posted the original from an at-work Windows machine (I can't escape it) I'm typing this from my at-home Mac. My Linux laptop is in my backpack, thank you very much. Despite being slightly off on my wording at that time of night, I really did mean what I say about Apple trying to move in on Microsofts former evil empire turf. Attempting to suppress competition like they've done with OGG and GNU/Linux support is just the first step down that road.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
It is not against the law to decline to accept a gratuitous license. No one needs to accept a EULA to use a copy that they have purchased. So many courts have held, following traditional legal precedents, anyway. The idea that EULAs are independently binding is a legal fiction, basically wishful thinking on the part of the software industry.
Of course it is a *real* violation of the law to make an illegal copy of the software.
I never cease to be amazed how many people around here think that EULAs are legally binding without showing the least acquaintance with the legal issues involved. The short answer is, no they are not, although a few courts in a few areas have held that they are, to great controversy generally speaking. No one needs a license to use that which they own, and the idea that end users do not own a copy of the software they purchased at retail is extremely dubious. More here.
That's an OEM version. Duh. But buy a Dell and then buy a retail Windows Vista box and you can install that Windows Vista on that computer or on any other computer you have.
Even sell it on.
And US copyright law allows you to install software you purchase. The loss of the license doesn't affect this, since copyright has no rights to ban it.
But slurp that Apple Juice down.
What a wally: copyright doesn't have the power to stop you installing a program. Therefore the Apple license cannot remove that right from you if you don't agree to it.
Copyright DOES say you haven't got the power to make derived works and sell those on without obeying the license. Therefore you can't rip off the GPL like you wish.
But copyright shouldn't exist on the binaries anyway. They are not expressive and you can't learn programming from them.
You are assuming that a "license" can take away rights that the owner of a copy already has. It cannot. Licenses only grant rights the licensee does not already have, such as to make and distribute derived works and adaptations. No one needs a license to use something that they already own, and hence in most jurisdictions, such license terms are gratuitous, null, and void.
If software manufacturers want such an ability at retail, they should get into the software leasing or rental business rather than pretending they are in the software licensing business, when in actual fact at retail they simply sell physical media with no practical difference from the sale of books or paintings.
Apple is the new "evil" software company, but for some reason they are not being treated like microsoft did when they went to court, I don't like microsoft but I hate apple, they are so much worse and I think anyone who buys one, real or pystar/hack is stupid. If you want to get away from big corporations then go with Linux, apple is many times worse than microsoft and also hypocrites. The iPhone is a huge example of their horrible nature, a subpar phone with a huge price tag and they hype it to be the best thing ever, even lying about some of the features, and the idiot's who "think" they are technical believe them and bend right over.
If the "upgrade" edition installs or is installable on a machine without a previous version of the software or a copy thereof, copyright law in no way restricts the ability of an end user to purchase, install, and use the upgrade edition on a machine without prior ownership of a previous edition.
In addition, no one needs to accept a license of any kind to use a copy of software they have purchased at retail, although there is some legal controversy over that.
All that is needed to make software leases legitimate are two things:
(1) That they be for a limited time
Easy: the lease expires at the end of the 95th year after the program's first publication, at which point the lessee is obligated to return the media to the publisher. The U.S. Supreme Court has already called this a limited time in Eldred v. Ashcroft.
(2) That the physical media remain the property of the lessor
In other words, the model Blockbuster uses, except for a longer rental period. I wonder why copyright owners haven't already tried doing this. Another possibility is to encrypt the executable and lease the right under 17 USC 1201 to decrypt it.
I switched to Linux years ago because I've gotten fed up with the imaginary property brigade and their attempts to control and dictate rules on *everything*. Apple and MS can keep their defective software. I would rather have to hassle to get some things to work than be controlled by a bunch of communists who think their shit does not stink.
They've got plenty of (supposedly) well-educated people with disposable income to by their crap. Don't complain to me though when your software won't run on a machine you *gasp* put together yourself.
This is the US, not the EU.
Microsoft has a monopoly in the operating system market. Different rules therefore apply to Microsoft when they attempt to use their monopoly in that market to stomp out competition in that market or another market.
Apple is not and does not have a monopoly. No, as much as you might like it to be, the "OS X market" is not a market for the purposes of anti-trust law.
Now, most likely Apple trying to prevent you from purchasing and installing OS X on intel hardware for your personal use would not stand up in court, even though it is copyright infringement, but that's not what Psystar was doing here. Psystar was infringing Apple's copyright for commercial gain. If you don't understand what that's copyright infringement, please educate yourself. Copyright infringement encompasses much more than simply making an unauthorized copy of an MP3 or DIVX.
It is not a copyright issue when you buy mac os x you just have install it on each system by hand.
copyright does not let you lock out 3rd part stuff.
copyright dose not let you lock out resale.
copyright dose not let you lock out phone unlocking.
The law says that you can lock a phone and out side the usa the laws give alot more room over phones.
Its funny to see, but some sites I work for have 1 or more Macbooks where the Apple OS licence is moot - they have installed with Windows XP.
Works great too!
lyalc
Fooking capitalism! What has capitalism ever done for us?
I drank what? -- Socrates
Capitalism didn't create those things, human labor did. I hope you don't actually think that human labor - or cooperative human labor - becomes impossible in the absence of a black market economy?
I'd say such things are accomplished IN SPITE OF capitalism, not BECAUSE of it.