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.
Having worked previously in IBM's AIX development labs and Linux Technology Center, I can say you are correct that the big-iron UNIX world does work that way. It also happens that their tying occurs on hardware platforms that are quite different from those you can buy off the shelf from any PC parts vendor. It's uncommon to find someone with POWER hardware to run AIX on at home. The same applies with PA-RISC hardware to run HP-UX on (older versions anyway).
Apple made the decision to dress up generic PC hardware and plunk their OS on it rather than staying with hardware that set them apart from their competitors and made tying more acceptable. The only thing that truly separates a Mac from a generic PC these days is the software it runs. Companies like Psystar showed that by using generic PC hardware to run Apple's product. If Apple wants to be a hardware vendor, that is fine. They just need to choose what their product actually is.
On the note of big-iron UNIX tying, I did get the chance to play on several PowerPC Macs that were running AIX in the development labs. Even the big-iron stuff runs on hardware that will run it.
Randimal: AT-CG-CG-AT-CG-AT-AT-CG-CG-AT-AT-CG-AT-CG-CG-AT-CG-AT-AT-CG-AT-CG-CG-AT-AT-CG-CG-AT-CG-AT-AT-CG
The licence for OS X says "only to be used on Apple hardware" and if you want to stay true to that licence, you cannot make a business model out of selling machines with OS X preinstalled that clearly break the licence.
If you think "well, the licence should be ignored" then sure, as long as the GPL can also be ignored at will, or any other software licence for that matter.
Vertical integration is not illegal, and it does not harm any competitor if Apple choses to go after a company breaking its licence to OS X (other than the company in breach of the licence of course).
Apple hasn't gone after individual hackintosh creators, but it is well within its rights to go after a company who's main source of income would be a clear breach of the OS X licence.
Whether you agree with it or not, the software you buy (or download from OSS sites) has a licence - if you break the licence you might get away with it, or the enforcer of that licence may come after you.
There are way too many people in this debate who think that "anti-competitive behavior" == "Waaaaah, they won't do what I want!".
As has been explained by more level-headed people countless times, Apple is the copyright holder of OS X. The copyright holder (of any kind of work, not just software) is given exclusive rights to license that work for others to use, under the terms of their choice. Apple's "terms of choice" are, you'll run OS X on our hardware and no one else's. If you don't do that, you're committing copyright infringement by using their work without their permission.
There is definitely an argument to be made that that's a silly state of affairs, and that copyright laws with respect to software are lousy, but as the laws stand now, Apple has every right to do what they do. When you say "this behavior should be illegal for any OS", that's one thing, and you might be right, but at the moment it's not illegal, and so Apple is in the clear.
If you don't like that, you need to complain to your government officials to change how software is copyrighted, not try frantically to stick labels like "anti-competitive behavior" where they don't apply.
Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
Yes, you should. Key word there being -use- and there is a difference between use and redistribute.
You mean like where you, at home, can modify OS X to install on a standard non-Apple PC, but if a company makes a derivative work and redistributes it much like how Psystar did? Huh. Imagine that.
Notice how apple is only going after pystar, not the homebrew hackintosh community.
Apple doesn't give a shit if you install OSX on a Dell. Apple only cares if you install it on a hundred dells and sell them as "OS X" computers.
notice the difference. if you want a hackintosh go ahead and do it. just don't do it for a profit.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Apple is not a software business, it's a hardware business (10% of their revenue is software and that includes all their high-end software packages and OS).
Well they're not exactly a hardware vendor or software vendor. They sell the integrate platform. Hardware and software.
As techies we're not used to thinking of desktops and laptops like that, but it's not that uncommon for other devices. As far as I know, Garmin doesn't license its GPS software to other vendors. Cisco doesn't license its software for use on other routers. Sony doesn't license the PS3 operating system for use on generic hardware, nor does Microsoft license the XBox 360 operating system. Nintendo doesn't license the Wii OS either. I don't know, but I don't believe TiVO licenses their software for use on generic hardware.
I was going to post a witty insult possibly indicating that you have no social/sex life and attempt to gain status of your own importance by buying anything with a brand logo on it,
then I would question your sexuality/intellect in some snappy manner which is both hilarious and also manages to remain the safe side of the politically correct barrier, thus avoiding any down modding.
I would probably then make a few logical statements pointing out the inate error of your views before rounding up with either a killer blow meme or maybe a jab at how small your man hood is but to be perfectly honest, I can't be arsed, so I'll simply close by saying that you sir can eat a dick pavlova.