No copies (except the incidental one to install the software, which doesn't count because it's a consequence of how the medium of software works*) were made, so copyright law does not apply.
Sorry, but even if there is some kind of fair use exception for the incidental copy during the installation, I'm doubtful even that would apply here. Psystar has created a business from creating unauthorized modified copies of someone else's copyrighted work.
You're right that copyright doesn't allow the seller to decide how the work is used, but it does allow the creator to prevent another company from selling unauthorized modified copies.
Now you're really confused: the whole point of the lawsuits being discussed (you know, the ones between Apple and Psystar) is about deciding whether Apple's EULA is valid or not!
I don't think so. The real issue is making unathorized modified copies without a license. Unless Psystar can demonstrate that it has some license, then it doesn't matter what the EULA says. If Apple was suing end users for installing software on non-Apple computers, then it would be an issue for the EULA. However, they're suing a company that is selling (distributing) altered pre-installations (derivative work).
Then Microsoft's rights under the GPL would be revoked, which would cause Microsoft to violate copyright.
Right, they'd be violating the copyright. And this is the same situation as what Psystar is doing.
In other words, if Microsoft called up Canonical and got a big pile of Ubuntu disks then it could distribute them without being subject to the GPL or copyright law because Microsoft wasn't the entity making the copies.
Ok, but you're missing the whole point here. Let's say Microsoft got Canonical to send them a bunch of Ubuntu disks. They proceeded to develop updates and changes to Ubuntu to provide more functionality and interoperability, and then installed this altered version of Ubuntu onto their set-top boxes. They then sold the set-top box with all the added functionality, and threw in the original Ubuntu disk, but refused to distribute the code for their proprietary changes.
Purchase of what? So let's say I "purchased" my copies of Linux, altered the source, installed the altered version on my hardware, and then sold the hardware. Is that fine? If so, is there a minimum to how expensive does the purchase price need to be? Do I have to purchase it from anyone in particular, or is it sufficient to purchase it from someone who has the rights to make copies?
If MS instead purchased one copy of some BSD-cum-proprietary software for each Tivo-killer they sold, there would be no problem.
Right, because the BSD license allows for this kind of redistribution.
Even if MS made an arrangement with a GPL developer to purchase 1-1 copies in the same way, it would be legal
No, it wouldn't. My earlier questions are rhetorical, because you can't sell altered copies of the Linux kernel, even if I "bought" a copy of Linux for every copy I sold. If Linus still held the copyright for the entire Linux kernel, then I could enter into an agreement with him to allow me to distribute an altered Linux kernel under different terms. But that would mean that I had acquired a license from the copyright holder.
Except that the software wasn't sold as an upgrade, which is an important legal distinction.
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?
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.
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.
You said yourself that this is about licenses, because I'd need licenses to be able to install it 100 times.
By copyright law, however, Psystar has the right to purchase and resell individual copies of the software.
Nobody is arguing that they don't. Psystar can by boxed copies of OSX and resell those boxed copies. What Apple is claiming is that Psystar can't make an altered copy of OSX and resell that copy.
Finally, the alterations are to the Darwin kernel, which was open sourced by Apple.
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.
Reselling, preloads, etc. are all legal activities in the absence of the GPL.
Ok, so then go back to my example. I take a copy of Linux that I obtained legally. I rewrite parts of the kernel and add a bunch of my own proprietary code, and then I sell my computers pre-loaded with this altered version of Linux. But I obtain a legal copy of Linux for each computer I've sold.
Now, am I allowed to do that?
Think of it instead as selling a machine, a set of OS media and the SERVICE of installing the OS.
Brilliant. I'm sure the law makes no distinction. So I can pre-load my machines with software in ways that violate copyright, sell them, and then argue, "No, your honor, I wasn't selling copies of that software. I was charging for the SERVICE of installing the software. The customer committed the copyright infringement by hiring me to preload without obtaining a license first!"
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.
o do anything else with it, like preload it onto a line of computers, you would be required either to lawfully obtain a copy for each machine from a source licensed to reproduce that Linux distro OR to agree to abide by the terms of the license agreement and thus become a licensed source yourself. See the difference now?
Ok, so let's saying I legally obtain a copy of Linux from a source that is licensed to reproduce Linux. And then I alter the kernel and add a bunch of proprietary things to those copies of Linux, preload the result on my computers, and then sell the computers. (and refuse to distribute source for my modifications) Are you saying I haven't violated anyone's copyright?
Read the GPL.
You don't have to read the GPL. The point is, you need some kind of license in order to install Linux onto computers and then sell those computers. The only reason the terms of the GPL are binding to distribution via pre-installation is because you need a license, and the GPL is the license that allows for this.
But Psystar doesn't have any license to do it. They have no GPL to allow it. The EULA doesn't allow it. There is absolutely no license offered by Apple which allows it, and therefore it's simply copyright infringement. Whether the EULA is binding is irrelevant.
Buy a Ford engine. Put in in your Bluebird. No lawsuit from Nissan. No lawsuit from Ford. (The mechanic will likely sue for mental anguish.)
Of course, the problem is that this is a metaphor, and a perfectly good one. However, a metaphor is a comparison between two unlike things, and so just because it works as a metaphor doesn't mean all conclusions on one side will hold true on the other side of the metaphor.
Intellectual property follows different rules than physical property. For example, I can buy a bookshelf, rebuild it as a folding desk, sell the result, not release my design, and the original manufacturer has no say in the matter. On the other hand, if I take Linux source, rewrite parts of the kernel, sell the resulting binaries, and refuse to distribute the source, then Linus and the FSF are probably going to come knocking on my door.
It doesn't take much of an imagination to draw out a metaphor here, and I could claim that the two are the same exact situation, but the laws currently in effect in the US would say that I'm wrong.
Then explain to me why Apple is making iLife, OS X, iPhone OS, iTunes, etc.
In order to sell their hardware. I mean, come on-- you listed iTunes, which they don't even sell in any form. It's completely free, which should make it obvious that it's 100% to sell iPods.
But all of their software is aimed at selling hardware. Even iWork and their Pro apps (which don't come free with their hardware) are clearly aimed at making OSX a viable platform in various professional environments. It's all about selling their hardware.
Riiiight, like you know how MS managed to go bankrupt after IBM PC compatible clones came on the market.
Yeah, and just look at IBM's thriving PC sales!
All the various versions of OS X do is change up the GUI, fix some bugs and add in a couple of new features.
Isn't that sort of what software upgrades do? The update the GUI, fix bugs, and add new features.
Charging $100 for an OS is enough money to keep development of it going. You act as if Apple sells OS X as a loss, which they clearly don't.
Microsoft charges more than $400 for Vista ultimate, and Apple doesn't move the volume that Microsoft does. How do you know that $100 is enough to support OSX's development. Do you have access to Apple's budget?
Right, so it'd be more appropriate to point out that if Best Buy started stocking their shelves with the OEM version and selling them as retail, MS would have their heads.
...maybe. I don't know how well MS actually enforces those things. But either way, it's clear that Microsoft makes those sorts of licensing distinctions, and AFAIK those distinctions are legally enforceable.
Properly signed certs should be given higher priority, but a self -signed cert is still vastly better than nothing. The problem is that current browsers treat self-signed certs as being the worst of the three, when in reality they're much better than a naked HTTP connection.
Exactly. I certainly don't want to sign on to my online banking for the first time and find that it's using a self-signed certificate. On the other hand, if I had to choose between a self-signed certificate and transmitting login information in plain-text, there's no contest.
I'm of the opinion that encryption should be encouraged in order to stop simple snooping, even if it doesn't prevent more complex attacks. It's not as though certificate authorities are all that diligent in their identity verification anyhow.
Yes, if Watchguard were legally buying copies to do it with.
Even if it's designed and licensed to run only on Cisco hardware? So you essentially don't believe in copyright?
Fine with me, as long as Microsoft complied with the GPL (which is not an EULA, by the way!).
Nobody is talking about EULAs. 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.
Which bears no resemblance whatsoever to what Psystar is doing.
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.
A Cisco router is a specialty piece of hardware. Its software is tied to it by virtue of that fact (and, further, is not available to buy off the shelf from the average - or even non-average - computer shop).
I notice you didn't answer my question: if Cisco built an x86 piece of hardware, would that make their firmware fair-game? Your answer is obviously "no", but you don't want to admit it because it blows a hole in your whole argument. Cisco's right to prevent other companies from using their firmware doesn't come from the hardware it runs on. It comes from the fact that they have a copyright on their firmware, and therefore control the licensing terms.
The "modifications" are conceptually no different to a PC seller preinstalling windows with some hardware drivers.
Sorry, but no. First of all, you've acknowledged that you need some kind of a license or sense of "fair use" in order to install software. When OEMs sell Windows, they have a license that allows them to do that. So even if you ignore the modifications, they're already violating Apple's copyright.
But further, they are modifying OSX beyond its default install. OSX wouldn't install and run on their hardware without alterations. They have to hack system files (I believe they modify the kernel) before selling it.
The EULA isn't really the problem. The problem is copyright law in general. Psystar needs a license to do what they're doing. If the EULA allowed them to do that, then the EULA, being a license, could be the solution for Psystar. But since the EULA doesn't allow it, and they have no other license, they're simply infringing on Apple's copyright.
This isn't Apple refusing a customer in your restaurant, this is Apple saying that once you've bought the food from the restaurant you can't then go outside and sell it to someone you meet on the street.
It's not exactly like this. It's a little more like if Apple ran a restaurant and their food was copyrighted software, and they said, "Once you buy our food, you can't then go outside and install a hacked copy of that food onto generic hardware and sell that as a packaged deal."
I don't think the argument is that Apple is a monopoly, but rather that they're engaging in anticompetitive behavior - tying the purchase of one product (the OS) to another (the computer).
IANAL, but I don't see why that would fly. Are you suggesting that it's legally "anticompetitive" (in a way that's actionable) for any company to sell an add-on product that is only functional when paired with another one of their products? Gillette can't sell razor handles that only fit with their own disposable razors? So if Sony's dualshock controllers only work with Playstations, then they aren't allowed to sell them?
Or are you suggesting there's some special law that forbids use of copyright to enforce that these attempts to lock your add-ons to only work with your products?
Nice try fanboi, you actually put a little effort into it unlike your fellows, but still no cigar. An adaptation isn't preinstalling software on a machine. An adaptation is translating a work into another language, reediting it (like that operation that tried selling 'cleaned up' DVDs) and such.
You mean like selling a copy with an altered kernel to allow it to run on non-Apple hardware?
Yeah, see, even if we accept your interpretation of that legal language, the argument still doesn't work.
Can you explain how Apple will be successfully sued for not-offering a product? I'd be interested to know the law behind that one.
Failing that, if they had any trouble with this lawsuit, it would absolutely be the move we should expect from Apple as a response-- to pull OSX from the shelves everywhere. Except they could probably still get away with offering some pricing scheme for "support and updates", which for them would offer the same basic situation but with slightly different marketing implications.
This is like taking retail copies of GEM, BeOS or OS/2
and preloading them onto some PC.
Except that that's exactly what it's not like, because those operating systems are sold and licensed to be installed on whatever brand of hardware would run it. OSX is sold as a software upgrade to an integrated hardware/software product. There is no license to distribute OSX on non-Apple hardware. Notice they don't sell an "upgrade" version or an "OEM" version, because every version sold is an upgrade to an existing Mac.
At the very least, if there were legal grounds to force them to license OSX for use on non-Apple hardware, you'd have to grant them the opportunity to price it accordingly. So if $130 is the upgrade version, Psystar would have to be paying for a more expensive "full" version.
Really ? You think you'll get picked up for copyright infringement if you violate an EULA that says you're only allowed to use OS X if you're wearing blue shorts ?
No, but if I use my corporate Windows XP install disk to install Windows on my company's 200 computers when I only have 5 licenses, I bet the BSA would be happy to get me into some trouble. I can't say, "Well I bought that copy of Windows, so the licensing terms shouldn't apply to me."
Probably because PCs (including Macs) are generic, commodity hardware.
Oh, I wasn't aware that the concept of copyright for software changed depending on what kind of hardware it was installed on. I suppose if Cisco has a router that was x86-based, suddenly their firmware is fair game?
Except it's not the same thing, because the only thing that makes using OS X on non-Apple hardware copyright infringement, is an EULA stipulation.
What does this have to do with the EULA? We're not talking about end-users operating OSX in violation of a EULA, we're talking about a company that is copying OSX, altering it, and reselling without a license to do so. If what they were doing were allowed within the EULA, then they might have a defense, but you can't say, "I'm violating your copyright without a license, but that's ok, because I'm also breaking the EULA."
Now I'm not particularly saying that Psystar is doing something immoral, or at least not any more immoral than other blatant copyright infringement.
Indeed. Walking into a store and slapping down $129 is incredibly "improper".
AFAIK it's still a copyright violation to install software contrary to the explicit licensing terms.
Not really, because while it is implied, Apple do not explicitly sell retail copies of OS X as upgrades.
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.
Besides, you don't need come up with tortuous analogies, you can just say it straight out - it's like Cisco were selling copies of IOS on store shelves, but with the stipulation that it could only be installed on "Cisco labelled" hardware.
Except Cisco does sell software updates/upgrades. Not on retail shelves, but then they don't sell their routers/firewalls on retail shelves either. And other vendors aren't permitted to hack those software packages and sell them on their own firewalls. And what's more, we all accept that as valid.
Why? Because we accept that Cisco is a hardware vendor, and that their software is just part of an integrated solution. Except when a PC vendor does the same thing, people get all bent out of shape.
To use another example, when imagine if Linksys was selling routers with Linux installed, and refused to release the modifications that they'd made to the Linux kernel. How would people feel about that? They would flip out. Because it would be blatant copyright infringement to distribute Linux contrary to the explicit licensing terms.
I can come up with one example after another of comparable cases where people here would come down on the other side of the issue. People just have trouble telling the difference between "something that's immoral" and "something I don't like".
Psystar isn't riding Apple's development efforts at all. They aren't trying to sell Apple's OS as they're own, they're trying to stand up to Apple's bullying that immorally (and hopefully illegally, but we'll see) says you can't run their OS except on their hardware.
Would you think the same thing if you found out that Watchguard was ripping Cisco's OS from their routers and installing it on their own hardware? What if Microsoft ripped the software from a TiVO device and put it on their own set-top box? If Cisco and TiVO used the courts to fight these blatantly illegal actions, would you call that immoral bullying?
I think you're confused because you're used to thinking of the PC OS as something that's sold completely independently from the computer, even though you're used to other hardware/software combinations being sold as integrated solutions.
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.
Slashdot Mirror
No copies (except the incidental one to install the software, which doesn't count because it's a consequence of how the medium of software works*) were made, so copyright law does not apply.
Sorry, but even if there is some kind of fair use exception for the incidental copy during the installation, I'm doubtful even that would apply here. Psystar has created a business from creating unauthorized modified copies of someone else's copyrighted work.
You're right that copyright doesn't allow the seller to decide how the work is used, but it does allow the creator to prevent another company from selling unauthorized modified copies.
Now you're really confused: the whole point of the lawsuits being discussed (you know, the ones between Apple and Psystar) is about deciding whether Apple's EULA is valid or not!
I don't think so. The real issue is making unathorized modified copies without a license. Unless Psystar can demonstrate that it has some license, then it doesn't matter what the EULA says. If Apple was suing end users for installing software on non-Apple computers, then it would be an issue for the EULA. However, they're suing a company that is selling (distributing) altered pre-installations (derivative work).
Then Microsoft's rights under the GPL would be revoked, which would cause Microsoft to violate copyright.
Right, they'd be violating the copyright. And this is the same situation as what Psystar is doing.
In other words, if Microsoft called up Canonical and got a big pile of Ubuntu disks then it could distribute them without being subject to the GPL or copyright law because Microsoft wasn't the entity making the copies.
Ok, but you're missing the whole point here. Let's say Microsoft got Canonical to send them a bunch of Ubuntu disks. They proceeded to develop updates and changes to Ubuntu to provide more functionality and interoperability, and then installed this altered version of Ubuntu onto their set-top boxes. They then sold the set-top box with all the added functionality, and threw in the original Ubuntu disk, but refused to distribute the code for their proprietary changes.
Now I ask you, would that be legal?
Only because there was no purchase.
Purchase of what? So let's say I "purchased" my copies of Linux, altered the source, installed the altered version on my hardware, and then sold the hardware. Is that fine? If so, is there a minimum to how expensive does the purchase price need to be? Do I have to purchase it from anyone in particular, or is it sufficient to purchase it from someone who has the rights to make copies?
If MS instead purchased one copy of some BSD-cum-proprietary software for each Tivo-killer they sold, there would be no problem.
Right, because the BSD license allows for this kind of redistribution.
Even if MS made an arrangement with a GPL developer to purchase 1-1 copies in the same way, it would be legal
No, it wouldn't. My earlier questions are rhetorical, because you can't sell altered copies of the Linux kernel, even if I "bought" a copy of Linux for every copy I sold. If Linus still held the copyright for the entire Linux kernel, then I could enter into an agreement with him to allow me to distribute an altered Linux kernel under different terms. But that would mean that I had acquired a license from the copyright holder.
Except that the software wasn't sold as an upgrade, which is an important legal distinction.
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?
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.
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.
You said yourself that this is about licenses, because I'd need licenses to be able to install it 100 times.
By copyright law, however, Psystar has the right to purchase and resell individual copies of the software.
Nobody is arguing that they don't. Psystar can by boxed copies of OSX and resell those boxed copies. What Apple is claiming is that Psystar can't make an altered copy of OSX and resell that copy.
Finally, the alterations are to the Darwin kernel, which was open sourced by Apple.
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.
Reselling, preloads, etc. are all legal activities in the absence of the GPL.
Ok, so then go back to my example. I take a copy of Linux that I obtained legally. I rewrite parts of the kernel and add a bunch of my own proprietary code, and then I sell my computers pre-loaded with this altered version of Linux. But I obtain a legal copy of Linux for each computer I've sold.
Now, am I allowed to do that?
Think of it instead as selling a machine, a set of OS media and the SERVICE of installing the OS.
Brilliant. I'm sure the law makes no distinction. So I can pre-load my machines with software in ways that violate copyright, sell them, and then argue, "No, your honor, I wasn't selling copies of that software. I was charging for the SERVICE of installing the software. The customer committed the copyright infringement by hiring me to preload without obtaining a license first!"
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.
o do anything else with it, like preload it onto a line of computers, you would be required either to lawfully obtain a copy for each machine from a source licensed to reproduce that Linux distro OR to agree to abide by the terms of the license agreement and thus become a licensed source yourself. See the difference now?
Ok, so let's saying I legally obtain a copy of Linux from a source that is licensed to reproduce Linux. And then I alter the kernel and add a bunch of proprietary things to those copies of Linux, preload the result on my computers, and then sell the computers. (and refuse to distribute source for my modifications) Are you saying I haven't violated anyone's copyright?
Read the GPL.
You don't have to read the GPL. The point is, you need some kind of license in order to install Linux onto computers and then sell those computers. The only reason the terms of the GPL are binding to distribution via pre-installation is because you need a license, and the GPL is the license that allows for this.
But Psystar doesn't have any license to do it. They have no GPL to allow it. The EULA doesn't allow it. There is absolutely no license offered by Apple which allows it, and therefore it's simply copyright infringement. Whether the EULA is binding is irrelevant.
Buy a Ford engine. Put in in your Bluebird. No lawsuit from Nissan. No lawsuit from Ford. (The mechanic will likely sue for mental anguish.)
Of course, the problem is that this is a metaphor, and a perfectly good one. However, a metaphor is a comparison between two unlike things, and so just because it works as a metaphor doesn't mean all conclusions on one side will hold true on the other side of the metaphor.
Intellectual property follows different rules than physical property. For example, I can buy a bookshelf, rebuild it as a folding desk, sell the result, not release my design, and the original manufacturer has no say in the matter. On the other hand, if I take Linux source, rewrite parts of the kernel, sell the resulting binaries, and refuse to distribute the source, then Linus and the FSF are probably going to come knocking on my door.
It doesn't take much of an imagination to draw out a metaphor here, and I could claim that the two are the same exact situation, but the laws currently in effect in the US would say that I'm wrong.
Then explain to me why Apple is making iLife, OS X, iPhone OS, iTunes, etc.
In order to sell their hardware. I mean, come on-- you listed iTunes, which they don't even sell in any form. It's completely free, which should make it obvious that it's 100% to sell iPods.
But all of their software is aimed at selling hardware. Even iWork and their Pro apps (which don't come free with their hardware) are clearly aimed at making OSX a viable platform in various professional environments. It's all about selling their hardware.
Riiiight, like you know how MS managed to go bankrupt after IBM PC compatible clones came on the market.
Yeah, and just look at IBM's thriving PC sales!
All the various versions of OS X do is change up the GUI, fix some bugs and add in a couple of new features.
Isn't that sort of what software upgrades do? The update the GUI, fix bugs, and add new features.
Charging $100 for an OS is enough money to keep development of it going. You act as if Apple sells OS X as a loss, which they clearly don't.
Microsoft charges more than $400 for Vista ultimate, and Apple doesn't move the volume that Microsoft does. How do you know that $100 is enough to support OSX's development. Do you have access to Apple's budget?
Right, so it'd be more appropriate to point out that if Best Buy started stocking their shelves with the OEM version and selling them as retail, MS would have their heads.
...maybe. I don't know how well MS actually enforces those things. But either way, it's clear that Microsoft makes those sorts of licensing distinctions, and AFAIK those distinctions are legally enforceable.
Properly signed certs should be given higher priority, but a self -signed cert is still vastly better than nothing. The problem is that current browsers treat self-signed certs as being the worst of the three, when in reality they're much better than a naked HTTP connection.
Exactly. I certainly don't want to sign on to my online banking for the first time and find that it's using a self-signed certificate. On the other hand, if I had to choose between a self-signed certificate and transmitting login information in plain-text, there's no contest.
I'm of the opinion that encryption should be encouraged in order to stop simple snooping, even if it doesn't prevent more complex attacks. It's not as though certificate authorities are all that diligent in their identity verification anyhow.
Yes, if Watchguard were legally buying copies to do it with.
Even if it's designed and licensed to run only on Cisco hardware? So you essentially don't believe in copyright?
Fine with me, as long as Microsoft complied with the GPL (which is not an EULA, by the way!).
Nobody is talking about EULAs. 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.
Which bears no resemblance whatsoever to what Psystar is doing.
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.
A Cisco router is a specialty piece of hardware. Its software is tied to it by virtue of that fact (and, further, is not available to buy off the shelf from the average - or even non-average - computer shop).
I notice you didn't answer my question: if Cisco built an x86 piece of hardware, would that make their firmware fair-game? Your answer is obviously "no", but you don't want to admit it because it blows a hole in your whole argument. Cisco's right to prevent other companies from using their firmware doesn't come from the hardware it runs on. It comes from the fact that they have a copyright on their firmware, and therefore control the licensing terms.
The "modifications" are conceptually no different to a PC seller preinstalling windows with some hardware drivers.
Sorry, but no. First of all, you've acknowledged that you need some kind of a license or sense of "fair use" in order to install software. When OEMs sell Windows, they have a license that allows them to do that. So even if you ignore the modifications, they're already violating Apple's copyright.
But further, they are modifying OSX beyond its default install. OSX wouldn't install and run on their hardware without alterations. They have to hack system files (I believe they modify the kernel) before selling it.
The EULA isn't really the problem. The problem is copyright law in general. Psystar needs a license to do what they're doing. If the EULA allowed them to do that, then the EULA, being a license, could be the solution for Psystar. But since the EULA doesn't allow it, and they have no other license, they're simply infringing on Apple's copyright.
This isn't Apple refusing a customer in your restaurant, this is Apple saying that once you've bought the food from the restaurant you can't then go outside and sell it to someone you meet on the street.
It's not exactly like this. It's a little more like if Apple ran a restaurant and their food was copyrighted software, and they said, "Once you buy our food, you can't then go outside and install a hacked copy of that food onto generic hardware and sell that as a packaged deal."
I don't think the argument is that Apple is a monopoly, but rather that they're engaging in anticompetitive behavior - tying the purchase of one product (the OS) to another (the computer).
IANAL, but I don't see why that would fly. Are you suggesting that it's legally "anticompetitive" (in a way that's actionable) for any company to sell an add-on product that is only functional when paired with another one of their products? Gillette can't sell razor handles that only fit with their own disposable razors? So if Sony's dualshock controllers only work with Playstations, then they aren't allowed to sell them?
Or are you suggesting there's some special law that forbids use of copyright to enforce that these attempts to lock your add-ons to only work with your products?
Nice try fanboi, you actually put a little effort into it unlike your fellows, but still no cigar. An adaptation isn't preinstalling software on a machine. An adaptation is translating a work into another language, reediting it (like that operation that tried selling 'cleaned up' DVDs) and such.
You mean like selling a copy with an altered kernel to allow it to run on non-Apple hardware?
Yeah, see, even if we accept your interpretation of that legal language, the argument still doesn't work.
And even if you disagree with that decision, installing software on a hard drive is less ambiguous.
Can you explain how Apple will be successfully sued for not-offering a product? I'd be interested to know the law behind that one.
Failing that, if they had any trouble with this lawsuit, it would absolutely be the move we should expect from Apple as a response-- to pull OSX from the shelves everywhere. Except they could probably still get away with offering some pricing scheme for "support and updates", which for them would offer the same basic situation but with slightly different marketing implications.
This whole thing isn't going anywhere.
This is like taking retail copies of GEM, BeOS or OS/2 and preloading them onto some PC.
Except that that's exactly what it's not like, because those operating systems are sold and licensed to be installed on whatever brand of hardware would run it. OSX is sold as a software upgrade to an integrated hardware/software product. There is no license to distribute OSX on non-Apple hardware. Notice they don't sell an "upgrade" version or an "OEM" version, because every version sold is an upgrade to an existing Mac.
At the very least, if there were legal grounds to force them to license OSX for use on non-Apple hardware, you'd have to grant them the opportunity to price it accordingly. So if $130 is the upgrade version, Psystar would have to be paying for a more expensive "full" version.
Really ? You think you'll get picked up for copyright infringement if you violate an EULA that says you're only allowed to use OS X if you're wearing blue shorts ?
No, but if I use my corporate Windows XP install disk to install Windows on my company's 200 computers when I only have 5 licenses, I bet the BSA would be happy to get me into some trouble. I can't say, "Well I bought that copy of Windows, so the licensing terms shouldn't apply to me."
Probably because PCs (including Macs) are generic, commodity hardware.
Oh, I wasn't aware that the concept of copyright for software changed depending on what kind of hardware it was installed on. I suppose if Cisco has a router that was x86-based, suddenly their firmware is fair game?
Except it's not the same thing, because the only thing that makes using OS X on non-Apple hardware copyright infringement, is an EULA stipulation.
What does this have to do with the EULA? We're not talking about end-users operating OSX in violation of a EULA, we're talking about a company that is copying OSX, altering it, and reselling without a license to do so. If what they were doing were allowed within the EULA, then they might have a defense, but you can't say, "I'm violating your copyright without a license, but that's ok, because I'm also breaking the EULA."
Now I'm not particularly saying that Psystar is doing something immoral, or at least not any more immoral than other blatant copyright infringement.
Indeed. Walking into a store and slapping down $129 is incredibly "improper".
AFAIK it's still a copyright violation to install software contrary to the explicit licensing terms.
Not really, because while it is implied, Apple do not explicitly sell retail copies of OS X as upgrades.
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.
Besides, you don't need come up with tortuous analogies, you can just say it straight out - it's like Cisco were selling copies of IOS on store shelves, but with the stipulation that it could only be installed on "Cisco labelled" hardware.
Except Cisco does sell software updates/upgrades. Not on retail shelves, but then they don't sell their routers/firewalls on retail shelves either. And other vendors aren't permitted to hack those software packages and sell them on their own firewalls. And what's more, we all accept that as valid.
Why? Because we accept that Cisco is a hardware vendor, and that their software is just part of an integrated solution. Except when a PC vendor does the same thing, people get all bent out of shape.
To use another example, when imagine if Linksys was selling routers with Linux installed, and refused to release the modifications that they'd made to the Linux kernel. How would people feel about that? They would flip out. Because it would be blatant copyright infringement to distribute Linux contrary to the explicit licensing terms.
I can come up with one example after another of comparable cases where people here would come down on the other side of the issue. People just have trouble telling the difference between "something that's immoral" and "something I don't like".
By "ripping" I suppose I mean some intended to convey that they got ahold of a copy trough some kind of improper means.
So let's say Cisco was selling an upgrade disk for their firmware, and that's where Watchguard got their copy from. Does that make it acceptable?
Yeah, and Psystar should feel free to install Darwin on their PCs.
Psystar isn't riding Apple's development efforts at all. They aren't trying to sell Apple's OS as they're own, they're trying to stand up to Apple's bullying that immorally (and hopefully illegally, but we'll see) says you can't run their OS except on their hardware.
Would you think the same thing if you found out that Watchguard was ripping Cisco's OS from their routers and installing it on their own hardware? What if Microsoft ripped the software from a TiVO device and put it on their own set-top box? If Cisco and TiVO used the courts to fight these blatantly illegal actions, would you call that immoral bullying?
I think you're confused because you're used to thinking of the PC OS as something that's sold completely independently from the computer, even though you're used to other hardware/software combinations being sold as integrated solutions.
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.