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.
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...
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!
According to this, they are in fact shutting down.
"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"."
http://www.geektechnica.com/2009/10/psystar-steals-open-source-bootloader-and-sells-it-for-50/
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Rebel EFI is already open source. It's not because Psystar doesn't respect the APSL that it isn't. They stole the code for it from the OSX86 community :
http://netkas.org/?p=299
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
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.
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.
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...
No they can't because the court order specifically orders them not to. ...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.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
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.
Apple doesn't sell OS X in a retail pack. It sells upgrades to OS X. You have to have an Apple branded computer with an existing version of an Apple OS in order to comply with the license. Sure the media can be used to install on a brand new clean hard drive, but the license is clear. Apple sells their upgrades in the retail channel so it's easier for users to obtain them. It has nothing to do with OS X being standard shrink wrapped software.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
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.
I have a firewall where the vendor sells firmware updates and upgrades, some of which include additional features without changing the hardware. The firmware isn't licensed to run on other firewalls. Is that tying?
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.