Well, they contributed code back for gcc, apache, cups, BSD, KHTML, etc.
And their DRM-free music works fine on anything that supports the mp4 standard (owned by the MPEG ISO group, the same people that support mp3), and their iPods all play mp3 btw.
That is my point; Microsoft hasn't stopped selling XP! They force you to buy Vista to get XP; instead of selling XP for $40 and an upgrade to Vista for $20, they sell the bundle of XP+Vista for $60.
Technically leveraging one monopoly (XP) to gain another one (Vista).
The problem with the Compaq/IBM angle is that the Compaq was 100% compatible with MS-DOS, while the OpenPC is not 100% compatible with OS X. You need third party software to intervene in the install process.
Why is the comparison invalid? You are free to install OS X on your own machine as long as you do not distribute the code! This is not because the license allows it, but because you are not commiting copyright infringement.
In this case PsyStar is both installing OS X AND distributing the copy they installed.
So the comparison is valid: distribution of copyrighted code is copyright infringement and is the power that allows copyleft to exist. And, incidentally, allows Apple to argue copyright infringement.
First sale doctrine allows PsyStar to resell copies of OS X, but not install it on their PCs!
MS vs Zamos is of interest ONLY if PsyStar was strictly reselling OS X. More interesting is Jacobsen vs Katzer, where the Artistic License is an enforceable copyright restriction. In this case the issue is whether the OS X EULA contains an enforceable copyright restrictions:
1) "Single Use and Family Pack License for use on Apple-labeled Systems"
2) "General. The software (including Boot ROM code), documentation and any fonts accompanying this License whether preinstalled on Apple-labeled hardware, on disk, in read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (collectively the âoeApple Softwareâ) are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Inc. (âoeAppleâ) for use only under the terms of this License, and Apple reserves all rights not expressly granted to you."
3)"Single Use. This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled 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."
They would have a greater case if they sued Microsoft for anticompetitive tying; forcing the purchase of Vista in order to acquire XP.
In this case the only chance they have is if they can prove that their OpenPCs are Mac compatible; but because they are not (requiring the use of outside software and slight modifications to the OS X DVD) they can't claim the same protections that Compaq had when they made the original IBM-PC clones.
What immorality are we talking about here? What illegality here?
Apple licenses their IP as they see fit, just like everyone else who owns IP. They license to those who happen to own Apple branded machines, just like the GPL licenses to those who distribute unmodified software, requiring modifications to be available in source form.
Violation of either license restricts what you can do with the product. In Apple's case, you aren't allowed to copy the OS from disc to computer, and in the GPL's case you aren't allowed to distribute your code.
The law says monopolies are legal, so therefore monopolistic behavior is legal.
What is illegal is anti-competitive behavior.
And... we have this construct called intellectual property and laws that tell us what we can and cannot do with intellectual property. It powers copyright, which gives the GPL it's ability to provide copyleft (if you violate copyleft, you have also broken copyright for example).
In this case Apple is using a specific IP to it's advantage; copyright means Apple specifically limits what copies an end user can make (for example, they cannot redistribute copies without additional licenses from Apple). In this case Psystar does not have the license from Apple to distribute copies. On the barest of technicalities then Psystar has no license to distribute the single copy included on each OpenPC.
The EULA is very clear that the distribution license for OS X only allows for a single copy on an Apple branded machine, and OpenPCs are not Apple branded. To use the GPL as an example, it would be the same case if OpenPC preinstalled a modified Linux kernel without providing the source.
How is that congruent? You have to point to an instance where Apple removed a feature from a product before shipping, something Microsoft is known for doing.
Apple has dropped features, btw, such as Quartz 2D Extreme or whatever it was called.
Yes you can, and that is not unreasonable. An unreasonable EULA would be, "You must give me 1/4 of all money earned with this product" or "All copyrighted works created with this product resolve back to me" or anything that involves freedoms, IP, and laws.
There is no "freedom" in terms of copyright to distribute (even a single copy) without a license. The only freedom in copyright is that you can sell your copy (first sale doctrine). Because the copyright for OS X belongs to Apple, they can dictate what can be "reasonably" done with said copy.
So my POV is that Psystar is in the clear if they only sold boxed copies of OS X and let the end user agree (and violate) the EULA, and Apple is unlikely to sue a bunch of end users.
If the EULA is enforceable, then this IS an issue of copyright infringement. The EULA is what grants the end user the ability to make copies (from DVD to HDD, backups, etc). It is the license which grants the purchaser the right to install the OS!
The same with the Window's license, which gives the OEM the right to preinstall the OS.
Except the Quicken EULA doesn't say it cannot be installed! The OS X EULA does say it cannot be installed on a non-Apple branded machine.
So Quicken's license allows anyone to install it on any machine while Apple's license only allows anyone to install it on a Mac. Psystar needs to be installing on a Mac not to run afoul of licensing issues.
They buy one copy but give you TWO; the copy on the HDD and the copy on the DVD.
Yes, it is silly, but it is "distribution" in the technical sense. Had they shipped a system without the copy, they would not violate either the EULA (only licensed to install on Apple branded machines) nor copyright (not making any copies)
No, I'm saying Apple has given us Mac owners the right to install OS X on these machines, so when we resell these machines with OS X they are already licensed to have a copy!
No, it isn't encouraged unless Psystar is also hosting the source in some fashion. If the OSX86 servers went down and a customer wanted the source, Psystar has to be able to distribute the code to their customers. That's part of the GPL contract/license.
Slashdot Mirror
It does if that machine has modified Linux code; then you're distributing modified binaries without source.
Copyleft makes exception to copyright based on the powers of copyright.
PsyStar runs afoul of copyright law because they are selling a copy and an original (the DVD plus the HDD) without the license to do so.
They have license agreements with everyone except Apple that every PC sold has a Windows license!
If Apple had that kind of agreement, they too could charge $ for OS X ultimate edition. Instead they only charge $129
Well, they contributed code back for gcc, apache, cups, BSD, KHTML, etc.
And their DRM-free music works fine on anything that supports the mp4 standard (owned by the MPEG ISO group, the same people that support mp3), and their iPods all play mp3 btw.
But don't let facts stop you.
Except you aren't Apple. The license would have to say "mrchaotica-labeled" for you to qualify.
You may be able to install it, but PsyStar won't have the rights to redistribute it; that is copyright infringement.
The copy on the HDD of an OpenPC? Unlicensed, and therefore subject to copyright law.
That is my point; Microsoft hasn't stopped selling XP! They force you to buy Vista to get XP; instead of selling XP for $40 and an upgrade to Vista for $20, they sell the bundle of XP+Vista for $60.
Technically leveraging one monopoly (XP) to gain another one (Vista).
The problem with the Compaq/IBM angle is that the Compaq was 100% compatible with MS-DOS, while the OpenPC is not 100% compatible with OS X. You need third party software to intervene in the install process.
Why is the comparison invalid? You are free to install OS X on your own machine as long as you do not distribute the code! This is not because the license allows it, but because you are not commiting copyright infringement.
In this case PsyStar is both installing OS X AND distributing the copy they installed.
So the comparison is valid: distribution of copyrighted code is copyright infringement and is the power that allows copyleft to exist. And, incidentally, allows Apple to argue copyright infringement.
Funny, a KitchenAide mixer is an appliance and it can be end user upgraded into a blender, mixer, chopper, grinder, etc.
First sale doctrine allows PsyStar to resell copies of OS X, but not install it on their PCs!
MS vs Zamos is of interest ONLY if PsyStar was strictly reselling OS X. More interesting is Jacobsen vs Katzer, where the Artistic License is an enforceable copyright restriction. In this case the issue is whether the OS X EULA contains an enforceable copyright restrictions:
1) "Single Use and Family Pack License for use on Apple-labeled Systems"
2) "General. The software (including Boot ROM code), documentation and any fonts accompanying this License whether preinstalled on Apple-labeled hardware, on disk, in read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (collectively the âoeApple Softwareâ) are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Inc. (âoeAppleâ) for use only under the
terms of this License, and Apple reserves all rights not expressly granted to you."
3)"Single Use. This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled 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."
They would have a greater case if they sued Microsoft for anticompetitive tying; forcing the purchase of Vista in order to acquire XP.
In this case the only chance they have is if they can prove that their OpenPCs are Mac compatible; but because they are not (requiring the use of outside software and slight modifications to the OS X DVD) they can't claim the same protections that Compaq had when they made the original IBM-PC clones.
What immorality are we talking about here? What illegality here?
Apple licenses their IP as they see fit, just like everyone else who owns IP. They license to those who happen to own Apple branded machines, just like the GPL licenses to those who distribute unmodified software, requiring modifications to be available in source form.
Violation of either license restricts what you can do with the product. In Apple's case, you aren't allowed to copy the OS from disc to computer, and in the GPL's case you aren't allowed to distribute your code.
Both extend logically from copyright.
No, I think he means "install OS X without a license". Each copy of OS X is licensed to be installed on an Apple-branded machine.
Much like every copy of Linux is licensed for end use without modification unless source is made available.
The law says monopolies are legal, so therefore monopolistic behavior is legal.
What is illegal is anti-competitive behavior.
And... we have this construct called intellectual property and laws that tell us what we can and cannot do with intellectual property. It powers copyright, which gives the GPL it's ability to provide copyleft (if you violate copyleft, you have also broken copyright for example).
In this case Apple is using a specific IP to it's advantage; copyright means Apple specifically limits what copies an end user can make (for example, they cannot redistribute copies without additional licenses from Apple). In this case Psystar does not have the license from Apple to distribute copies. On the barest of technicalities then Psystar has no license to distribute the single copy included on each OpenPC.
The EULA is very clear that the distribution license for OS X only allows for a single copy on an Apple branded machine, and OpenPCs are not Apple branded. To use the GPL as an example, it would be the same case if OpenPC preinstalled a modified Linux kernel without providing the source.
How is that congruent? You have to point to an instance where Apple removed a feature from a product before shipping, something Microsoft is known for doing.
Apple has dropped features, btw, such as Quartz 2D Extreme or whatever it was called.
They haven't dropped the feature if they haven't shipped it yet. What they did is disable it from the latest beta build!
What do you think Apple has been trying to do ever since their first iMac?
Yes you can, and that is not unreasonable. An unreasonable EULA would be, "You must give me 1/4 of all money earned with this product" or "All copyrighted works created with this product resolve back to me" or anything that involves freedoms, IP, and laws.
There is no "freedom" in terms of copyright to distribute (even a single copy) without a license. The only freedom in copyright is that you can sell your copy (first sale doctrine). Because the copyright for OS X belongs to Apple, they can dictate what can be "reasonably" done with said copy.
So my POV is that Psystar is in the clear if they only sold boxed copies of OS X and let the end user agree (and violate) the EULA, and Apple is unlikely to sue a bunch of end users.
If the EULA is enforceable, then this IS an issue of copyright infringement. The EULA is what grants the end user the ability to make copies (from DVD to HDD, backups, etc). It is the license which grants the purchaser the right to install the OS!
The same with the Window's license, which gives the OEM the right to preinstall the OS.
Psystar would also need a license to install it from Apple seeing as the EULA actually prohibits Psystar from installing Mac OS X on an OpenPC...
Except the Quicken EULA doesn't say it cannot be installed! The OS X EULA does say it cannot be installed on a non-Apple branded machine.
So Quicken's license allows anyone to install it on any machine while Apple's license only allows anyone to install it on a Mac. Psystar needs to be installing on a Mac not to run afoul of licensing issues.
They buy one copy but give you TWO; the copy on the HDD and the copy on the DVD.
Yes, it is silly, but it is "distribution" in the technical sense. Had they shipped a system without the copy, they would not violate either the EULA (only licensed to install on Apple branded machines) nor copyright (not making any copies)
Um... most PC makers are paid to preinstall that other stuff. Or they license it.
No, I'm saying Apple has given us Mac owners the right to install OS X on these machines, so when we resell these machines with OS X they are already licensed to have a copy!
Psystar is distributing two copies to a consumer: DVD and HDD; they only have the license to distribute the DVD (as permitted by first sale doctrine).
Small PC shops theoretically license Windows in order to preinstall on their PCs.
Psystar has clearly NOT license OS X to preinstall on PCs. That is what they need to legally preinstall OS X for you.
No, it isn't encouraged unless Psystar is also hosting the source in some fashion. If the OSX86 servers went down and a customer wanted the source, Psystar has to be able to distribute the code to their customers. That's part of the GPL contract/license.