Again, except for the fact that Psystar is indeed distributing software. What is distribution except a copy of software? They install OS X for you and then sell you the computer without the ability to install it yourself. Until recently you had to send it back to them to reinstall.
Evidently now they distribute GPL software in order for end users to be able to self-restore their systems. In that case are they also hosting the source, because that is definitely a clause in the GPL regarding "distribution" of copies.
I understand that difference. My point is that when you disagree with the respective licenses, copyright restricts what you can do with the copy... in this case, you can't distribute it without the licensor's permission.
And Psystar is definitely distributing OS X without Apple's permission.
Correct, especially if they haven't licensed OS X from Apple. That is where copyright comes in.
The end user can make backups, but said end-user cannot then resell, gift, or give away said backups without running afoul of copyright law.
It like this: I own a CD. I rip CD for myself. Can I then give away the "ripped" copies? Nope, that is distribution in the clearest sense. This has been seen in court several times already and that's pretty ironclad.
So as long as Psystar is only giving away unadulterated copies of OS X they are fine, but as soon as they install, modify and provide backup/restore copies, they run afoul of copyright.
The restore discs Psystar is handing out to customers is definitely violating copyright, given as it is not an original OS X disc (as covered by first sale).
Then again, since Psystar choses to ignore the contract issue around installing OS X on a non-Apple branded machine, strict copyright probably applies, which means Psystar is distributing unlicensed copies (the copy on the HDD itself) when they sell their machines.
Do you believe in contract law and copyright? It's what powers the GPL, for example: Thanks to this article I can finally explain my intuitive grasp of the whole Psystar thing.
EULA = Contract GPL = Contract
EULA says "You may not install on a non-Apple branded computer". Psystar installs on a non-Apple branded and violates contract. Psystar then sells computer to third party, thereby "distributing" a modified copy of OS X (modified in the sense that the DVD will not cleanly install on said system without Psystar providing a modified copy of the disc, which they are now doing), violating copyright.
GPL says "You may not distribute without respecting the GPL". Someone installs a modified build on a computer but has not violated the contract because they are not distributing the binaries. Someone then SELLs the computer to a third party, thereby "distributing" a modified copy of the software without also providing the source (modified in the sense that the software cannot be recompiled from source), thereby violating copyright.
So for Psystar to be in the clear, they can distribute copies of OS X they purchased (first sale doctrine) and the end users can install it (first sale doctrine), but Psystar cannot modify nor distribute OS X (copyright). Replace OS X with Linux and you have the GPL example (assuming Psystar distributed a Linux distro modified to run on the OpenPC).
Except Apple is in the right. They own the copyright to OS X, which means Psystar has no right to distribute restore discs (which they are) nor to modify OS X (which they do to create restore discs and install), nor to install (which is part of the EULA/contract).
EULA says "You may not install on a non-Apple branded computer". Psystar installs on a non-Apple branded and violates contract. Psystar then sells computer to third party, thereby "distributing" a modified copy of OS X (modified in the sense that the DVD will not cleanly install on said system without Psystar providing a modified copy of the disc, which they are now doing), violating copyright.
GPL says "You may not distribute without respecting the GPL". Someone installs a modified build on a computer but has not violated the contract because they are not distributing the binaries. Someone then SELLs the computer to a third party, thereby "distributing" a modified copy of the software without also providing the source (modified in the sense that the software cannot be recompiled from source), thereby violating copyright.
So for Psystar to be in the clear, they can distribute copies of OS X they purchased (first sale doctrine) and the end users can install it (first sale doctrine), but Psystar cannot modify nor distribute OS X (copyright). Replace OS X with Linux and you have the GPL example (assuming Psystar distributed a Linux distro modified to run on the OpenPC).
Biologically speaking, and psychologically speaking, there isn't a separation between hardware and software. A smaller brain with better software would evolutionarily be selected for if only because of energy efficiency: an animal that required less energy to perform the same behaviors would have more energy available for reproduction and mate acquisition.
However that didn't happen because, again, the software is the same. We ARE the smaller brained more efficient animals because the larger brained/less efficient ones would be selected against:)
At least with previous calorie restrictions. Who knows but today's calorie rich diet is probably equivalent to a cheap quad core with 4GB of ram... so code bloat doesn't hurt as much.
It doesn't have to be sufficient quality work; if someone releases the Next Big Thing before Nintendo can, but it happens to be spectacularly crappy, then Nintendo is cheated out of a market where people don't believe in the product any more.
Imagine if, a month before the announcement of the iPhone, an almost as good but not quite was released? People go crazy, buy it, are locked into a contract, and disappointed. Will they buy the iPhone? Nope, spent the cash, didn't think it was worth it, and don't want to risk it again.
Our ancestors that may have eaten only meat were not humans, by definition of what humans are. Modern humans are omnivores (not carnivores nor herbivores). To be clear, I never said nor intended to imply that hominids are vegetarians by evolution.
Well, take the converse: Why are we wasting 20% of our energy on our brains if NOT for intelligence? Our nerves aren't controlling extra muscles, enhanced sensory receptors, or internal nerve endings (which is what the brain happens to do for other animals of similar size)
Similar sized great apes (who have on average more muscle or more receptors) only use 12% of the energy in their brains, so that extra 8% probably (not necessarily proven) goes towards intelligence. Evidently so because we do happen to be top of the food chain and all our advances of the last several thousand years correlate with food and energy density (cooking releases more nutrients, agriculture increases food production, animal husbandry increases food quality, refrigeration increases food availability, preservatives and packaging increases food storage, transportation sciences increases food distribution, genetics increases food efficiency, robotics/computers increases food efficiency, etc).
As per comparison to CPU power/efficiency, more power translates to more capacity in any given generation. Genetically we are essentially the same today as we were 150,000 years ago, well within the scope of the article; meaning our brains have not improved in process. So if you are comparing a CPU of a given generation consuming 10W and a related CPU that consumes 20W, it is fair to say the second CPU is actually performing twice as many actions as the first CPU.
So in our case a primate brain that uses 12% of the available energy and our brain that uses 20%, we can safely say (given both animals are within the same generation or so) that we are using it for smarts and not due to generational efficiency.
Finally per your last statement about the small fraction of our minds...
Most of our brain is used to control our body (larger animals need larger brains due to increases in sensors, muscles, etc). That is fairly well documented, and is a final piece of evidence that our increases in brain capacity are due to increases in energy... if you reduced our energy intake by 20%, our brains would probably be shut down first in order to preserve body function.
No, the geniuses are the ones who aren't obese. They've figured out how to channel 30% of their energy into their brains (and in the process, not becoming fat).
Our teeth are strangely structured if we first ate only meat. I suspect we were omnivores from the start with some populations sticking to fruit, others to nuts, maybe even shellfish or fish or whatever was handy.
That is the only way to explain how and why we became so travelled... we weren't stuck to only one kind of food.
Slashdot Mirror
That is the case here. Psystar is being sued by Apple with threat of fines, fees, etc.
Again, except for the fact that Psystar is indeed distributing software. What is distribution except a copy of software? They install OS X for you and then sell you the computer without the ability to install it yourself. Until recently you had to send it back to them to reinstall.
Evidently now they distribute GPL software in order for end users to be able to self-restore their systems. In that case are they also hosting the source, because that is definitely a clause in the GPL regarding "distribution" of copies.
Ah, even better, now they are distributing GPL software?
I understand that difference. My point is that when you disagree with the respective licenses, copyright restricts what you can do with the copy... in this case, you can't distribute it without the licensor's permission.
And Psystar is definitely distributing OS X without Apple's permission.
Is that like saying Kazaa has all the music I need, but as a consumer the cost of a CD isn't a compelling reason to pay more...?
Correct, especially if they haven't licensed OS X from Apple. That is where copyright comes in.
The end user can make backups, but said end-user cannot then resell, gift, or give away said backups without running afoul of copyright law.
It like this: I own a CD. I rip CD for myself. Can I then give away the "ripped" copies? Nope, that is distribution in the clearest sense. This has been seen in court several times already and that's pretty ironclad.
So as long as Psystar is only giving away unadulterated copies of OS X they are fine, but as soon as they install, modify and provide backup/restore copies, they run afoul of copyright.
They had to accept the EULA when they installed OS X on the machine; therefore they "accepted" the EULA as an end user.
The restore discs count as distribution. The code on the computer HDDs itself probably count as distribution.
The restore discs Psystar is handing out to customers is definitely violating copyright, given as it is not an original OS X disc (as covered by first sale).
Then again, since Psystar choses to ignore the contract issue around installing OS X on a non-Apple branded machine, strict copyright probably applies, which means Psystar is distributing unlicensed copies (the copy on the HDD itself) when they sell their machines.
Probably the cost of developing OS X and all the bundled applications?
Do you believe in contract law and copyright? It's what powers the GPL, for example:
Thanks to this article I can finally explain my intuitive grasp of the whole Psystar thing.
EULA = Contract
GPL = Contract
EULA says "You may not install on a non-Apple branded computer". Psystar installs on a non-Apple branded and violates contract. Psystar then sells computer to third party, thereby "distributing" a modified copy of OS X (modified in the sense that the DVD will not cleanly install on said system without Psystar providing a modified copy of the disc, which they are now doing), violating copyright.
GPL says "You may not distribute without respecting the GPL". Someone installs a modified build on a computer but has not violated the contract because they are not distributing the binaries. Someone then SELLs the computer to a third party, thereby "distributing" a modified copy of the software without also providing the source (modified in the sense that the software cannot be recompiled from source), thereby violating copyright.
So for Psystar to be in the clear, they can distribute copies of OS X they purchased (first sale doctrine) and the end users can install it (first sale doctrine), but Psystar cannot modify nor distribute OS X (copyright). Replace OS X with Linux and you have the GPL example (assuming Psystar distributed a Linux distro modified to run on the OpenPC).
Ever heard of Quartz? Aqua? Time Machine? Quartz-3D? Core Audio? Core Video? Core Image? Core Data? Bonjour? QuickTime?
None of which are in the public domain nor BSD, yet Psystar is distributing.
Except Apple is in the right. They own the copyright to OS X, which means Psystar has no right to distribute restore discs (which they are) nor to modify OS X (which they do to create restore discs and install), nor to install (which is part of the EULA/contract).
EULA = Contract
GPL = Contract
EULA says "You may not install on a non-Apple branded computer". Psystar installs on a non-Apple branded and violates contract. Psystar then sells computer to third party, thereby "distributing" a modified copy of OS X (modified in the sense that the DVD will not cleanly install on said system without Psystar providing a modified copy of the disc, which they are now doing), violating copyright.
GPL says "You may not distribute without respecting the GPL". Someone installs a modified build on a computer but has not violated the contract because they are not distributing the binaries. Someone then SELLs the computer to a third party, thereby "distributing" a modified copy of the software without also providing the source (modified in the sense that the software cannot be recompiled from source), thereby violating copyright.
So for Psystar to be in the clear, they can distribute copies of OS X they purchased (first sale doctrine) and the end users can install it (first sale doctrine), but Psystar cannot modify nor distribute OS X (copyright). Replace OS X with Linux and you have the GPL example (assuming Psystar distributed a Linux distro modified to run on the OpenPC).
Biologically speaking, and psychologically speaking, there isn't a separation between hardware and software. A smaller brain with better software would evolutionarily be selected for if only because of energy efficiency: an animal that required less energy to perform the same behaviors would have more energy available for reproduction and mate acquisition.
However that didn't happen because, again, the software is the same. We ARE the smaller brained more efficient animals because the larger brained/less efficient ones would be selected against :)
At least with previous calorie restrictions. Who knows but today's calorie rich diet is probably equivalent to a cheap quad core with 4GB of ram... so code bloat doesn't hurt as much.
Does this mean you don't believe in copyright?
That thought experiment requires a competitor of equal weight to Apple; Sony, Microsoft, HP, etc.
HTC expect to sell 1m HTC Touch Diamonds in three months.
Apple sold 1m iPhone 3Gs in a weekend.
So if Microsoft had a hyped touch phone released by HP that everyone thought would be cool but wasn't, that would be comparable.
It doesn't have to be sufficient quality work; if someone releases the Next Big Thing before Nintendo can, but it happens to be spectacularly crappy, then Nintendo is cheated out of a market where people don't believe in the product any more.
Imagine if, a month before the announcement of the iPhone, an almost as good but not quite was released? People go crazy, buy it, are locked into a contract, and disappointed. Will they buy the iPhone? Nope, spent the cash, didn't think it was worth it, and don't want to risk it again.
Our ancestors that may have eaten only meat were not humans, by definition of what humans are. Modern humans are omnivores (not carnivores nor herbivores). To be clear, I never said nor intended to imply that hominids are vegetarians by evolution.
Well, take the converse: Why are we wasting 20% of our energy on our brains if NOT for intelligence? Our nerves aren't controlling extra muscles, enhanced sensory receptors, or internal nerve endings (which is what the brain happens to do for other animals of similar size)
Similar sized great apes (who have on average more muscle or more receptors) only use 12% of the energy in their brains, so that extra 8% probably (not necessarily proven) goes towards intelligence. Evidently so because we do happen to be top of the food chain and all our advances of the last several thousand years correlate with food and energy density (cooking releases more nutrients, agriculture increases food production, animal husbandry increases food quality, refrigeration increases food availability, preservatives and packaging increases food storage, transportation sciences increases food distribution, genetics increases food efficiency, robotics/computers increases food efficiency, etc).
As per comparison to CPU power/efficiency, more power translates to more capacity in any given generation. Genetically we are essentially the same today as we were 150,000 years ago, well within the scope of the article; meaning our brains have not improved in process. So if you are comparing a CPU of a given generation consuming 10W and a related CPU that consumes 20W, it is fair to say the second CPU is actually performing twice as many actions as the first CPU.
So in our case a primate brain that uses 12% of the available energy and our brain that uses 20%, we can safely say (given both animals are within the same generation or so) that we are using it for smarts and not due to generational efficiency.
Finally per your last statement about the small fraction of our minds...
Most of our brain is used to control our body (larger animals need larger brains due to increases in sensors, muscles, etc). That is fairly well documented, and is a final piece of evidence that our increases in brain capacity are due to increases in energy... if you reduced our energy intake by 20%, our brains would probably be shut down first in order to preserve body function.
Is that really a burger then?
No, the geniuses are the ones who aren't obese. They've figured out how to channel 30% of their energy into their brains (and in the process, not becoming fat).
Our teeth are strangely structured if we first ate only meat. I suspect we were omnivores from the start with some populations sticking to fruit, others to nuts, maybe even shellfish or fish or whatever was handy.
That is the only way to explain how and why we became so travelled... we weren't stuck to only one kind of food.
It helps that we cooked veggies too.
I mean, what is a burger without pickles, grilled onions, grilled mushrooms, and bread?
You don't make taking out the trash a routine.