There are critics out there for Linux. But how many of them offer quality criticism, instead of complaining?
Instead of sitting around and trying to find a developer to reason out or file a bug only to get it closed and get berated for not being "enlightened" in their geek political theories the end user just leaves (from software choice A to software choice B, or from Linux to another platform).
Evidence of this comes up quickly when you Google on a technical topic and find a forum thread with someone with their panties in a bunch because a n00b cross-posted in the wrong forum, or didn't try a 100 step HOWTO and fail so badly, that someone will offer them a hand up.
Opportunity lost.
I've worked on a few commercial software projects from the development side where the user and/OR SQA will just find a workaround for their problems without giving any direct feedback to the developers. Why? They're so afraid of the verbal abuse it will get them from the ubergeeks who previously maintained the code that they will stop asking for fixes and features.
Yes, with the Linux attitudes we've turned potential non-geek users into battered spouses, and there are still some surprised why they don't want to stick around.
"While technically correct, how many people back up using their mirrors?"
Wouldn't technical correctness also include the missing step of putting the car into reverse gear, and accelerating?
While your example focuses on proper social etiquette while backing up it fails on the basics. I had a buck for every time a dodo Linux developer missed a step in a 100 step HOWTO or INSTALL document because they were too lazy to make an installer to show off their poo-poo rose smelling code I'd be rich.
In a post a bit higher I essentially said this. Linux is a great hacker OS, but an end user is just left hanging.
I know many folks who are shifting for their desktop needs Windows because they are tired of the Linux DIY attitudes and geek elitism that they need to deal with.
On the server side it is a completely different issue. But for getting things done, like development, reading email, writing documents, scanning documents, VOIP, Linux sucks!
Perhaps the PRS should stop being *thugs* (and acting like a government entity) and be a little bit more sane in their definitions.
Another huge issue here is whether or not performers should get paid for anything but a live public performance, or whether or not the recording industry is really the only benefactor because the performers are going to get screwed by them anyway.
Radio waves travel on her property, so if anything the ability to play them could be treated as trespassing. If they don't want them heard, it should be the responsibility of the sender to create a more secure distribution system to guarantee their service is paid for.
Since the waves are traveling through and she "catches" them on her radio they could also be considered her possessions (albeit briefly).
Unless an orchestra can jump out of her radio and start playing on her property with all their instruments as a "live public performance", the PRS can go to hell, and the orchestra should get the hell off her lawn.
She should fight the PRS in court because what they are doing is unconscionable on principle as well as the fact that she had never been voluntarily in a contract with them in the first place.
"... older employees are more likely to have real responsibilities (family, health issues, a life, etc.), and more of a backbone to stand up and not take the company's crap"
Are you kidding? Let's say the ol' pay cut train rolls into town at your company. Your older employers with more liabilities are going to keep their mouths shut and take the company's crap because they are so badly beholden to them that they cannot leave.
And what part of this scheme won't just encourage terrorists to find weapons with a bigger blast radius so they just cover the entire blurred area 'just to make sure'?
"I wish it were true that every programmer, laid off in the recession, would seek to use his free time in a way that contributes to society - or at least to his own career growth. Sadly, this won't be the case; many will spend the next year watching TV and raiding dungeons, and not learn a thing."
Most of us work because we have to, not because we want to. We work because it falls within our capitalistic goals. Giving the fruit of our labours away is a luxury. Contributing to society is not the primary goal of most technical workers.
"A laid-off person needs to consider his future. Open Source participation is one of the best ways to ensure that, when the depression finally ends, such a person can still be considered a programmer."
No, taking on paid contract work is. RentACoder and Odesk for example are far better examples of reliance on your skills for survival. A hiring manager seeing that you can get paid for your talent and on your merits despite adversity has far greater pull than someone doing Open Source contributions.
There's a talented homeless guy in Boston who plays music on tin cans as opposed to the guys who just have a mug and a sign. I don't like seeing software developers turning into charity cases looking for handouts. 'Putting yourself out there' like that is a sign of desperation.
Your anecdotal developer is a virtual beggar now, and its not a good sign for the field.
Doesn't treat it as an 'upgrade version', albeit there is a provision stating:
"The terms of this License will govern any software upgrades provided by Apple that replace and/or supplement the original Apple Software product, unless such upgrade is accompanied"
Pystar is providing unlicensed upgrades onto machines that do not have a previous install of the OS. They are also hacking the OS before installing it.
Pystar are pirates. They are not a legitimate business.
You are wrong on all counts except for the part about the machine not having a previously installed OS.
1) Anyone can buy a shrink wrapped copy of Mac OS X. They have and they are installing it.
2) They are running a pre-boot software, but they aren't "hacking the OS" unless the definition of hacking has become so broadly vague that that is the same as installing it.
3) They have been a Florida corporation since 2007. (Granted, the standard for becoming a business is really a matter of just paying a state some money and filing incorporation papers).
There is no question that Apple is the copyright holder, but your claim of infringement is wrong.
From Wikipedia:
"Copyright infringement (or copyright violation) is the unauthorized use of material that is covered by copyright law, in a manner that violates one of the copyright owner's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works."
"The first sale doctrine is a defense to infringement of the distribution right. It permits a lawful purchaser of a copyrighted work to resell or otherwise dispose of it."
Psystar is a lawful purchaser of MacOSX, and reselling the machine it is being sold on under the guidelines of fair use, but let's assume that you don't believe that.
The link for the Leopard hardware and software product agreements is here:
If you read the section 3. on "Transfer" in the Leopard license, the one-time transfer of the license appears to cover Psystar safely. One could argue that there appears to a flimsy contradiction between the 2. "Single Use" on a non-Apple-labeled computer and the Transfer right.
That withstanding, it does not appear Psystar has done anything that would terminate the license so long as they are a lawful purchaser of the operating system. The license is still in force and full effect.
The unconscionable bit that Apple is trying to enforce is how the consumer is restricted to what the consumer believes is a paid-for product.
Aside: I suspect in the future as a result of this litigation, Apple will be reviewing its license agreements and come up with ones even more Draconian than they are now.
But onto your other point that shows a complete lack in understanding of how contracts work: "By doing so the license is automatically voided, similar to the GPL License."
Again, incorrect had you actually read the GPL you'd see this bit:
"If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances."
Both GPL and the Apple license parts are still in force unless explicitly terminated by one of the agreeing parties and in a court of law, all of the remaining terms still apply.
While your last statement "And the same court that made the current decision has already stated very, very clearly that Apple is absolutely in its right as the copyright holder to license MacOS X in exactly the way it wants and no other way."
may be true. It appears the actual letter terms of the software license isn't written the way Apple intends.
Psystar is providing a service of pre-installing the OS on a machine for their users, and then effectively transferring the license agreement over to you.
Hopefully the courts will find Apple's license unconscionable and violating of natural laws.
I can advertise I am selling 1 million copies of MacOSX out of the back of a truck or on eBay and if they are actually shrink-wrapped by Apple they are legitimate copies. So long as Psystar isn't claiming they are an 'authorized reseller' they should be in the clear.
Pre-installing the OS onto a machine for someone to use should be considered fair use. The road you are going down seems to lead towards the letter of the law of DMCA protection circumvention which seems somewhat plausible, but is an unconscionable steaming pile of crap.
Let's say I tell you I am going to sell you some lettuce and some tomatoes but I am going to tell you that you can never make a salad. That's effectively what Apple is saying. Sorry bud, but it impinges on natural law and natural liberties.
Slashdot Mirror
This was a clear sign that WoTC was asleep at the switch and decided to go on autopilot.
Shouldn't they have figured out their market *before* releasing PDFs as a product to the public?
This looks like a clear case of publisher's remorse.
There are critics out there for Linux. But how many of them offer quality criticism, instead of complaining?
Instead of sitting around and trying to find a developer to reason out or file a bug only to get it closed and get berated for not being "enlightened" in their geek political theories the end user just leaves (from software choice A to software choice B, or from Linux to another platform).
Evidence of this comes up quickly when you Google on a technical topic and find a forum thread with someone with their panties in a bunch because a n00b cross-posted in the wrong forum, or didn't try a 100 step HOWTO and fail so badly, that someone will offer them a hand up.
Opportunity lost.
I've worked on a few commercial software projects from the development side where the user and/OR SQA will just find a workaround for their problems without giving any direct feedback to the developers. Why? They're so afraid of the verbal abuse it will get them from the ubergeeks who previously maintained the code that they will stop asking for fixes and features.
Yes, with the Linux attitudes we've turned potential non-geek users into battered spouses, and there are still some surprised why they don't want to stick around.
"While technically correct, how many people back up using their mirrors?"
Wouldn't technical correctness also include the missing step of putting the car into reverse gear, and accelerating?
While your example focuses on proper social etiquette while backing up it fails on the basics.
I had a buck for every time a dodo Linux developer missed a step in a 100 step HOWTO or INSTALL document because they were too lazy to make an installer to show off their poo-poo rose smelling code I'd be rich.
In a post a bit higher I essentially said this. Linux is a great hacker OS, but an end user is just left hanging.
I know many folks who are shifting for their desktop needs Windows because they are tired of the Linux DIY attitudes and geek elitism that they need to deal with.
On the server side it is a completely different issue. But for getting things done, like development, reading email, writing documents, scanning documents, VOIP, Linux sucks!
And on Windows well it just WORKS...
Even earth-stricken programmers know enough to keep the phones turned off in their cubes.
So unless these management types want to 'drop in' on the experiment they may be able to revel in unrestrained single-tasking bliss.
Perhaps the PRS should stop being *thugs* (and acting like a government entity) and be a little bit more sane in their definitions.
Another huge issue here is whether or not performers should get paid for anything but a
live public performance, or whether or not the recording industry is really the only benefactor because the performers are going to get screwed by them anyway.
Radio waves travel on her property, so if anything the ability to play them could be treated as trespassing. If they don't want them heard, it should be the responsibility of the sender to create a more secure distribution system to guarantee their service is paid for.
Since the waves are traveling through and she "catches" them on her radio they could also be considered her possessions (albeit briefly).
Unless an orchestra can jump out of her radio and start playing on her property with all their instruments as a "live public performance", the PRS can go to hell, and the orchestra should get the hell off her lawn.
She should fight the PRS in court because what they are doing is unconscionable on principle as well as the fact that she had never been voluntarily in a contract with them in the first place.
"... older employees are more likely to have real responsibilities (family, health issues, a life, etc.), and more of a backbone to stand up and not take the company's crap"
Are you kidding? Let's say the ol' pay cut train rolls into town at your company. Your older employers with more liabilities are going to keep their mouths shut and take the company's crap because they are so badly beholden to them that they cannot leave.
I'm 41 and I will take that Pepsi challenge any day of the week and twice on Saturday at 7am.
Um yeah, I'm gonna need you to work on Saturday...that'd be great.
You can tell us to shut the fuck up when it isn't on our dime.
And what part of this scheme won't just encourage terrorists to find weapons with a bigger blast radius so they just cover the entire blurred area 'just to make sure'?
"I wish it were true that every programmer, laid off in the recession, would seek to use his free time in a way that contributes to society - or at least to his own career growth. Sadly, this won't be the case; many will spend the next year watching TV and raiding dungeons, and not learn a thing."
Most of us work because we have to, not because we want to. We work because it falls within our capitalistic goals. Giving the fruit of our labours away is a luxury. Contributing to society is not the primary goal of most technical workers.
"A laid-off person needs to consider his future. Open Source participation is one of the best ways to ensure that, when the depression finally ends, such a person can still be considered a programmer."
No, taking on paid contract work is. RentACoder and Odesk for example are far better examples of reliance on your skills for survival. A hiring manager seeing that you can get paid for your talent and on your merits despite adversity has far greater pull than someone doing Open Source contributions.
There's a talented homeless guy in Boston who plays music on tin cans as opposed to the guys who just have a mug and a sign. I don't like seeing software developers turning into charity cases looking for handouts. 'Putting yourself out there' like that is a sign of desperation.
Your anecdotal developer is a virtual beggar now, and its not a good sign for the field.
"Community service always looks good,.."
Not when it is court ordered.
That goal sets the bar real low.
It'll be a matter of days before someone makes it into a standalone client that will take it out of the browser and put it back onto the desktop.
Like any other form of technology, its use can become an obsessive compulsive problem or addiction.
Wrong.
The Leopard license available at:
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf
Doesn't treat it as an 'upgrade version', albeit there is a provision stating:
"The terms of this License will govern any software upgrades provided by Apple
that replace and/or supplement the original Apple Software product, unless such upgrade is accompanied"
The retail box being sold isn't an upgrade.
I believe that the licenses available at
http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/
represent the full set of Apple licenses, and the only Upgrade license on there is for the iPod Touch.
Unlike the Vista Upgrade you are referring to, Apple's software is providing a full clean install.
Cute, for a blog.
Everyone should be somewhat legalese aware to avoid being hoodwinked by what the rules and expectations are, especially when loopholes exist.
Pystar is providing unlicensed upgrades onto machines that do not have a previous install of the OS. They are also hacking the OS before installing it.
Pystar are pirates. They are not a legitimate business.
You are wrong on all counts except for the part about the machine not having a previously installed OS.
1) Anyone can buy a shrink wrapped copy of Mac OS X. They have and they are installing it.
2) They are running a pre-boot software, but they aren't "hacking the OS" unless the definition of hacking has become so broadly vague that that is the same as installing it.
3) They have been a Florida corporation since 2007. (Granted, the standard for becoming a business is really a matter of just paying a state some money and filing incorporation papers).
There is no question that Apple is the copyright holder, but your claim of infringement is wrong.
From Wikipedia:
"Copyright infringement (or copyright violation) is the unauthorized use of material that is covered by copyright law, in a manner that violates one of the copyright owner's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works."
"The first sale doctrine is a defense to infringement of the distribution right. It permits a lawful purchaser of a copyrighted work to resell or otherwise dispose of it."
Psystar is a lawful purchaser of MacOSX, and reselling the machine it is being sold on under the guidelines of fair use, but let's assume that you don't believe that.
The link for the Leopard hardware and software product agreements is here:
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf
If you read the section 3. on "Transfer" in the Leopard license, the one-time transfer of the license appears to cover Psystar safely. One could argue that there appears to a flimsy contradiction
between the 2. "Single Use" on a non-Apple-labeled computer and the Transfer right.
That withstanding, it does not appear Psystar has done anything that would terminate the license so long as they are a lawful purchaser of the operating system. The license is still in force and full effect.
The unconscionable bit that Apple is trying to enforce is how the consumer is restricted to what the consumer believes is a paid-for product.
Aside: I suspect in the future as a result of this litigation, Apple will be reviewing its license agreements and come up with ones even more Draconian than they are now.
But onto your other point that shows a complete lack in understanding of how contracts work: "By doing so the license is automatically voided, similar to the GPL License."
Again, incorrect had you actually read the GPL you'd see this bit:
"If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances."
Both GPL and the Apple license parts are still in force unless explicitly terminated by one of the agreeing parties and in a court of law, all of the remaining terms still apply.
While your last statement "And the same court that made the current decision has already stated very, very clearly that Apple is absolutely in its right as the copyright holder to license MacOS X in exactly the way it wants and no other way."
may be true. It appears the actual letter terms of the software license isn't written the way Apple intends.
They aren't.
They are selling Mac OS X in toto with non-Apple hardware. They are additionally including a pre-boot environment that allows it to boot.
So, by your analogy, they'd be selling your book plus a spiffy bookmark and a nice bookshelf to put it on.
In plain terms it would mean an Apple brand label on it without implying who is doing the labelling.
Psystar is providing a service of pre-installing the OS on a machine for their users, and then effectively transferring the license agreement over to you.
Hopefully the courts will find Apple's license unconscionable and violating of natural laws.
I can advertise I am selling 1 million copies of MacOSX out of the back of a truck or on eBay and if they are actually shrink-wrapped by Apple they are legitimate copies. So long as Psystar isn't claiming they are an 'authorized reseller' they should be in the clear.
Pre-installing the OS onto a machine for someone to use should be considered fair use. The road you are going down seems to lead towards the letter of the law of DMCA protection circumvention which seems somewhat plausible, but is an unconscionable steaming pile of crap.
Let's say I tell you I am going to sell you some lettuce and some tomatoes but I am going to tell you that you can never make a salad. That's effectively what Apple is saying. Sorry bud, but it impinges on natural law and natural liberties.
No it says it must run on "Apple-labeled hardware" and makes no inferences of where you get the damn sticker.
They killed the desktop PowerPC market with their crusade against the Mac clones.
They made Be, PowerComputing, Motorola, Umax, and Daystar take it in the tush because people realized how crappy the Apple branded boxes really were.
They have been and always will be a closed box protectionist monopoly, and we in the industry have a very long memory.
It invades my liberty by directly violating my right which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Taking any cell from me without my consent is a form of seizure, and taken to the extreme is conceptually an imprisonment.