I can always rely on slashdot for commentary where something reasonable and somewhat intelligent-sounding:
What did they steal? Ideas? Give me a break. Does "An android based E-book reader" constitute a patent worthy idea? Actually, of course it does, and that's why I for one do not see the benefit in supporting such startups in cases like these.
Quickly transforms into something straight from the mind of a drooling mental patient:
Patents need to die. Completely.
Maybe progress could be made here, if every good idea was not countered with equal amounts of crazy extremism.
If the federal government isn't completely dismantled, it will continue to get worse.
Riiiight... because the complete dismantling of the federal government wouldn't cause any problems at all, and would make everything just peachy-keen and neat.
By default you have the right to do whatever you want.
Absolute bollocks. By default, you have the right to do nothing with it. You need the copyright holder's permission to basically do anything with it, other than a few statutory exceptions.
So the onus is on you to point to a source that says that copyright law prevents you from using software. I claim that only EULAs restrict you in that way.
Well, you'd be wrong. The basis of copyright is that the copyright holder (author) has exclusive control over the work. The EULA is what allows you to use it.
They require it as a condition of running the software. If you choose to buy software that you don't have the right to run, then that's not very smart.
Normal copyright: You cannot distribute without distributing source. You cannot distribute with distributing source. You can use in any way you want as long as you're not distributing.
Except that this is complete bullshit. Copyright law does not say "you can use it in any way you want as long as you're not redistributing." Would you care to point out where it says that?
Notice how the GPL only grants rights while the EULA takes them away?
No, because the EULA only grants you rights - copyright law doesn't say you even have the right to run the program. The EULA grants that right.
Deciding what machine can run an operating system has nothing to do with copying and redistributing it. This is outside the scope of the copyright law.
But running an operating system requires copying it. So it does fall under the scope of copyright law.
Yes, it is. Show me a sequence of actions that would violate the GPL but would not violate copyright law.
The very idea makes no sense, because copyright law says that the copyright owner has rights over how the work is used. So, the GPL offers no rights above what copyright law does, and the GPL is dependent on copyright law.
You're actually sued for violating copyright. The GPL only enters into it in that if you had followed its terms, you could point to it as a defense. But if you haven't, then you can't, and standard copyright applies.
There is no such thing as "standard copyright." Would you care to define that?
Once again, the difference is that the GPL does not attempt to remove any of your existing rights. The GPL is a unilateral grant of privileges that you normally wouldn't have.
So, how is that different to a EULA, which grants rights you normally wouldn't have, and doesn't remove any of your existing rights?
It's exactly the same basis. Without any agreement otherwise, the copyright holder has exclusive rights over the product. If you don't make an agreement, or violate the license, you get sued for copyright infringement just as you do with copies of unauthorized copies of DVDs.
And by the way - you do agree to an implicit license agreement when you buy a DVD. That's what the copyright warning before the film is - it outlines the conditions of use that you must follow. Exactly the same as a EULA.
How does one get on the internet if one does not possess a functional computer?
Go to the library? Use your phone? Visit a friend's house? Use the computers in the Apple store? Or even without the internet, what's so hard about simply asking in the store if you can read the license before you buy? They'd be perfectly willing to provide you with a copy.
So I can't possibly have entered into a contract with Apple.
You don't have to have signed a contract to violate the license agreement - you can still be sued for that, and lose. Did you sign a contract the last time you bought a DVD? Good luck explaining to the court that making copies of it is OK because you never signed a contract.
So, why have the license, then? Why not say "it is licensed under copyright law" and be done with it? Oh, I know, because it includes clauses that aren't mentioned in copyright law!
Copyright law says that you can't distribute binaries at all.
No it doesn't. Can you point to where copyright law says that?
Yes, and the GPL actually uses the term correctly. You are "licensed" to use the software in ways that would normally not be permitted.
That's no different to a EULA. It's just different rights being granted and restricted.
Contrast that to a typical EULA, which purports to remove rights that you would normally have, in exchange for nothing.
In exchange for nothing? It's in exchange for getting to use the software.
"the rights you would normally have" is meaningless, as the copyright holder gets to say what those rights are, within certain limitations.
If you disagree with the GPL you have the right to use the software as you see fit but cannot redistribute it (which is what copyright governs.)
Copyright governs a lot more than redistribution.
Like what? Can you name anything that doesn't involve redistribution?
Why doesn't it count if it involves redistribution? The initial claim was that the GPL didn't add any restrictions that weren't already in copyright law. That's obviously not true, because copyright law makes no mention of not distributing source code, or making a program closed-source.
The GPL imposes no restrictions upon you unless you accept it,
Utter horsepucky. Even if you don't accept the GPL, you can still be sued for violating it. Why would you even have a license, if one could just disregard it, and still do as they please? I'm sure the creators of the GPL would love to hear their the license is unenforceable.
Apple basically says "copyright says you can't redistribute this, oh and you also can't do a, b, c, d, e, f, g,..."
And the GPL says "if you redistribute, you can't do a, b, c, d, e, f, g,..." - what's the difference?
Obviously. You need to read them when you set up the software. The way the installers are designed, is that is doesn't proceed with the installation until you have agreed to their terms. Otherwise no transfer of ownership takes place.
Um, no. The GPL depends only on copyright law. Apple's EULA attempts to impose restrictions that go beyond that.
This is a completely nonsensical argument. The GPL does impose restrictions that aren't mentioned in copyright law. Where in copyright law does it state that one is required to distribute source code with copies?
This is nothing but sheer hypocrisy - it's OK for the GPL to impose restrictions in a license, but not for Apple to?
Here's a hint - one of the words "GPL" stands for is "license." Yet you are arguing that software licenses are wrong?
"Your use of Apple-branded hardware and software products is based on the software license and other terms and conditions in effect for the product at the time of purchase. You will be asked to agree to the terms of the applicable agreement at the time that you obtain or install the software or setup the hardware product. You may review the agreements for Apple’s currently shipping products, by clicking the appropriate link below. Please be aware, however, that your purchase is subject to the particular agreement that accompanied the software or hardware product at the time of purchase and that you must agree to the terms and conditions of that agreement when you install the software or set up the product. That agreement may differ from the version of the agreements you can review here. Be certain to read the applicable agreement carefully before you install the software or set up the product."
Such ignorance of facts on slashdot is really astounding.
I have no objection to them doing so. All they have to do is present the conditions prior to completion of the purchase, to accept or decline, like any other conditional sale.
They have done this for years. They make all the license agreements available publicly on their website, and encourage people to read them before purchase. They are also included in the product packaging.
They're pirates. Of course they're going to run malicious software.
What the hell else would pirates do with a computer, donate to charity and solve world hunger? No, they're going to use it to look up www.saucywenches.com or download illegal treasure maps, or perform DDoS attacks on Royal Navy ships. They'd use a pirate version of Quicken to count their doubloons and inventory their treasure chest. They'd be looking up suspicious sites for syphilis treatments. They'd manually edit the Windows Registry with nothing but a cutlass and a corkscrew.
A copy of OS X is an inseparable part of that disc. If you own the disc, you own the copy, just like you own a copy of a story when you buy a book.
Right. The copy of OS X on the disc. That's not much good without the right to actually run the the software. That is dictated by the terms of the license.
A license agreement is a contract: in exchange for X, you get a license to do Y. You have to agree to the terms in order for those restrictions to apply. If you decline, you don't get a license to do Y, but you don't give up X either. In this case, you don't need a license to do Y, because you already have the right to do it under 17 USC 117.
Complete poppycock. You don't have any rights under 17 USC 117, unless you are already authorized to run the software. Your argument is like saying that 17 USC 117 allows people to legally run pirated copies of Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
I can always rely on slashdot for commentary where something reasonable and somewhat intelligent-sounding:
What did they steal? Ideas? Give me a break. Does "An android based E-book reader" constitute a patent worthy idea? Actually, of course it does, and that's why I for one do not see the benefit in supporting such startups in cases like these.
Quickly transforms into something straight from the mind of a drooling mental patient:
Patents need to die. Completely.
Maybe progress could be made here, if every good idea was not countered with equal amounts of crazy extremism.
but I'll just run down to the library and read a nice book while I download the newest movie
Libraries? Those all closed down in 2020.
If the federal government isn't completely dismantled, it will continue to get worse.
Riiiight... because the complete dismantling of the federal government wouldn't cause any problems at all, and would make everything just peachy-keen and neat.
By default you have the right to do whatever you want.
Absolute bollocks. By default, you have the right to do nothing with it. You need the copyright holder's permission to basically do anything with it, other than a few statutory exceptions.
So the onus is on you to point to a source that says that copyright law prevents you from using software. I claim that only EULAs restrict you in that way.
Well, you'd be wrong. The basis of copyright is that the copyright holder (author) has exclusive control over the work. The EULA is what allows you to use it.
They require it as a condition of running the software. If you choose to buy software that you don't have the right to run, then that's not very smart.
Normal copyright: You cannot distribute without distributing source. You cannot distribute with distributing source. You can use in any way you want as long as you're not distributing.
Except that this is complete bullshit. Copyright law does not say "you can use it in any way you want as long as you're not redistributing." Would you care to point out where it says that?
Notice how the GPL only grants rights while the EULA takes them away?
No, because the EULA only grants you rights - copyright law doesn't say you even have the right to run the program. The EULA grants that right.
Deciding what machine can run an operating system has nothing to do with copying and redistributing it. This is outside the scope of the copyright law.
But running an operating system requires copying it. So it does fall under the scope of copyright law.
Yes, it is. Show me a sequence of actions that would violate the GPL but would not violate copyright law.
The very idea makes no sense, because copyright law says that the copyright owner has rights over how the work is used. So, the GPL offers no rights above what copyright law does, and the GPL is dependent on copyright law.
You're actually sued for violating copyright. The GPL only enters into it in that if you had followed its terms, you could point to it as a defense. But if you haven't, then you can't, and standard copyright applies.
There is no such thing as "standard copyright." Would you care to define that?
Once again, the difference is that the GPL does not attempt to remove any of your existing rights. The GPL is a unilateral grant of privileges that you normally wouldn't have.
So, how is that different to a EULA, which grants rights you normally wouldn't have, and doesn't remove any of your existing rights?
It's exactly the same basis. Without any agreement otherwise, the copyright holder has exclusive rights over the product. If you don't make an agreement, or violate the license, you get sued for copyright infringement just as you do with copies of unauthorized copies of DVDs.
And by the way - you do agree to an implicit license agreement when you buy a DVD. That's what the copyright warning before the film is - it outlines the conditions of use that you must follow. Exactly the same as a EULA.
And power entails freedom to act. It's not an either-or proposition.
How does one get on the internet if one does not possess a functional computer?
Go to the library? Use your phone? Visit a friend's house? Use the computers in the Apple store? Or even without the internet, what's so hard about simply asking in the store if you can read the license before you buy? They'd be perfectly willing to provide you with a copy.
When you use GPL code, your payment is the source code.
What? So I'm not allowed to use GPL software unless I contribute source code? I don't remember reading that in the license.
That's actually still an upgrade - for people who have earlier versions of Mac OS X than Leopard.
So I can't possibly have entered into a contract with Apple.
You don't have to have signed a contract to violate the license agreement - you can still be sued for that, and lose. Did you sign a contract the last time you bought a DVD? Good luck explaining to the court that making copies of it is OK because you never signed a contract.
free as in freedom
Yeah, that's certainly not ambiguous at all.
If you're going to care about something, care about freedom, not openness.
So, we should care about the freedom screw people over? After all, that's a freedom.
No.
So, why have the license, then? Why not say "it is licensed under copyright law" and be done with it? Oh, I know, because it includes clauses that aren't mentioned in copyright law!
Copyright law says that you can't distribute binaries at all.
No it doesn't. Can you point to where copyright law says that?
Yes, and the GPL actually uses the term correctly. You are "licensed" to use the software in ways that would normally not be permitted.
That's no different to a EULA. It's just different rights being granted and restricted.
Contrast that to a typical EULA, which purports to remove rights that you would normally have, in exchange for nothing.
In exchange for nothing? It's in exchange for getting to use the software.
"the rights you would normally have" is meaningless, as the copyright holder gets to say what those rights are, within certain limitations.
If you disagree with the GPL you have the right to use the software as you see fit but cannot redistribute it (which is what copyright governs.)
Copyright governs a lot more than redistribution.
Like what? Can you name anything that doesn't involve redistribution?
Why doesn't it count if it involves redistribution? The initial claim was that the GPL didn't add any restrictions that weren't already in copyright law. That's obviously not true, because copyright law makes no mention of not distributing source code, or making a program closed-source.
The GPL imposes no restrictions upon you unless you accept it,
Utter horsepucky. Even if you don't accept the GPL, you can still be sued for violating it. Why would you even have a license, if one could just disregard it, and still do as they please? I'm sure the creators of the GPL would love to hear their the license is unenforceable.
Apple basically says "copyright says you can't redistribute this, oh and you also can't do a, b, c, d, e, f, g, ..."
And the GPL says "if you redistribute, you can't do a, b, c, d, e, f, g, ..." - what's the difference?
Obviously. You need to read them when you set up the software. The way the installers are designed, is that is doesn't proceed with the installation until you have agreed to their terms. Otherwise no transfer of ownership takes place.
Um, no. The GPL depends only on copyright law. Apple's EULA attempts to impose restrictions that go beyond that.
This is a completely nonsensical argument. The GPL does impose restrictions that aren't mentioned in copyright law. Where in copyright law does it state that one is required to distribute source code with copies?
This is nothing but sheer hypocrisy - it's OK for the GPL to impose restrictions in a license, but not for Apple to?
Here's a hint - one of the words "GPL" stands for is "license." Yet you are arguing that software licenses are wrong?
How exactly do you "agree" to be bound and restricted by the "license" and "document" that you cannot get access too until you purchase the product?
Sigh. You can access them prior to purchase, and are encouraged to do so:
"Your use of Apple-branded hardware and software products is based on the software license and other terms and conditions in effect for the product at the time of purchase. You will be asked to agree to the terms of the applicable agreement at the time that you obtain or install the software or setup the hardware product. You may review the agreements for Apple’s currently shipping products, by clicking the appropriate link below. Please be aware, however, that your purchase is subject to the particular agreement that accompanied the software or hardware product at the time of purchase and that you must agree to the terms and conditions of that agreement when you install the software or set up the product. That agreement may differ from the version of the agreements you can review here. Be certain to read the applicable agreement carefully before you install the software or set up the product."
Such ignorance of facts on slashdot is really astounding.
I have no objection to them doing so. All they have to do is present the conditions prior to completion of the purchase, to accept or decline, like any other conditional sale.
They have done this for years. They make all the license agreements available publicly on their website, and encourage people to read them before purchase. They are also included in the product packaging.
Apple doesn't do this because
Except, of course, that they do...
Web Fonts may offer some advantages, but they seem to have downsides as well.
Such a bold statement!
They're pirates. Of course they're going to run malicious software.
What the hell else would pirates do with a computer, donate to charity and solve world hunger? No, they're going to use it to look up www.saucywenches.com or download illegal treasure maps, or perform DDoS attacks on Royal Navy ships. They'd use a pirate version of Quicken to count their doubloons and inventory their treasure chest. They'd be looking up suspicious sites for syphilis treatments. They'd manually edit the Windows Registry with nothing but a cutlass and a corkscrew.
Dee dupe de dupe!
Drey dupe de drupes!
Dey dook dour dobbs!
Dey took Lou Dobbs!
Dey drook our jobs!
They took our jobs!
Signed,
Slashdot editors
A copy of OS X is an inseparable part of that disc. If you own the disc, you own the copy, just like you own a copy of a story when you buy a book.
Right. The copy of OS X on the disc. That's not much good without the right to actually run the the software. That is dictated by the terms of the license.
A license agreement is a contract: in exchange for X, you get a license to do Y. You have to agree to the terms in order for those restrictions to apply. If you decline, you don't get a license to do Y, but you don't give up X either. In this case, you don't need a license to do Y, because you already have the right to do it under 17 USC 117.
Complete poppycock. You don't have any rights under 17 USC 117, unless you are already authorized to run the software. Your argument is like saying that 17 USC 117 allows people to legally run pirated copies of Windows.