I don't know if I see it that way. (hang on for typical/. car analogy) If the law says automobiles must have 5MPH bumpers, Ford can't just hand you a piece of paper that says "You agree that this is not an automobile". Either it is or it ain't, legally.
Better would have been "You agree to waive enforcement of your rights to use this software as an effective technological protection measure".
I do agree this does nothing against trusted-boot DRM systems, like Tivo, where the enforcement is entirely outside the GPL software.
> I don't understand why people on Slashdot insist upon arguing with a lawyer about the law.
The Free Software community has created it's own industry of non-lawyers who come to hypothetical conclusions about court cases that haven't happened yet, and then treat them as legal fact. In other words, it's not really slashdot, but just the entire folk-lore that has surrounded the GPL since RMS started pontificating.
Yeah, they may have removed it in 10.4 -- I can't find any clear documentation on how it works or used to work.
However, I did learn about a fun feature where DMGs can hide the Finder toolbar and display an embedded background image, which basically would allow them to spoof a OS dialog.
And this clause is signficantly improved over v2 -- Which seemed to imply that operating systems always shipped with compliers like 1980s Unix.
Previous to this, it was never really clear if it was allowable to build GPL software using something like Java or VB. (FSF said it was, but the licence itself said not.)
The original reasoning was that the government was financing research software that may be useful to local industry.
The taxpayers of California spent a few peanuts on the development of BSD, which lead to the founding of Sun Microsystems and Cisco Systems in the area, which lead to thousands of high-paying jobs that otherwise would have gone Massachusetts or New York.
Yeah it looks like they stuck an axe in "Section 0" of the old GPL.
Previously, you had unrestricted rights to run GPL software -- aka "The GPL is not a EULA".
Now you only have rights to "privately" run the software (whatever that means, since there's no apparently caselaw covering "public performance" of software) -- and the author has the right to stick EULA-equese provisions on code covering how you may use it.
Yes, because the law actually defines what "effective" means in this case. (ie, it's effective because you can't copy DVDs under the normal operation of the device.)
Which is why this GPL provision seems a little dubious because an "effective technological protection measure" would be descriptive of a programs function, independant of what the license said.
Actually it does, because whereas before people just thought Maxtors were shitty low-end drives, now it's pretty much official that Seagate is using the Maxtor brandname that way.
I used to follow that quite a bit, and never saw any real evidence that Windows NT booted on any production Macintosh, or that MacOS booted on any of the NT machines. I can tell you that if you stick a NT4 CD into a Mac and boot, it does nothing on it's own. Just vauge rumors that someguy did it somewhere.
> Most computer companies have specific price points.
Acutally, with Dell, you can pretty much pick your price point in $1 increments anywhere between $300 to $3000. Every single machine seems to have a half-dozen CPU and video options. Meanwhile, Apple still has large several hundred dollar gaps between their models. (although that will probably change with Intel)
That's why if you start with a Mac base configuration, the price usually compares within only 20% with the Dell. But if you start with most Dell configurations, there simply isn't a Mac which compares.
Well, basically Apple is using warranty logic to segement the market. Take the Mac Mini -- everyone knows that you can use a putty knife and get at the RAM. But the fact it's not officially user-serviceable will eliminate it from many corporate purchases. In other words, the iBook is probably a sewn-up box by design.
The big difference is that the original G5 iMacs were designed to be user-serviceable. The iSight models (G5 or Intel) are not -- nobody's supposed to be looking in there except Apple techs.
(Now why you aren't supposed to be able to upgrade RAM or disk in 2006 is another question.)
My memory was that the Mac virus problem was only really bad in the pre-System 7 / Mac Plus days, when having system floppy disks was much more of a necessity. I recall when Disinfectant first came out, and there was much rejoicing.
But the Mac marketshare peaked much later than that, with Performas and OS 8 and so on. By then, I don't believe there was a serious issue (maybe there were still nVIR infected floppies, but the 97% of the stuff caught by Disinfectant could not spread under anything post-System 7.)
My brother has an older iMac with five user accounts on it, so if one user gets a virus then only 20% of the user data is at immediate risk
The permission system on OS X is quite loose. By default, users can write directly to the Applications directory. That means that malware could easily trojan common programs like iTunes and so on.
So, if a virus somehow got onto the average Mac, I don't see the user account system being any more than trivial protection.
Huh? Viruses were a huge problem back in the 90s. They just tended to spread via sneakerware rather than email. But vendors never patched or made design changes to stop them.
Anyway, back in the really old days when most Macs only shipped with floppy drives, Mac viruses were actually significant, data-eating problem. Most of those just stopped working accidentially with System 7 and so on.
Remember, there were Mac OS 9 viruses, and it had a lower marketshare than Mac OS X.
Classic MacOS had a peak of about 15% marketshare -- and it still was virutally entirelly virus free, despite the complete lack of file permissions etc. OSX has maybe 3% in comparison.
Recent versions of MS Office make it a pain in the ass to run any sort of macro. I don't think Office viruses have been a serious issue for at least 5 years now, maybe longer.
Mac OS X comes with about a dozen ways (package formats, disk images, etc) that users can download and install software without ever touching an "execute bit". So it's not really a relevant point here.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know if I see it that way. (hang on for typical /. car analogy) If the law says automobiles must have 5MPH bumpers, Ford can't just hand you a piece of paper that says "You agree that this is not an automobile". Either it is or it ain't, legally.
Better would have been "You agree to waive enforcement of your rights to use this software as an effective technological protection measure".
I do agree this does nothing against trusted-boot DRM systems, like Tivo, where the enforcement is entirely outside the GPL software.
> I don't understand why people on Slashdot insist upon arguing with a lawyer about the law.
The Free Software community has created it's own industry of non-lawyers who come to hypothetical conclusions about court cases that haven't happened yet, and then treat them as legal fact. In other words, it's not really slashdot, but just the entire folk-lore that has surrounded the GPL since RMS started pontificating.
While you are correct that patching your own software creates a derived work, it would likely be considered Fair Use under most circumstances.
There's even the Game Genie case where commercial software patches were ruled to be Fair Use.
Yeah, they may have removed it in 10.4 -- I can't find any clear documentation on how it works or used to work.
However, I did learn about a fun feature where DMGs can hide the Finder toolbar and display an embedded background image, which basically would allow them to spoof a OS dialog.
The term "widely used interface" seems to take a big bite off the Viralness. Think about things like Netscape plugins or ODBC drivers.
And this clause is signficantly improved over v2 -- Which seemed to imply that operating systems always shipped with compliers like 1980s Unix.
Previous to this, it was never really clear if it was allowable to build GPL software using something like Java or VB. (FSF said it was, but the licence itself said not.)
The license is liberal because:
The original reasoning was that the government was financing research software that may be useful to local industry.
The taxpayers of California spent a few peanuts on the development of BSD, which lead to the founding of Sun Microsystems and Cisco Systems in the area, which lead to thousands of high-paying jobs that otherwise would have gone Massachusetts or New York.
Yeah it looks like they stuck an axe in "Section 0" of the old GPL.
Previously, you had unrestricted rights to run GPL software -- aka "The GPL is not a EULA".
Now you only have rights to "privately" run the software (whatever that means, since there's no apparently caselaw covering "public performance" of software) -- and the author has the right to stick EULA-equese provisions on code covering how you may use it.
Yes, because the law actually defines what "effective" means in this case. (ie, it's effective because you can't copy DVDs under the normal operation of the device.)
Which is why this GPL provision seems a little dubious because an "effective technological protection measure" would be descriptive of a programs function, independant of what the license said.
Actually it does, because whereas before people just thought Maxtors were shitty low-end drives, now it's pretty much official that Seagate is using the Maxtor brandname that way.
I used to follow that quite a bit, and never saw any real evidence that Windows NT booted on any production Macintosh, or that MacOS booted on any of the NT machines. I can tell you that if you stick a NT4 CD into a Mac and boot, it does nothing on it's own. Just vauge rumors that someguy did it somewhere.
> Most computer companies have specific price points.
Acutally, with Dell, you can pretty much pick your price point in $1 increments anywhere between $300 to $3000. Every single machine seems to have a half-dozen CPU and video options. Meanwhile, Apple still has large several hundred dollar gaps between their models. (although that will probably change with Intel)
That's why if you start with a Mac base configuration, the price usually compares within only 20% with the Dell. But if you start with most Dell configurations, there simply isn't a Mac which compares.
Well, basically Apple is using warranty logic to segement the market. Take the Mac Mini -- everyone knows that you can use a putty knife and get at the RAM. But the fact it's not officially user-serviceable will eliminate it from many corporate purchases. In other words, the iBook is probably a sewn-up box by design.
Thank you for the correction.
Acutally, I'm pretty sure it can auto run a PKG file as well, because I've seen some that do that.
You're still full of shit because Intel makes a ton of 64-bit CPUs nowdays.
Also, I wouldn't be the least bit suprised if you put 32-bit XP on those "64-bit" systems you sell.
The big difference is that the original G5 iMacs were designed to be user-serviceable. The iSight models (G5 or Intel) are not -- nobody's supposed to be looking in there except Apple techs.
(Now why you aren't supposed to be able to upgrade RAM or disk in 2006 is another question.)
My memory was that the Mac virus problem was only really bad in the pre-System 7 / Mac Plus days, when having system floppy disks was much more of a necessity. I recall when Disinfectant first came out, and there was much rejoicing.
But the Mac marketshare peaked much later than that, with Performas and OS 8 and so on. By then, I don't believe there was a serious issue (maybe there were still nVIR infected floppies, but the 97% of the stuff caught by Disinfectant could not spread under anything post-System 7.)
My brother has an older iMac with five user accounts on it, so if one user gets a virus then only 20% of the user data is at immediate risk
The permission system on OS X is quite loose. By default, users can write directly to the Applications directory. That means that malware could easily trojan common programs like iTunes and so on.
So, if a virus somehow got onto the average Mac, I don't see the user account system being any more than trivial protection.
Huh? Viruses were a huge problem back in the 90s. They just tended to spread via sneakerware rather than email. But vendors never patched or made design changes to stop them.
Anyway, back in the really old days when most Macs only shipped with floppy drives, Mac viruses were actually significant, data-eating problem. Most of those just stopped working accidentially with System 7 and so on.
Remember, there were Mac OS 9 viruses, and it had a lower marketshare than Mac OS X.
Classic MacOS had a peak of about 15% marketshare -- and it still was virutally entirelly virus free, despite the complete lack of file permissions etc. OSX has maybe 3% in comparison.
Perhaps not, but neither do most Windows email viruses.
If you can get a Mac user to double-click on a DMG attachment, programs can automatically execute.
Recent versions of MS Office make it a pain in the ass to run any sort of macro. I don't think Office viruses have been a serious issue for at least 5 years now, maybe longer.
> there's no real equivalent on it to VB scripting.
First of all, VB scripting is not a major win virus vector.
Second, AppleScript.
Mac OS X comes with about a dozen ways (package formats, disk images, etc) that users can download and install software without ever touching an "execute bit". So it's not really a relevant point here.