I was just thinking about when my high school computer club went to see the introduction of the Mac and how cool I thought it was (I was mostly using Tandy Model I/III at the time).
Then I felt very, very old. I think the title is correct.
I know about the big argument that lasted for two years while the KHTML team was asking for the changes in WebKit, only to be given a pile of crap which they couldn't use. I guess Apple didn't know how to do a diff.
I know about that part of the "collaboration." Is there more?
But you're right about Linux having no market share in the U.S. Other countries, though....
I'm not introducing strawmen. You fail to understand doctrine of first sale or the copyright code, apparently. Let's look at your arguments spread around the thread:
There's the kernel modification part:
You mean like selling a copy with an altered kernel to allow it to run on non-Apple hardware?
When I state that the kernel was open-sourced by Apple.
That doesn't matter-- OSX is a copyrighted work as a whole. While you could alter the kernel and distribute the kernel by itself, but you can't alter the kernel and redistribute it as part of OSX.
Since they aren't redistributing it as part of anything, this doesn't count. They are selling a computer which they loaded an OS onto. See Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, a Supreme Court case. The rights owner can't control how further sale of the item may be made.
Then there's the "upgrade" fiasco.
It's also confused by the fact that Apple sells OS *upgrades* to their existing customers, which isn't the same as selling licenses to their software outright.
Which, of course, they don't, because it's not marked as an upgrade.
They're completely unambiguous about the fact that the retail package is only to be installed on Apple computers, meaning it's a essentially firmware upgrade.
Meaning that they are tying the software sale to certain hardware (which I've mentioned is the crux of the case and will determine whether Apple prevails or not). It doesn't say anything about being an upgrade. "Essentially" isn't a term they use in contracts. I think I confused you....
Does the law that makes this distinction say that the software needs to have a clear/explicit statement that the product is an upgrade? Or is it sufficient that the license only allows people to install if they already have a license to a previous version?
And the license argument.
I didn't say that's what Psystar was doing. I was pointing out that copyright laws forbid me from installing software without a license to do so. And you accept that fact in all cases except in those cases which you happen to not like the result. That's not very intellectually rigorous.
Since copyright law and contract law aren't at all the same thing, you failed on this one by confusing them. Attempts to point you to copyright law were fruitless.
You get further confused between retail copies of software and b2b contracts.
Oh, so if I buy the volume licensing media of WinXP for $20, that entitles me to install Windows on 1 computer? Great. Those are some cheap Windows licenses.
And when I tried to show you how owners of legitimate pieces of software have certain rights under the law, you dismiss the law as irrelevant and get confused about copyright and contract law AGAIN.
Anyhow, the part of the law you cited specifically applies to owners of a software copy making some kind of a copy that it required for their own ability to use their own software. It doesn't grant any rights for anyone to make a copy or adaptation, and then sell or distribute the adaptation for other people to use. In order to do that, you need a *license*.
And then there's the "complete work" argument you use several times. This is, of course, contrary to Softman vs. Adobe, where Softman purchased bundled copies then unbundled and sold them separately.
Sorry, but that's not how copyright works. OSX is a complete work that is copyrighted. Even if every piece of code in it was BSD-licensed elsewhere, Apple could put together their own distinct combination and copyright that, and you wouldn't then be able to copy their software without a license.
Sorry, but copyright law has nothing to say about reselling (under first-sale doctrine) a partial or even damaged i
Copyright law says nothing about upgrades. You have the right to make copies
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful. required to make the software function normally and for archival purposes.
You're confusing copyright law with some EULA terms which may or may not be permissible under law. Apple created the EULA. The EULA says nothing about requiring an upgrade. The EULA requires that the software be used on Apple-branded hardware, which clause, to repeat, may or may not be permissible under law.
The difference between stating "Upgrade Copy" and implying it through tying to hardware is a legally significant distinction.
Sorry, but that's not how copyright works. OSX is a complete work that is copyrighted. Even if every piece of code in it was BSD-licensed elsewhere, Apple could put together their own distinct combination and copyright that, and you wouldn't then be able to copy their software without a license.
Darwin isn't BSDed, though. It's uder Apple's APSL. Let's look at the text, shall we?
2. Permitted Uses; Conditions & Restrictions. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Apple hereby grants You, effective on the date You accept this License and download the Original Code, a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license, to the extent of Apple's Applicable Patent Rights and copyrights covering the Original Code, to do the following:
2.1 Unmodified Code. You may use, reproduce, display, perform, internally distribute within Your organization, and Externally Deploy verbatim, unmodified copies of the Original Code, for commercial or non-commercial purposes, provided that in each instance:
(a) You must retain and reproduce in all copies of Original Code the copyright and other proprietary notices and disclaimers of Apple as they appear in the Original Code, and keep intact all notices in the Original Code that refer to this License; and
(b) You must include a copy of this License with every copy of Source Code of Covered Code and documentation You distribute or Externally Deploy, and You may not offer or impose any terms on such Source Code that alter or restrict this License or the recipients' rights hereunder, except as permitted under Section 6.
2.2 Modified Code. You may modify Covered Code and use, reproduce, display, perform, internally distribute within Your organization, and Externally Deploy Your Modifications and Covered Code, for commercial or non-commercial purposes, provided that in each instance You also meet all of these conditions:
(a) You must satisfy all the conditions of Section 2.1 with respect to the Source Code of the Covered Code;
(b) You must duplicate, to the extent it does not already exist, the notice in Exhibit A in each file of the Source Code of all Your Modifications, and cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files and the date of any change; and
(c) If You Externally Deploy Your Modifications, You must make Source Code of all Your Externally Deployed Modifications either available to those to whom You have Externally Deployed Your Modifications, or publicly available. Source Code of Your Externally Deployed Modifications must be released under the terms set forth in this License, including the license grants set forth in Section 3 below, for as long as you Externally Deploy the Covered Code or twelve (12) months from the date of initial External Deployment, whichever is longer. You should preferably distribute the Source Code of Your Externally Deployed Modifications electronically (e.g. download from a web site).
2.3 Distribution of Executable Versions. In addition, if You Externally Deploy Covered Code (Original Code and/or Modifications) in object code, executable form only, You must include a prominent notice, in the code itself as well as in related documentation, stating that Source Code of the Covered Code is available under the terms of this License with information on how and where to obtain such Source Code.
I'll state my position again, since my argument has muddied it. Psystar certainly violated the OS X license. If Psystar didn't modify parts of OS X which aren't open source and they complied with the APSL, first sale doctrine supports their case. We'll have to wait and see if this is the case and whether the courts feel the license clause tying the software to Apple hardware is legal or not.
Except that Sony's junkware doesn't remove copy protection from and recompile the kernel of Windows in order to bypass not being granted an OEM license.
What if Microsoft did not comply with the GPL-- what then? Because the GPL would only be binding if you believe in copyrights, and further interpret the law to mean that installing software into hardware and then selling the resulting package requires some kind of license.
Only because there was no purchase. If MS instead purchased one copy of some BSD-cum-proprietary software for each Tivo-killer they sold, there would be no problem. Even if MS made an arrangement with a GPL developer to purchase 1-1 copies in the same way, it would be legal (though it would immediately make the front page of BoycottNovell). Transfer of sale.
You can't take a transaction where consideration is involved and compare it to one where it isn't.
Except that the software wasn't sold as an upgrade, which is an important legal distinction. It was sold as a full retail version tied to Apple hardware, which may be ruled as non-competitive. Leaving that upgrade clause out of the license was a big mistake, and Apple could just fix this whole problem by adding it in. Psystar would get no more copies and wither. They might be able to sue and force Apple to sell full retail copies under the same anti-competitive banner, though. Apple could price these accordingly.
You only have the right by law to install a copy of software you purchased onto one computer unless you are given additional rights (licenses in your XP analogy). Therefore, you can't install your XP corporate disk to 100 computer by law. It has nothing to do with licenses.
EULAs try to claim that you don't purchase a copy of software but instead only purchase a license to use one copy, which is a subtle but very real difference. It's up to the courts to decide if Apple's EULA clause prohibiting use on non-Apple-branded hardware is legal or anti-competitive. By copyright law, however, Psystar has the right to purchase and resell individual copies of the software.
Finally, the alterations are to the Darwin kernel, which was open sourced by Apple. Apple has for a long time failed to sue the OSX86 project doing the same thing as Psystar, so I'm going to guess that what Psystar is doing isn't illegal. This guess is buttressed by Apples claim of brand dilution as a backup.
To make servicescope_minor's comment perfectly clear, unless you have copyright on the code, you are not allowed by law to distribute any further copies than the original one you received without a license to do so. The GPL is that license.
The GPL is not a use license. It is a distribution license. It does not take away any of your rights uder copyright law. An EULA attempts to restrict your rights without a signed contract. Comparing the GPL to an EULA is silly.
Much like every copy of Linux is licensed for end use without modification unless source is made available. ...
GPL Deconstructed [groklaw.net]
For someone with a GPL link in his sig to get the GPL wrong is ironic. Linux is under the GPLv2.
You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
The GPL is not a use license. It's a redistribution license. I don't need to accept the license in order to use the software. I won't get into the other problems stemming from that single statement you made.
Slashdot Mirror
I was just thinking about when my high school computer club went to see the introduction of the Mac and how cool I thought it was (I was mostly using Tandy Model I/III at the time).
Then I felt very, very old. I think the title is correct.
I know about the big argument that lasted for two years while the KHTML team was asking for the changes in WebKit, only to be given a pile of crap which they couldn't use. I guess Apple didn't know how to do a diff.
I know about that part of the "collaboration." Is there more?
But you're right about Linux having no market share in the U.S. Other countries, though....
Also using Linux on the desktop since 1997, BTW.
I'm not introducing strawmen. You fail to understand doctrine of first sale or the copyright code, apparently. Let's look at your arguments spread around the thread:
There's the kernel modification part:
You mean like selling a copy with an altered kernel to allow it to run on non-Apple hardware?
When I state that the kernel was open-sourced by Apple.
That doesn't matter-- OSX is a copyrighted work as a whole. While you could alter the kernel and distribute the kernel by itself, but you can't alter the kernel and redistribute it as part of OSX.
Since they aren't redistributing it as part of anything, this doesn't count. They are selling a computer which they loaded an OS onto. See Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, a Supreme Court case. The rights owner can't control how further sale of the item may be made.
Then there's the "upgrade" fiasco.
It's also confused by the fact that Apple sells OS *upgrades* to their existing customers, which isn't the same as selling licenses to their software outright.
Which, of course, they don't, because it's not marked as an upgrade.
They're completely unambiguous about the fact that the retail package is only to be installed on Apple computers, meaning it's a essentially firmware upgrade.
Meaning that they are tying the software sale to certain hardware (which I've mentioned is the crux of the case and will determine whether Apple prevails or not). It doesn't say anything about being an upgrade. "Essentially" isn't a term they use in contracts. I think I confused you....
Does the law that makes this distinction say that the software needs to have a clear/explicit statement that the product is an upgrade? Or is it sufficient that the license only allows people to install if they already have a license to a previous version?
And the license argument.
I didn't say that's what Psystar was doing. I was pointing out that copyright laws forbid me from installing software without a license to do so. And you accept that fact in all cases except in those cases which you happen to not like the result. That's not very intellectually rigorous.
Since copyright law and contract law aren't at all the same thing, you failed on this one by confusing them. Attempts to point you to copyright law were fruitless.
You get further confused between retail copies of software and b2b contracts.
Oh, so if I buy the volume licensing media of WinXP for $20, that entitles me to install Windows on 1 computer? Great. Those are some cheap Windows licenses.
And when I tried to show you how owners of legitimate pieces of software have certain rights under the law, you dismiss the law as irrelevant and get confused about copyright and contract law AGAIN.
Anyhow, the part of the law you cited specifically applies to owners of a software copy making some kind of a copy that it required for their own ability to use their own software. It doesn't grant any rights for anyone to make a copy or adaptation, and then sell or distribute the adaptation for other people to use. In order to do that, you need a *license*.
And then there's the "complete work" argument you use several times. This is, of course, contrary to Softman vs. Adobe, where Softman purchased bundled copies then unbundled and sold them separately.
Sorry, but that's not how copyright works. OSX is a complete work that is copyrighted. Even if every piece of code in it was BSD-licensed elsewhere, Apple could put together their own distinct combination and copyright that, and you wouldn't then be able to copy their software without a license.
Sorry, but copyright law has nothing to say about reselling (under first-sale doctrine) a partial or even damaged i
Check the URL before clicking.
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful. required to make the software function normally and for archival purposes.
You're confusing copyright law with some EULA terms which may or may not be permissible under law. Apple created the EULA. The EULA says nothing about requiring an upgrade. The EULA requires that the software be used on Apple-branded hardware, which clause, to repeat, may or may not be permissible under law.
The difference between stating "Upgrade Copy" and implying it through tying to hardware is a legally significant distinction.
Even if MS made an arrangement with a GPL developer to purchase 1-1 copies in the same way, it would be legal.
Which is exactly what you said at the end of your post.
This is my last reply to you on this. I can't spend my entire evening arguing with someone who won't read my responses.
Sorry, but that's not how copyright works. OSX is a complete work that is copyrighted. Even if every piece of code in it was BSD-licensed elsewhere, Apple could put together their own distinct combination and copyright that, and you wouldn't then be able to copy their software without a license.
Darwin isn't BSDed, though. It's uder Apple's APSL. Let's look at the text, shall we?
2. Permitted Uses; Conditions & Restrictions. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Apple hereby grants You, effective on the date You accept this License and download the Original Code, a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license, to the extent of Apple's Applicable Patent Rights and copyrights covering the Original Code, to do the following:
2.1 Unmodified Code. You may use, reproduce, display, perform, internally distribute within Your organization, and Externally Deploy verbatim, unmodified copies of the Original Code, for commercial or non-commercial purposes, provided that in each instance:
(a) You must retain and reproduce in all copies of Original Code the copyright and other proprietary notices and disclaimers of Apple as they appear in the Original Code, and keep intact all notices in the Original Code that refer to this License; and
(b) You must include a copy of this License with every copy of Source Code of Covered Code and documentation You distribute or Externally Deploy, and You may not offer or impose any terms on such Source Code that alter or restrict this License or the recipients' rights hereunder, except as permitted under Section 6.
2.2 Modified Code. You may modify Covered Code and use, reproduce, display, perform, internally distribute within Your organization, and Externally Deploy Your Modifications and Covered Code, for commercial or non-commercial purposes, provided that in each instance You also meet all of these conditions:
(a) You must satisfy all the conditions of Section 2.1 with respect to the Source Code of the Covered Code;
(b) You must duplicate, to the extent it does not already exist, the notice in Exhibit A in each file of the Source Code of all Your Modifications, and cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files and the date of any change; and
(c) If You Externally Deploy Your Modifications, You must make Source Code of all Your Externally Deployed Modifications either available to those to whom You have Externally Deployed Your Modifications, or publicly available. Source Code of Your Externally Deployed Modifications must be released under the terms set forth in this License, including the license grants set forth in Section 3 below, for as long as you Externally Deploy the Covered Code or twelve (12) months from the date of initial External Deployment, whichever is longer. You should preferably distribute the Source Code of Your Externally Deployed Modifications electronically (e.g. download from a web site).
2.3 Distribution of Executable Versions. In addition, if You Externally Deploy Covered Code (Original Code and/or Modifications) in object code, executable form only, You must include a prominent notice, in the code itself as well as in related documentation, stating that Source Code of the Covered Code is available under the terms of this License with information on how and where to obtain such Source Code.
I'll state my position again, since my argument has muddied it. Psystar certainly violated the OS X license. If Psystar didn't modify parts of OS X which aren't open source and they complied with the APSL, first sale doctrine supports their case. We'll have to wait and see if this is the case and whether the courts feel the license clause tying the software to Apple hardware is legal or not.
It doesn't say that, either. The clause requires it to be installed on Apple-branded hardware, which you admitted in your earlier post.
You mean like selling a copy with an altered kernel to allow it to run on non-Apple hardware?
I'm completely unaware of what it takes to patch OS X to run on vanilla x86 hardware.
Me: I'm not arguing that Apple should start selling OS X to everyone, forced or not, but your argument is severely lacking.
You: So you are recommending that Apple stop doing something that clearly works, and try to do what Microsoft is failing to do.
Did you even read my comment?
Funny. I've moved the opposite direction. Ubuntu means "wait for SP1" in Bantu.
And since Apple wouldn't supply any support, where's the theft?
They were right. You are Twitter for Apple. Get some more accounts to shill yourself.
Except that Sony's junkware doesn't remove copy protection from and recompile the kernel of Windows in order to bypass not being granted an OEM license.
Except that the Windows kernel isn't open source.
Try selling a copy in your own store. No one will stop you.
A contract which you read and "Agree" to after the consideration has been paid, which doesn't fly anywhere else but the software industry.
Oh, and Apple doesn't sell "upgrades" now. They sell full retail versions which are tied to Apple-branded hardware. These two are not the same thing.
Probably less. Heck, Apple was willing to sell them a copy for USD129.
What if Microsoft did not comply with the GPL-- what then? Because the GPL would only be binding if you believe in copyrights, and further interpret the law to mean that installing software into hardware and then selling the resulting package requires some kind of license.
Only because there was no purchase. If MS instead purchased one copy of some BSD-cum-proprietary software for each Tivo-killer they sold, there would be no problem. Even if MS made an arrangement with a GPL developer to purchase 1-1 copies in the same way, it would be legal (though it would immediately make the front page of BoycottNovell). Transfer of sale.
You can't take a transaction where consideration is involved and compare it to one where it isn't.
OSX is sold as a software upgrade
Except that the software wasn't sold as an upgrade, which is an important legal distinction. It was sold as a full retail version tied to Apple hardware, which may be ruled as non-competitive. Leaving that upgrade clause out of the license was a big mistake, and Apple could just fix this whole problem by adding it in. Psystar would get no more copies and wither. They might be able to sue and force Apple to sell full retail copies under the same anti-competitive banner, though. Apple could price these accordingly.
You only have the right by law to install a copy of software you purchased onto one computer unless you are given additional rights (licenses in your XP analogy). Therefore, you can't install your XP corporate disk to 100 computer by law. It has nothing to do with licenses.
EULAs try to claim that you don't purchase a copy of software but instead only purchase a license to use one copy, which is a subtle but very real difference. It's up to the courts to decide if Apple's EULA clause prohibiting use on non-Apple-branded hardware is legal or anti-competitive. By copyright law, however, Psystar has the right to purchase and resell individual copies of the software.
Finally, the alterations are to the Darwin kernel, which was open sourced by Apple. Apple has for a long time failed to sue the OSX86 project doing the same thing as Psystar, so I'm going to guess that what Psystar is doing isn't illegal. This guess is buttressed by Apples claim of brand dilution as a backup.
Warning! MarkvW is a DECS sockpuppet!
Just kidding. Another poster called DECS the Twitter of Apple so I thought I'd just play along.
In order to do that, the EULA has to be interpreted as a contract, and EULAs of that sort have been pretty consistently struck down by the courts.
Until the Blizzard vs. Glider decision, that is.
Except that the Darwin kernel is Open Source, and modifications are allowed. Psystar received that right when they purchased the copy.
Um, they supplied the retail box they purchased with each computer sale so no, they weren't selling the same one many times.
To make servicescope_minor's comment perfectly clear, unless you have copyright on the code, you are not allowed by law to distribute any further copies than the original one you received without a license to do so. The GPL is that license.
The GPL is not a use license. It is a distribution license. It does not take away any of your rights uder copyright law. An EULA attempts to restrict your rights without a signed contract. Comparing the GPL to an EULA is silly.
Much like every copy of Linux is licensed for end use without modification unless source is made available.
...
GPL Deconstructed [groklaw.net]
For someone with a GPL link in his sig to get the GPL wrong is ironic. Linux is under the GPLv2.
You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
The GPL is not a use license. It's a redistribution license. I don't need to accept the license in order to use the software. I won't get into the other problems stemming from that single statement you made.