This seems a good place to point out one of the chronic errors of people talking about software development...
Abstract does not mean slow, bloated, inefficient, or incomprehensible.
Having the wrong abstraction for the task at hand, however, often does. And blindly questing after "managed" "portable" and "high-level" is a good way to get abstractions which work poorly for *any* task. At best, you get Java/.Net/Javascript... tolerable for many tasks, and completely useless for others.
From my understanding, Psystar installed one copy on Apple-branded hardware. They then modified that image, and replicated it repeatedly, eventually onto the systems which were sold (accompanied by unused Apple software).
Those additional copies are pretty clearly not authorized by either Apple nor Copyright law. Those additional copies are why the judge smacked down their first-sale claim. And those additional copies are why arguments about the EULA do not matter one whit.
Yes, special exceptions are made for software. One of the notable ones is that a legally owned copy may be duplicated into memory for the purpose of running the program. Notice the three words near the beginning which Psystar failed to satisfy.
an agency relationship is one of the only ways they appear to be able to stay in business.
And Apple would then get to assert Copyright infringement, contributory infringement, Trademark violations, etc. against the agent. With basically the same legal theory they're advancing in this case.
The first-sale cases I've read where software comes up seem simpler: The software, any materials, and intact EULA+license are being transferred lock, stock, and barrel. Psystar seems a unique mess, since they do a lot to violate the terms before reselling.
On LWN the other day someone made a point... and running with it, we need to call bunk on anyone showing TCO analysis in their favour while claiming to license the software and not sell it. TCL or TCR perhaps but not TCO... Not that I have ever seen Apple making TCO arguments, but perhaps I was not looking.
That argument doesn't hold water. Purchasing a copy of the Copyrighted material gives you exactly the rights outlined in Copyright law. Whereas, purchasing a license gives you exactly the rights you negotiated with the seller. Copyright law will be too loose in places, too tight in others, and too likely to change next time the politicians get excited. The license you can get just right.
What we *can* say is: Calculate the risk of licenses over the long term. Especially those hilarious examples which allow unilateral changes by the seller.
Speaking of fictions: has Psystar ever operated, offered, or considered "customer buys a copy and sends it to Psystar to install on a computer the customer is purchasing from them"?
Books are sold. CDs of software are sold. The software on them is licensed.
The latter makes it possible for all sorts of licenses -- BSD, GPL, CC-* -- to exist with the full force of Copyright law behind them. So don't screw with it.
Every time there is a computer-related Copyright suit, some bright light notices that... OMG, someone's claiming in-memory copies are unauthorized.
117 says: "it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to [...]". Apple asserts that Psystar does not own the copy they are duplicating, therefore 117 does not apply.
IM-non-lawyer-O, the ownership vs licensing debate is pretty well settled in Apple's favor. So if you buy a copy, you don't need additional permissions to run it. If you license a copy, the license needs to grant you permission to run it.
Have to voice agreement on that. Microsoft puts a lot of effort into attracting excellent developers and trying to keep them happy. The developers and front-line managers I've talked to struck me as a decent, and I know more than a few people who have settled in there.
There are lots of reasons to rip on MS and their products... but I'm not seeing good treatment of good interns as one of those.
A few years ago, Microsoft was ignoring Free Software and Open Source. Now Microsoft has moved onto misleading branding, false marketing, patent threats, and courting developers with what traditionally turned out to be empty promises.
I would be more worried about people choosing poor products based on marketing if I thought it were a new phenomenon.
But, just like the next generation being when the world descends into sloth and vice, we don't really seem to be getting anywhere in our tumble toward oblivion.
Look at a large amount of government systems. Everything is to the cheapest bidder. But the cheapest bidder isn't always the best or product, and contains issues. Also known as 'good enough.'
No, that's just the cheapest. You don't know about 'good enough' without careful planning and quality evaluation.
Or, taking the more common approach, you purchase it and deployed it. Then you discover why it was cheapest. Because it wasn't good enough.
and anything the other FB users saved, and anything their ISPs recorded, and on and on...
Of course, storing data received from the Facebook API for extended periods is a violation of their TOS. As are all the forms of redistribution people are paranoid about. And the applications *still* can't get more data than they could be having the installing users run a real application which spiders the FB pages.
Most users aren't going to think hard about this and will simply click through repeatedly.
That's my suspicion. However, the ability to run applications without compromising your own privacy might encourage some of us paranoid technical folks to stop avoiding them.
Anyone who is bothered by access from third-party applications installed by friends/network/etc either has already, or should have after the publicity, simply disabled it.
I'm pretty sure he was implying to just release it as public domain.
Possibly. But that also requires more work than "here's the program. It's free -- enjoy", and likely doesn't help with liability. I'd tend to trust CC0, but that's way more hoops than slapping a Simplified BSD license on things.
Maybe not definitive, but they stand the vague chance of actually being right:P
Like, for example, the summary judgment in SCO v Novell which just got tossed out, so a jury will probably need to consider to issue. Leaving the rest of your paragraph a work of creative fiction...
Slashdot Mirror
Reality defines math. Math defines computer programs. It is a rather important difference.
This seems a good place to point out one of the chronic errors of people talking about software development...
Abstract does not mean slow, bloated, inefficient, or incomprehensible.
Having the wrong abstraction for the task at hand, however, often does. And blindly questing after "managed" "portable" and "high-level" is a good way to get abstractions which work poorly for *any* task. At best, you get Java/.Net/Javascript... tolerable for many tasks, and completely useless for others.
No. Read the case.
From my understanding, Psystar installed one copy on Apple-branded hardware. They then modified that image, and replicated it repeatedly, eventually onto the systems which were sold (accompanied by unused Apple software).
Those additional copies are pretty clearly not authorized by either Apple nor Copyright law. Those additional copies are why the judge smacked down their first-sale claim. And those additional copies are why arguments about the EULA do not matter one whit.
Yes, special exceptions are made for software. One of the notable ones is that a legally owned copy may be duplicated into memory for the purpose of running the program. Notice the three words near the beginning which Psystar failed to satisfy.
(not a lawyer, and all that)
an agency relationship is one of the only ways they appear to be able to stay in business.
And Apple would then get to assert Copyright infringement, contributory infringement, Trademark violations, etc. against the agent. With basically the same legal theory they're advancing in this case.
The first-sale cases I've read where software comes up seem simpler: The software, any materials, and intact EULA+license are being transferred lock, stock, and barrel. Psystar seems a unique mess, since they do a lot to violate the terms before reselling.
On LWN the other day someone made a point... and running with it, we need to call bunk on anyone showing TCO analysis in their favour while claiming to license the software and not sell it. TCL or TCR perhaps but not TCO... Not that I have ever seen Apple making TCO arguments, but perhaps I was not looking.
That argument doesn't hold water. Purchasing a copy of the Copyrighted material gives you exactly the rights outlined in Copyright law. Whereas, purchasing a license gives you exactly the rights you negotiated with the seller. Copyright law will be too loose in places, too tight in others, and too likely to change next time the politicians get excited. The license you can get just right.
What we *can* say is: Calculate the risk of licenses over the long term. Especially those hilarious examples which allow unilateral changes by the seller.
Speaking of fictions: has Psystar ever operated, offered, or considered "customer buys a copy and sends it to Psystar to install on a computer the customer is purchasing from them"?
Books are sold. CDs of software are sold. The software on them is licensed.
The latter makes it possible for all sorts of licenses -- BSD, GPL, CC-* -- to exist with the full force of Copyright law behind them. So don't screw with it.
Psystar bought the copies, they are for sure breaking the EULA, but they do own the copies.
This software is licensed, not sold.
This software is licensed, not sold.
This software is licensed, not sold.
*clown-suited lawyer appear cackling madly*
Every time there is a computer-related Copyright suit, some bright light notices that... OMG, someone's claiming in-memory copies are unauthorized.
117 says: "it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to [...]". Apple asserts that Psystar does not own the copy they are duplicating, therefore 117 does not apply.
IM-non-lawyer-O, the ownership vs licensing debate is pretty well settled in Apple's favor. So if you buy a copy, you don't need additional permissions to run it. If you license a copy, the license needs to grant you permission to run it.
Well, that was easy.
Aside from the detail that Apple is busy suing them into a deep hole...
Welcome to legal systems. Whether or not you think justice is being rendered, the rendering takes time.
Have to voice agreement on that. Microsoft puts a lot of effort into attracting excellent developers and trying to keep them happy. The developers and front-line managers I've talked to struck me as a decent, and I know more than a few people who have settled in there.
There are lots of reasons to rip on MS and their products... but I'm not seeing good treatment of good interns as one of those.
I'm a cynic. Figure we just never noticed before.
So, *you* porting Wine to Windows might just be the only way... :)
[Citation needed]
[1-999]
Don't knock it... someone porting Wine to Windows might just be the only way to get old applications to work properly :)
I believe it.
A few years ago, Microsoft was ignoring Free Software and Open Source. Now Microsoft has moved onto misleading branding, false marketing, patent threats, and courting developers with what traditionally turned out to be empty promises.
So, the same way they treat other competition.
I would be more worried about people choosing poor products based on marketing if I thought it were a new phenomenon.
But, just like the next generation being when the world descends into sloth and vice, we don't really seem to be getting anywhere in our tumble toward oblivion.
Look at a large amount of government systems. Everything is to the cheapest bidder. But the cheapest bidder isn't always the best or product, and contains issues. Also known as 'good enough.'
No, that's just the cheapest. You don't know about 'good enough' without careful planning and quality evaluation.
Or, taking the more common approach, you purchase it and deployed it. Then you discover why it was cheapest. Because it wasn't good enough.
Hell, if it did that much, it's worth it, considering everyone's got one of those people on their friend list.
That would be where this bank of settings comes in.
and anything the other FB users saved, and anything their ISPs recorded, and on and on...
Of course, storing data received from the Facebook API for extended periods is a violation of their TOS. As are all the forms of redistribution people are paranoid about. And the applications *still* can't get more data than they could be having the installing users run a real application which spiders the FB pages.
So, *shrug*
Most users aren't going to think hard about this and will simply click through repeatedly.
That's my suspicion. However, the ability to run applications without compromising your own privacy might encourage some of us paranoid technical folks to stop avoiding them.
Anyone who is bothered by access from third-party applications installed by friends/network/etc either has already, or should have after the publicity, simply disabled it.
There would be more, but the companies taken to court over GPL violations keep deciding to comply and settle.
Which should tell you something :)
I'm pretty sure he was implying to just release it as public domain.
Possibly. But that also requires more work than "here's the program. It's free -- enjoy", and likely doesn't help with liability. I'd tend to trust CC0, but that's way more hoops than slapping a Simplified BSD license on things.
Make sure non-GPL projects can use your licensed code
Except, you know, when you don't want non-GPL projects to use it. :)
Maybe not definitive, but they stand the vague chance of actually being right :P
Like, for example, the summary judgment in SCO v Novell which just got tossed out, so a jury will probably need to consider to issue. Leaving the rest of your paragraph a work of creative fiction...