erwin15155 Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 money talk...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
endafy Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 Honestly if Microsoft tried to tie their OS to a single computer the courts would have eaten them alive. Why is Apple allowed to do this? If memory serves correctly Microsoft and IBM tried this back in the heyday tried to become one company and the courts shredded them to tiny bits leaving Bill and his 9 cronies. Microsoft proved something, just sell the OS and don't bother with hardware. Leave it up to the user to "choose". Now with Vista they are shooting themselves in the foot and it is why Apple isn't #1 and why Linux seems to be gaining quicker than wildfire. True Apple is gaining marketshare and they have 10%, but I would bet a Mac that Linux has more than that as it is free legal and well free. Microsoft is afraid of Linux and not Apple... Why? Why is Microsoft fighting them and not Apple? Simple. Linux is free and you can see Microsoft signing Licenses with big named companies to "kill the threat". Same thing Apple did way years yonder back. Linux undermines everything Microsoft and Apple holds true. Something they didn't bank on. Now Psystar has done something bold. I can see Microsoft backing them up. If Psystar loses this battle the only other option for people is an OSS OS. Apple will hold their fanbase and lose a few but who cares about the 20 users that boycott them. Microsoft actually stands to lose really big here if Psystar loses because this will make headlines and more talk and mindshare of Linux will be spread through the market. I would bet a Mac that Linux fanboys will use this like they did with Vista. There are no Windows fanboys that I know of anyway. Linux and Mac will rein and Microsoft will end up royally hurting here. Slackintosh FTW!:-P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Nonny Moose Posted September 6, 2008 Share Posted September 6, 2008 Honestly if Microsoft tried to tie their OS to a single computer the courts would have eaten them alive. Why is Apple allowed to do this? Because the computing world is a choice. You can choose to use Windows, Mac OS, or Linux. Don't get confused. You don't have to use the Mac OS, Windows, or Linux. Nobody is forcing you to use the Mac OS, Windows, or Linux. It's your own personal choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLiDE FTW!!1 Posted September 6, 2008 Share Posted September 6, 2008 This is Apple's OS. If you don't like it, go play in traffic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacUser2525 Posted September 6, 2008 Share Posted September 6, 2008 This is Apple's OS. If you don't like it, go play in traffic. Its not Apples OS they have a lot of other peoples code in it as well if they strip that code out the thing is useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacUser2525 Posted September 7, 2008 Share Posted September 7, 2008 Hardly, if that was really true everyone would be running FreeBSD on standard PC components. So what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?? The point is OS X without the *BSD and GPL software included will not boot on its own and not all the Apple apologists in the world can gloss over that plain simple fact... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Headrush69 Posted September 7, 2008 Share Posted September 7, 2008 So what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?? Why do more people want to run OS X over other BSD variants? Obviously Apple has added something that is marketable and adds significant value to many, hence it's "product" which is different than other BSDs. The point is OS X without the *BSD and GPL software included will not boot on its own and not all the Apple apologists in the world can gloss over that plain simple fact... Who suggested it could and why does it matter? They have fulfilled the requirements of the GPL and BSD licenses for those software packages. They can still challenge infringements on their proprietary parts of the OS and many would suggest it's those parts that really make OS X what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacUser2525 Posted September 7, 2008 Share Posted September 7, 2008 Who suggested it could and why does it matter? It matters because of the attitude of the person I responded too saying its Apples OS too bad, well Apple did not create all of it other people did and they certainly cannot do whatever they please with the GPL portions of it the BSD well that's another matter as long as the copyright notice is intact their good to go. They have fulfilled the requirements of the GPL and BSD licenses for those software packages.They can still challenge infringements on their proprietary parts of the OS and many would suggest it's those parts that really make OS X what it is. BSD yes but they have no right to restrict my or your use of GPL software by saying you cannot use what is included and installed by default on every OS X install out there limited only to their hardware in the EULA they provide. That is like Intel or AMD taking GPL software then distributing it saying you can only run it on their processors. For the last part that is all OS X is a BSD kernel with the GNU user space and Apple parts put on top of it for the GUI among other things, of course Apple has the rights to the proprietary parts of it they wrote anything else that falls under the BSD/GPL anyone can do with it as they please as long as they don't distribute in the case of the GPL BSD doesn't matter as long as the copyright notice is intact upon distribution GPL you need to give back the changes when distributing and not place any further restrictions on the people you distribute the software too and locking it to the hardware is a restriction of its use.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Headrush69 Posted September 7, 2008 Share Posted September 7, 2008 It matters because of the attitude of the person I responded too saying its Apples OS too bad, well Apple did not create all of it other people did and they certainly cannot do whatever they please with the GPL portions of it the BSD well that's another matter as long as the copyright notice is intact their good to go.BSD yes but they have no right to restrict my or your use of GPL software by saying you cannot use what is included and installed by default on every OS X install out there limited only to their hardware in the EULA they provide. That is like Intel or AMD taking GPL software then distributing it saying you can only run it on their processors. For the last part that is all OS X is a BSD kernel with the GNU user space and Apple parts put on top of it for the GUI among other things, of course Apple has the rights to the proprietary parts of it they wrote anything else that falls under the BSD/GPL anyone can do with it as they please as long as they don't distribute in the case of the GPL BSD doesn't matter as long as the copyright notice is intact upon distribution GPL you need to give back the changes when distributing and not place any further restrictions on the people you distribute the software too and locking it to the hardware is a restriction of its use.. Apple apologists or not, attitudes by OS X users really doesn't matter to the legality. The problem is interpretation of the EULA. From your statement above it's clear you feel that the EULA is stating that you can not change, can not install, can not wherever any of the GPL parts of OS X. My guess would be in a legal challenge to this Apple would state that they are referring to "their" parts. They do provide the source to GPL parts as required by its license also. So although GPL parts are included in the OS X, they are essentially protecting their proprietary parts as you can download code and source for Darwin which is essentially OS X without Aqua. Maybe Apple loses but I can see them making "corrections" in either licensing, hardware or both that could render the verdict pointless anyways. Only include OS X with computers and as updates and the supply chain for 3rd party builders in gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacUser2525 Posted September 7, 2008 Share Posted September 7, 2008 Apple apologists or not, attitudes by OS X users really doesn't matter to the legality. The problem is interpretation of the EULA. From your statement above it's clear you feel that the EULA is stating that you can not change, can not install, can not wherever any of the GPL parts of OS X. Its not interpretation at all the EULA clearly states you can only use the software included on the install disk on Apple labeled hardware this places a restriction on your use of all the software that is included, installed and intended to be used with OS X on said disk. My guess would be in a legal challenge to this Apple would state that they are referring to "their" parts. They do provide the source to GPL parts as required by its license also. Which they cannot place further restrictions on its use and by telling you it can only be used on Apple hardware this is one. So although GPL parts are included in the OS X, they are essentially protecting their proprietary parts as you can download code and source for Darwin which is essentially OS X without Aqua. Still can't protect their own by violating another copyright. Maybe Apple loses but I can see them making "corrections" in either licensing, hardware or both that could render the verdict pointless anyways.Only include OS X with computers and as updates and the supply chain for 3rd party builders in gone. They would need to strip out all GPL code then anyone wanting say a bash shell would need to download/compile/install from its site if Apple distributes they have to give you the same rights they had when they got the software and there certainly is nothing in the GPL that locks software to specific hardware. Edit: In case you still have not got the point I am making. 9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies. You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so. This part of the GPL FAQ clearly states Apple has to have accepted the terms of the GPL by distributing its software. This below shows in the case of bash and other GPL software included shows they have distributed a binary intended to run on the OS X system. macuser2525s-p35-ds3r:~ MacUser2525$ file /bin/bash/bin/bash: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures/bin/bash (for architecture i386): Mach-O executable i386/bin/bash (for architecture ppc7400): Mach-O executable ppc macuser2525s-p35-ds3r:~ MacUser2525$ bash --version GNU bash, version 3.2.17(1)-release (i386-apple-darwin9.0) Copyright © 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc. See the copyright notice there so anyone wishing to use this binary they have distributed needs to be running OS X to do so while exercising my rights under the GPL Apple cannot place any further restrictions on my use other than is in the GPL for me using it this means I can run it on any damn hardware I choose to do so regardless of what Apple's EULA states. Edit2: Just in case you don't know who the Free Software Foundation is and the license used for Bash here is the first page I found stating it. http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Bash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CptDodge Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 Makes for an interesting that 'Apple filing'. All this talk about Trademark infringment and copyright blah blah only matter if Pystar have actually used the marks in question. what will matter to Pystar is the use of the OS X logo in some of there product information listings, a clear infrigement of Apples copyright. Trademark only relates to the use of the Apple name and Mac name. I can not see either directly in use. It can be questioned if OpenMac is actually an infrigement on Apples's trademarked name 'Mac'. Apple's main argument though is the breaking of the 'Software Licence Agreement'. Make a note that nowhere in the court papers does is mention the words 'End User License Agreement'. Wording can make all the difference when it goes to court. As for the license, Apple will have to prove that the 'Software License Agreement' that accompanies the DVD applies to a third party computer supplier business. Pystar will contend that they purchase legal copies of OS X and without modification, install it onto non-apple hardware. Here is where Pystar will say that even though they purchase legal copies of OS X whic is helping Apples profits, that Apple also want to control what hardware the legal copy of OS X can be installed on which is anti-competition behaviour espically when you consider Apple now using intel motherboards (or alternatively named Apple motherboards with intel chips on them). It would appear there are a few holes in Apple's court case and as others have pointed out, just needs a good defense team on Pystar part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arcticsheep Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 Pretty soon you'll have "Genuine Mac OSX Advantage" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dies Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 It would appear there are a few holes in Apple's court case and as others have pointed out, just needs a good defense team on Pystar part. From my point of view, there's plenty of holes to be exploited... Whether any hold up in court is a different story, but the more you throw out there the more likely something is to stick. Here's one they should use: IF this Operating System is intended to be used only on hardware provided by Apple, then why is it available to anyone willing to pay for it ? If it's only for use on Apple hardware then it should only come with Apple hardware. If anyone can point out other examples please do, but as far as I know, no other company that ties software to hardware does this. And there are plenty of companies that tie software to hardware. But you can't go to the store and purchase the OS for an Xbox 360, or a PS3, or your DVR, etc, etc. Best buy doesn't carry AIX. Of course if that did work, Apple would just work to close that loophole and there would probably be some crappy consequences, how crappy would largely depend on how much of an inconvenience Mac users are really prepared to deal with though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arcticsheep Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 IF this Operating System is intended to be used only on hardware provided by Apple, then why is it available to anyone willing to pay for it ? If it's only for use on Apple hardware then it should only come with Apple hardware. I'm on your side but for argument's sake I'm going to answer this question: Apple has this whole thing about "trust". You know how they sell iLife family packs and iLife for a single user, yet there's no serial number or anything on the single user one so you can just install it on as many computers as you want? I guess it's the same idea - they just trust you not to frig around with it. Also, if people want to upgrade from Tiger->Leopard or something, where are they going to get Leopard? It's necessary to sell the O/Ss seperately. I doubt they would create some sort of scanning process to confirm whether you have a real mac or not, it's too much of a hassle. And plus, what if you're buying it as a gift for your friend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dies Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 Apple has this whole thing about "trust". Oh no they don't. Come on, seriously? I know you don't really buy that "Apple trusts you" stuff. They know from experience that anti-piracy schemes don't usually work, other than to irritate legitimate users, so why bother. Also, before they decided to run their OS on what amounts to a really nice PC this was much less of a concern for them. BTW have you taken a look at how much of their software "phones home", sure most of it is benign traffic that makes your "experience" better but doesn't mean it all is or will be. I still don't see any really good reason for things like Calculator to connect to their servers, I'm sure they have some logical explanation, but I think I'll pass on that. In any case, I completely get where you're coming from, that's why I said if a defense like that did succeed there would be some crappy consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SingingSabre Posted November 22, 2008 Share Posted November 22, 2008 My favorite is point 85. It's basically saying that Psystar marketed their computers specifically to hurt Apple's profits and company image. No, they marketed their computers to make money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts