There's no reason why both can't exist and I don't see why some anarchists should be able to dictate the terms for all of us who like professional content.
Dude, you are so full of shit it's a wonder you don't need wipers on your eyes. There's no reason why fascists such as yourself should have any dictate over what appears on my computer.
Your appeals to the value of paid journalists and authors? Double horseshit. Journalism lost long ago. The Internet makes it cheap and trivial to get firsthand accounts of events without the mindless, banal commentary and faked balance of 'professional' journalists. The reason you appeal to an advertisement model (besides your own selfish interests) is because the products you help to support are so terrible that nobody would pay for them! That's why newspapers are dying. Their product is not worth paying for.
Lemme guess: you have a great, great grandfather who couldn't understand why people didn't buy buggy whips to go with their automobiles.
Orr made clear that the 32% Linux netbook market share did not include either user-installed Linux or dual-boot systems, but was confined to just pre-installed Linux shipments
Did Orr also make it clear that that figure did not include people who slapped on a copy of XP from a torrent?
Adobe has had years and plenty of notice about the 64 bit API and languages. Their fucking problem for digging in their heals, cruising on name recognition and lack of competition.
They can't order you to open your trunk. In the US, at least, the only area they can search without either your permission or a court order (or a few other things) is the area under your immediate control.
Here is part of an excellent video by the ACLU regarding such matters.
Nowadays, the computer (and internet access) takes that role. Your ability to tell the whole world about the abuses you're receiving at the hand of the government are MUCH more powerful (and important) than a shotgun.
Umm.... Yeah. I'd like travel directions to the fantasy world you're living in.
And how many people have the funds to fight to enshrine a Supreme Court precedent? I've recently spent $20,000 to assure my rights according to black letter law. It would surely cost more when dealing with as asymmetrical opponent as Apple.
Your 'rights' last right up to the point where you can no longer afford to defend them.
So, why have the license, then? Why not say "it is licensed under copyright law" and be done with it? Oh, I know, because it includes clauses that aren't mentioned in copyright law!
Because then it would be BSD, and all the dirty GPL hippies would cry.
"Wait, you say it's not a contract, but a license? Again, changing the license voids the initial agreement. You have to get me to agree to the new terms of license. Furthermore, if you insist on calling it a license, I'll insist on you providing me free access to the data controlled by the license."
Ever read a software license? They invariably have a clause stating that the author of the software can modify the license at any time. It's like you're Lando Calrissian, and software manufacturers are Darth Vader.
"3) Apple has an effective monopoly on certain industries, so the point's wrong on the facts as well."
Name three
"4) Simply stating, "You were free not to buy my software," is being willfully obtuse. Forgive the hyperbole, but imagine for a moment that Monsanto suddenly decided you could only cook their food in pots they made and sold for ludicrous prices. What good reason could we possibly have to deny them this right (that they simply made up) to control how their consumer products are used after sale? After all, they're not selling food; they're selling the "experience" of eating. And we're perfectly free not to eat!"
Interesting analogy, but a poor one. Monsanto (or is it ADM?) forbids farmers from gathering seed from this year's crop in order to plant next year's crop. One of them also sued (successfully) a farm for copyright infringement. They had a crop across the road from a farm with a Monsanto crop. Cross pollination ensued. The non-ADM customer's grain got some of the benefits without paying Monsanto.
Reading carefully (as lawyers and judges occasionally do), you have answered your own question. In order to use the software, you must have a Mac computer with an Intel processor. AFAIK, every Mac computer with an Intel processor originally came with a copy of OS X. Therefore, you are upgrading it. From a CS perspective? Not necessarily, particularly if you are on a new drive. But from a legal/licensing perspective?
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, you are so full of shit it's a wonder you don't need wipers on your eyes. There's no reason why fascists such as yourself should have any dictate over what appears on my computer.
Your appeals to the value of paid journalists and authors? Double horseshit. Journalism lost long ago. The Internet makes it cheap and trivial to get firsthand accounts of events without the mindless, banal commentary and faked balance of 'professional' journalists. The reason you appeal to an advertisement model (besides your own selfish interests) is because the products you help to support are so terrible that nobody would pay for them! That's why newspapers are dying. Their product is not worth paying for.
Lemme guess: you have a great, great grandfather who couldn't understand why people didn't buy buggy whips to go with their automobiles.
Not a particularly good joke, and far too close to sentiments espoused by the Randroids around here.
Only a government worker could be happy about their job being replaced by a machine.
Or, perhaps, the people were happy because this system would be more effective than the current manual system, which makes it better for everyone.
Believe it or not, there are people whose motivations are not as selfish as your own.
Did Orr also make it clear that that figure did not include people who slapped on a copy of XP from a torrent?
GP thinks irony is like rain on your wedding day.
Apache Batik
Adobe has had years and plenty of notice about the 64 bit API and languages. Their fucking problem for digging in their heals, cruising on name recognition and lack of competition.
I stand corrected. It looks like the video is not from the ACLU, but rather from FlexYourRights.
They can't order you to open your trunk. In the US, at least, the only area they can search without either your permission or a court order (or a few other things) is the area under your immediate control.
Here is part of an excellent video by the ACLU regarding such matters.
He could explain to you why you are wrong, but unfortunately, /. won't let him post his .ppt explaining it.
You don't even try for subtlety on Tuesdays anymore, do you?
I bet you spell Microsoft with a dollar sign as well.
Do your parents know yet that you'll never be the source of grandchildren?
10 would be the fancy way, what with it being harder to make circles in stone with chisels vs. making crosses.
Nowadays, the computer (and internet access) takes that role. Your ability to tell the whole world about the abuses you're receiving at the hand of the government are MUCH more powerful (and important) than a shotgun.
Umm.... Yeah. I'd like travel directions to the fantasy world you're living in.
And how many people have the funds to fight to enshrine a Supreme Court precedent? I've recently spent $20,000 to assure my rights according to black letter law. It would surely cost more when dealing with as asymmetrical opponent as Apple.
Your 'rights' last right up to the point where you can no longer afford to defend them.
It's also the advice I've received from most of the people I know who have spent time in prison.
Yes, he is.
I've got a feeling that computers are more along the lines of the numerous printing presses out there.
Emmanuel Goldstein would agree
The character in the book, or the editor of the magazine?
So, why have the license, then? Why not say "it is licensed under copyright law" and be done with it? Oh, I know, because it includes clauses that aren't mentioned in copyright law!
Because then it would be BSD, and all the dirty GPL hippies would cry.
"Wait, you say it's not a contract, but a license? Again, changing the license voids the initial agreement. You have to get me to agree to the new terms of license. Furthermore, if you insist on calling it a license, I'll insist on you providing me free access to the data controlled by the license."
Ever read a software license? They invariably have a clause stating that the author of the software can modify the license at any time. It's like you're Lando Calrissian, and software manufacturers are Darth Vader.
"3) Apple has an effective monopoly on certain industries, so the point's wrong on the facts as well."
Name three
"4) Simply stating, "You were free not to buy my software," is being willfully obtuse. Forgive the hyperbole, but imagine for a moment that Monsanto suddenly decided you could only cook their food in pots they made and sold for ludicrous prices. What good reason could we possibly have to deny them this right (that they simply made up) to control how their consumer products are used after sale? After all, they're not selling food; they're selling the "experience" of eating. And we're perfectly free not to eat!"
Interesting analogy, but a poor one. Monsanto (or is it ADM?) forbids farmers from gathering seed from this year's crop in order to plant next year's crop. One of them also sued (successfully) a farm for copyright infringement. They had a crop across the road from a farm with a Monsanto crop. Cross pollination ensued. The non-ADM customer's grain got some of the benefits without paying Monsanto.
The Apple EULA is also a distribution license of sorts. You agree not to distribute it.
Reading carefully (as lawyers and judges occasionally do), you have answered your own question. In order to use the software, you must have a Mac computer with an Intel processor. AFAIK, every Mac computer with an Intel processor originally came with a copy of OS X. Therefore, you are upgrading it. From a CS perspective? Not necessarily, particularly if you are on a new drive. But from a legal/licensing perspective?
Not something I'd test in court.
No shirt, no shoes, no service. No Mac hardware, no Mac OSX for you.