You do realize 80% of Mac OS X is Open Source code don't you? This means anyone has the right to modify and distribute most parts of Mac OS X. Whether or not Psystar is legally allowed to distribute modified updates depends on what they modified and how much they modified. A significant amount of modifications would qualify the modified update as a new work and Apple's copyright would no longer apply. This determination will be made at trial.
Note I'm not defending Psystar, I'm a proud owner of several Apple products that I was happy to pay for.
-Tim
A good point I was aware of, but didn't consider. Now this shall be interesting to see how it turns out. I imagine in Psystar is doomed regardless, but we'll see?
To those of you who think Psystar has a case what in the hell is wrong with your brains.
[...]
Psystar has no leg to stand on here legally....morally... or Ethically!!!!!
They are STEALING an OS they have NO RIGHT TO RESELL!!!!! aka... they are CRIMINALS!!!
LOL! You need to look into the definition of stealing. A copy of OS X was paid for. Nothing was stolen. If I bought it and hung it on the wall because I think it looks cool, would I have stolen it?
Quote:
There's NO GREY AREA here.... it's Black and White.... and most of all... IT'S WRONG.
Those of you that believe Psystar has the RIGHT to use Apple's Property must be suffering from the worst form of Liberalism/Progressivism .... a true mental disorder....
And you're what? Conservative??? Try looking at the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8. The Congress shall have power "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries". Yes, it's the so-called "conservatives" of today who have chosen to ignore and greatly extend the time limits to exclusive rights and hand essentially perpetual rights to "inventors". Something the founders made clear would stifle arts, science and innovation. Next look up the definition of conservative.
Quote:
You know I've got a Visa Card.... now give me your wallet so I can use your Visa card.... since I've got a visa card I must have the right to use your visa card??? Right???? It's not much different then that.
Yawn. I have some nails I'd like to license to you. Be sure to get back to me when you need some wood ... or I'll sue.
Quote:
Apple Built their OS... and THEY OWN IT... anyone who thinks otherwise seriously needs to re-educate themselves....
Apple built their OS (which is really mostly a GUI and services on top of other people's open source OS labor), and when they sell the rights to me to use it ... I OWN IT (or at least the copy I purchased). Shades of grey? There are plenty.
You're very fortunate to be posting this on the Internet. If ISPs get what they want, they'll license you to use their Internet only on the sites they provide.
Well in that case they are screwed as you cant install it without modifying it.
Of course you can. You just need an open source bootloader which then boots the original Mac OSX install DVD without touching the data on the dvd or modifying any data which gets written to the disk during the installation.
How is it illegal? When you buy Mac OS X your buying a license for that product. You have to agree to that license in order to use it.
I don't know what's the case in the USA, but in Europe you don't just buy a license, you buy a data medium which contains the installation files of Mac OSX. By buying the data medium, i.e. the Mac OSX dvd you earn the property on this data medium, which includes the right to do with the data on that data medium what ever you want, even install Mac OSX on a computer not labled by Apple.
No EULA can change this right after you bought the data medium, at least that's the case for the european community.
Like I said. It's free-market fundamentalism. The free-market part of that isn't the bad thing, the fundamentalism is. The notion that a completely free market is the solution to all of society's ills. As if a truly free market has ever really existed anyway...
if all you are doing is listening to something, i just think it is crazy to call that stealing. if you are selling it and making money, that is one thing,...
"Sorry officer, I have done nothing wrong. I wasn't going to sell this car that I hijacked a few blocks back. I was just driving it around a bit."
"Sorry officer, I have done nothing wrong. I wasn't going to sell this car that I hijacked a few blocks back. I was just driving it around a bit."
Again with the oversimplification. A retail box copy of the OS was bought. The only thing that was altered was an update, the legal version of that update is distributed for free. I think Psystar is in the wrong, but it wasn't stealing in the conventional sense.
Of course you can. You just need an open source bootloader which then boots the original Mac OSX install DVD without touching the data on the dvd or modifying any data which gets written to the disk during the installation.
yes, but you are modifying the usage of the product which is specified in EULA
LOL! You need to look into the definition of stealing. A copy of OS X was paid for. Nothing was stolen. If I bought it and hung it on the wall because I think it looks cool, would I have stolen it?
And you're what? Conservative??? Try looking at the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8. The Congress shall have power "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries". Yes, it's the so-called "conservatives" of today who have chosen to ignore and greatly extend the time limits to exclusive rights and hand essentially perpetual rights to "inventors". Something the founders made clear would stifle arts, science and innovation. Next look up the definition of conservative.
Yawn. I have some nails I'd like to license to you. Be sure to get back to me when you need some wood ... or I'll sue.
Apple built their OS (which is really mostly a GUI and services on top of other people's open source OS labor), and when they sell the rights to me to use it ... I OWN IT (or at least the copy I purchased). Shades of grey? There are plenty.
You're very fortunate to be posting this on the Internet. If ISPs get what they want, they'll license you to use their Internet only on the sites they provide.
yes apple agree to sell it to you with certain condition. Thats why you need to read EULA. If you dont click agree on the EULA, you cant install the OS. So its not a matter of owning it. Which you get no argument from me. The issue is meeting the customer side of the contract, which is again specified in the EULA.
You're very fortunate to be posting this on the Internet. If ISPs get what they want, they'll license you to use their Internet only on the sites they provide.
Dont you pay subscription fee for ISP? Thats your license to go online. You don't pay each site license, you pay license to get access to the internet.
I don't know what's the case in the USA, but in Europe you don't just buy a license, you buy a data medium which contains the installation files of Mac OSX. By buying the data medium, i.e. the Mac OSX dvd you earn the property on this data medium, which includes the right to do with the data on that data medium what ever you want, even install Mac OSX on a computer not labled by Apple.
No EULA can change this right after you bought the data medium, at least that's the case for the european community.
we don't have data medium. I think it will be great but those kind of rights doesn't exist. So do you guys have any problem with people sharing software though? just curious. Cause i would think if i can share the software with other people, then the prices of those software will go down.
And is Linux community big in europe? cause i would such rule will drive people to linux a lot more than in the US.
Dont you pay subscription fee for ISP? Thats your license to go online. You don't pay each site license, you pay license to get access to the internet.
An internet connection is a service, not a license.
Quote:
Dude, Nothing is for free!!!
True, but using the wrong terms isn't moving the discussion forward.
You do know that EULA stands for End User License Agreement, yes? Do you know what this is little boy?
Such a stupid comment.
ok, let me connect the dots for you. If i create a software, i want to make money out of it because i spend my time creating it. If there is no EULA, everybody can buy it from me and then mass produce it and resell it, they are taking profit from me up to the point where there is no more profit. In the end, why do I want to create something for nothing? therefore, no motivation to create new software. This is just one person. Think if there is more than one person, a company think like that. Then, why the hell you innovate at all when in the end, everyone else is going to profit from it.
An internet connection is a service, not a license.
True, but using the wrong terms isn't moving the discussion forward.
but, why is it so different? whats the difference? the functionality is the same. Without the service, you cannot go online. Without license, you can't resell it.
the reason they put up those kind of service is to get money out of people who are using that service.
isn't it the same with license? so that the owner can get money out of people who are using that license?
ok, let me connect the dots for you. If i create a software, i want to make money out of it because i spend my time creating it. If there is no EULA, everybody can buy it from me and then mass produce it and resell it
No. If there is no EULA, then as with any copyrighted work, nobody can make any additional copies of it (outside of the cases that are covered by fair use and related doctrines) without first seeking the copyright holder's permission.
The argument has been put forward that, without an EULA, it would be impossible to make the copy of the software off the installation disc and onto the computer's hard drive without violating copyright. Subsequently, it would be impossible to make the copy of the software off the hard drive and into the computer's system RAM in order to execute it, without violating copyright.
These people would argue that the existence of an EULA is a necessary precondition to any form of software distribution within the legal framework of a society that embraces copyright. That, without the existence of an EULA, it would never be legal for anybody to install software anywhere unless they themselves were software's author/copyright holder.
On the other side of the discussion, it has been suggested that due to the fundamental nature of how and why computer software exists in the first place, those two copies (from the installation disc onto a system hard drive, and from the hard drive into RAM) must be reasonably considered to be fair uses of the software even without the existence of an EULA, provided that no more than one such installation exists at any given time from any given original installation disc.
Companies demand that you click-through to EULAs precisely because copyright law doesn't permit them to restrict the kind of things that are spelled out in those license agreements.
P2P music sharing is altogether different. There is no EULA for music (have you ever seen one on an audio CD?) Copyright law directly prohibits duplication and distribution of music. No special license is needed or used to enforce this.
you are right. I guess the copyright law does not apply here.
"Single Use and Family Pack License for use on Apple-labeled Systems" (Leopard OS X EULA)
A. Single Use. This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use
or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one
computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time. (Leopard EULA)
So, psystar cannot by EULA install leopard in a system that is not apple-labeled systems.
1. General. The software (including Boot ROM code), documentation and any fonts accompanying this License whether preinstalled on Apple-labeled hardware, on disk, in
read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (collectively the “Apple Software”) are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Inc. (Leopard EULA)
which means, you do not owned anything as a customer. So, you are bind to license agreement.
3. Transfer. You may not rent, lease, lend, redistribute or sublicense the Apple Software. Subject to the restrictions set forth below, you may, however, make a one-time
permanent transfer of all of your license rights to the Apple Software (in its original form as provided by Apple) to another party, provided that: (a) the transfer must
include all of the Apple Software, including all its component parts (excluding Apple Boot ROM code and firmware), original media, printed materials and this License; (b)
you do not retain any copies of the Apple Software, full or partial, including copies stored on a computer or other storage device; and (c) the party receiving the Apple
Software reads and agrees to accept the terms and conditions of this License. You may not rent, lease, lend, redistribute, sublicense or transfer any Apple Software that
has been modified or replaced under Section 2D above. All components of the Apple Software are provided as part of a bundle and may not be separated from the bundle
and distributed as standhardware. (Leopard EULA)
EULA clearly specifies that "You may not rent, lease, lend, redistribute or sublicense the Apple Software."
i think can anticipate an argument towards this one. What if Psystar just buy a whole lot of Leopard OSs and install it in every computer and then sell that to another person. It is still legal because they did not redistribute the software. They just transfer the ownership from them to their customer. They just happen to buy a lot of leopard OS copy and install it in different computer.
The problem with this is, Psystar cannot sell the computer as new. If they do, they are redistributing the apple software. but if they sell the computer as used computers, then Psystar will be safe because they can say they just transferred their ownership.
Ok, now i understand why Psystar want sell the computers at a very cheap price. To bad, they did not mention anything about new or used. That would have help the argument. If Psystar opens the computer first, and then install the software, it can be categories as used. I see where Psystar might have a chance against apple.
No. If there is no EULA, then as with any copyrighted work, nobody can make any additional copies of it (outside of the cases that are covered by fair use and related doctrines) without first seeking the copyright holder's permission.
The argument has been put forward that, without an EULA, it would be impossible to make the copy of the software off the installation disc and onto the computer's hard drive without violating copyright. Subsequently, it would be impossible to make the copy of the software off the hard drive and into the computer's system RAM in order to execute it, without violating copyright.
These people would argue that the existence of an EULA is a necessary precondition to any form of software distribution within the legal framework of a society that embraces copyright. That, without the existence of an EULA, it would never be legal for anybody to install software anywhere unless they themselves were software's author/copyright holder.
On the other side of the discussion, it has been suggested that due to the fundamental nature of how and why computer software exists in the first place, those two copies (from the installation disc onto a system hard drive, and from the hard drive into RAM) must be reasonably considered to be fair uses of the software even without the existence of an EULA, provided that no more than one such installation exists at any given time from any given original installation disc.
i see what u mean. I was wrong on that. So it is clear that the copyright is not violated, its the EULA that is being disputed.
you are right. I guess the copyright law does not apply here.
"Single Use and Family Pack License for use on Apple-labeled Systems" (Leopard OS X EULA)
A. Single Use. This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use
or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one
computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time. (Leopard EULA)
So, psystar cannot by EULA install leopard in a system that is not apple-labeled systems.
1. General. The software (including Boot ROM code), documentation and any fonts accompanying this License whether preinstalled on Apple-labeled hardware, on disk, in
read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (collectively the ?Apple Software?) are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Inc. (Leopard EULA)
which means, you do not owned anything as a customer. So, you are bind to license agreement.
3. Transfer. You may not rent, lease, lend, redistribute or sublicense the Apple Software. Subject to the restrictions set forth below, you may, however, make a one-time
permanent transfer of all of your license rights to the Apple Software (in its original form as provided by Apple) to another party, provided that: (a) the transfer must
include all of the Apple Software, including all its component parts (excluding Apple Boot ROM code and firmware), original media, printed materials and this License; (b)
you do not retain any copies of the Apple Software, full or partial, including copies stored on a computer or other storage device; and (c) the party receiving the Apple
Software reads and agrees to accept the terms and conditions of this License. You may not rent, lease, lend, redistribute, sublicense or transfer any Apple Software that
has been modified or replaced under Section 2D above. All components of the Apple Software are provided as part of a bundle and may not be separated from the bundle
and distributed as standhardware. (Leopard EULA)
EULA clearly specifies that "You may not rent, lease, lend, redistribute or sublicense the Apple Software."
i think can anticipate an argument towards this one. What if Psystar just buy a whole lot of Leopard OSs and install it in every computer and then sell that to another person. It is still legal because they did not redistribute the software. They just transfer the ownership from them to their customer. They just happen to buy a lot of leopard OS copy and install it in different computer.
The problem with this is, Psystar cannot sell the computer as new. If they do, they are redistributing the apple software. but if they sell the computer as used computers, then Psystar will be safe because they can say they just transferred their ownership.
1/ Buying the software has the characteristics of a sale...as has been mentioned previously..NOT licensing it. Pretty sure you can't read or even see the EULA without opening it..meaning possible misrepresentation by the shop and or Apple. The Apple website doesn't clealry state that you are buying a licence not an actual produt.
2/ Apple labelled??? fine just put a sticker on it!!!
edit according to PCMAG.com the thrust of Apple's case is reputational damage and assumed afilliation to them by unwitting Psystar customers!
1/ Buying the software has the characteristics of a sale...as has been mentioned previously..NOT licensing it. Pretty sure you can't read or even see the EULA without opening it..meaning possible misrepresentation by the shop and or Apple. The Apple website doesn't clealry state that you are buying a licence not an actual produt.
2/ Apple labelled??? fine just put a sticker on it!!!
edit according to PCMAG.com the thrust of Apple's case is reputational damage and assumed afilliation to them by unwitting Psystar customers!
a weak case on both points IMO.
no no, i think u misunderstand, you are buying the cd and the license. It does not mean you owned it. and it is clearly specify in the EULA. I think i bold it in my previous comment.
I agree with you on the apple-labeled system. It can be misinterpret.
Comments
You do realize 80% of Mac OS X is Open Source code don't you? This means anyone has the right to modify and distribute most parts of Mac OS X. Whether or not Psystar is legally allowed to distribute modified updates depends on what they modified and how much they modified. A significant amount of modifications would qualify the modified update as a new work and Apple's copyright would no longer apply. This determination will be made at trial.
Note I'm not defending Psystar, I'm a proud owner of several Apple products that I was happy to pay for.
-Tim
A good point I was aware of, but didn't consider. Now this shall be interesting to see how it turns out. I imagine in Psystar is doomed regardless, but we'll see?
To those of you who think Psystar has a case what in the hell is wrong with your brains.
[...]
Psystar has no leg to stand on here legally....morally... or Ethically!!!!!
They are STEALING an OS they have NO RIGHT TO RESELL!!!!! aka... they are CRIMINALS!!!
LOL! You need to look into the definition of stealing. A copy of OS X was paid for. Nothing was stolen. If I bought it and hung it on the wall because I think it looks cool, would I have stolen it?
There's NO GREY AREA here.... it's Black and White.... and most of all... IT'S WRONG.
Those of you that believe Psystar has the RIGHT to use Apple's Property must be suffering from the worst form of Liberalism/Progressivism .... a true mental disorder....
And you're what? Conservative??? Try looking at the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8. The Congress shall have power "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries". Yes, it's the so-called "conservatives" of today who have chosen to ignore and greatly extend the time limits to exclusive rights and hand essentially perpetual rights to "inventors". Something the founders made clear would stifle arts, science and innovation. Next look up the definition of conservative.
You know I've got a Visa Card.... now give me your wallet so I can use your Visa card.... since I've got a visa card I must have the right to use your visa card??? Right???? It's not much different then that.
Yawn. I have some nails I'd like to license to you. Be sure to get back to me when you need some wood ... or I'll sue.
Apple Built their OS... and THEY OWN IT... anyone who thinks otherwise seriously needs to re-educate themselves....
Apple built their OS (which is really mostly a GUI and services on top of other people's open source OS labor), and when they sell the rights to me to use it ... I OWN IT (or at least the copy I purchased). Shades of grey? There are plenty.
You're very fortunate to be posting this on the Internet. If ISPs get what they want, they'll license you to use their Internet only on the sites they provide.
Well in that case they are screwed as you cant install it without modifying it.
Of course you can. You just need an open source bootloader which then boots the original Mac OSX install DVD without touching the data on the dvd or modifying any data which gets written to the disk during the installation.
How is it illegal? When you buy Mac OS X your buying a license for that product. You have to agree to that license in order to use it.
I don't know what's the case in the USA, but in Europe you don't just buy a license, you buy a data medium which contains the installation files of Mac OSX. By buying the data medium, i.e. the Mac OSX dvd you earn the property on this data medium, which includes the right to do with the data on that data medium what ever you want, even install Mac OSX on a computer not labled by Apple.
No EULA can change this right after you bought the data medium, at least that's the case for the european community.
Crikey...what sort of lunacy is this...???
Like I said. It's free-market fundamentalism. The free-market part of that isn't the bad thing, the fundamentalism is. The notion that a completely free market is the solution to all of society's ills. As if a truly free market has ever really existed anyway...
if all you are doing is listening to something, i just think it is crazy to call that stealing. if you are selling it and making money, that is one thing,...
"Sorry officer, I have done nothing wrong. I wasn't going to sell this car that I hijacked a few blocks back. I was just driving it around a bit."
"Sorry officer, I have done nothing wrong. I wasn't going to sell this car that I hijacked a few blocks back. I was just driving it around a bit."
Again with the oversimplification. A retail box copy of the OS was bought. The only thing that was altered was an update, the legal version of that update is distributed for free. I think Psystar is in the wrong, but it wasn't stealing in the conventional sense.
Of course you can. You just need an open source bootloader which then boots the original Mac OSX install DVD without touching the data on the dvd or modifying any data which gets written to the disk during the installation.
yes, but you are modifying the usage of the product which is specified in EULA
LOL! You need to look into the definition of stealing. A copy of OS X was paid for. Nothing was stolen. If I bought it and hung it on the wall because I think it looks cool, would I have stolen it?
And you're what? Conservative??? Try looking at the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8. The Congress shall have power "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries". Yes, it's the so-called "conservatives" of today who have chosen to ignore and greatly extend the time limits to exclusive rights and hand essentially perpetual rights to "inventors". Something the founders made clear would stifle arts, science and innovation. Next look up the definition of conservative.
Yawn. I have some nails I'd like to license to you. Be sure to get back to me when you need some wood ... or I'll sue.
Apple built their OS (which is really mostly a GUI and services on top of other people's open source OS labor), and when they sell the rights to me to use it ... I OWN IT (or at least the copy I purchased). Shades of grey? There are plenty.
You're very fortunate to be posting this on the Internet. If ISPs get what they want, they'll license you to use their Internet only on the sites they provide.
yes apple agree to sell it to you with certain condition. Thats why you need to read EULA. If you dont click agree on the EULA, you cant install the OS. So its not a matter of owning it. Which you get no argument from me. The issue is meeting the customer side of the contract, which is again specified in the EULA.
You're very fortunate to be posting this on the Internet. If ISPs get what they want, they'll license you to use their Internet only on the sites they provide.
Dont you pay subscription fee for ISP? Thats your license to go online. You don't pay each site license, you pay license to get access to the internet.
Dude, Nothing is for free!!!
I don't know what's the case in the USA, but in Europe you don't just buy a license, you buy a data medium which contains the installation files of Mac OSX. By buying the data medium, i.e. the Mac OSX dvd you earn the property on this data medium, which includes the right to do with the data on that data medium what ever you want, even install Mac OSX on a computer not labled by Apple.
No EULA can change this right after you bought the data medium, at least that's the case for the european community.
we don't have data medium. I think it will be great but those kind of rights doesn't exist. So do you guys have any problem with people sharing software though? just curious. Cause i would think if i can share the software with other people, then the prices of those software will go down.
And is Linux community big in europe? cause i would such rule will drive people to linux a lot more than in the US.
Dont you pay subscription fee for ISP? Thats your license to go online. You don't pay each site license, you pay license to get access to the internet.
An internet connection is a service, not a license.
Dude, Nothing is for free!!!
True, but using the wrong terms isn't moving the discussion forward.
You do know that EULA stands for End User License Agreement, yes? Do you know what this is little boy?
Such a stupid comment.
ok, let me connect the dots for you. If i create a software, i want to make money out of it because i spend my time creating it. If there is no EULA, everybody can buy it from me and then mass produce it and resell it, they are taking profit from me up to the point where there is no more profit. In the end, why do I want to create something for nothing? therefore, no motivation to create new software. This is just one person. Think if there is more than one person, a company think like that. Then, why the hell you innovate at all when in the end, everyone else is going to profit from it.
Do you understand now?
An internet connection is a service, not a license.
True, but using the wrong terms isn't moving the discussion forward.
but, why is it so different? whats the difference? the functionality is the same. Without the service, you cannot go online. Without license, you can't resell it.
the reason they put up those kind of service is to get money out of people who are using that service.
isn't it the same with license? so that the owner can get money out of people who are using that license?
ok, let me connect the dots for you. If i create a software, i want to make money out of it because i spend my time creating it. If there is no EULA, everybody can buy it from me and then mass produce it and resell it
No. If there is no EULA, then as with any copyrighted work, nobody can make any additional copies of it (outside of the cases that are covered by fair use and related doctrines) without first seeking the copyright holder's permission.
The argument has been put forward that, without an EULA, it would be impossible to make the copy of the software off the installation disc and onto the computer's hard drive without violating copyright. Subsequently, it would be impossible to make the copy of the software off the hard drive and into the computer's system RAM in order to execute it, without violating copyright.
These people would argue that the existence of an EULA is a necessary precondition to any form of software distribution within the legal framework of a society that embraces copyright. That, without the existence of an EULA, it would never be legal for anybody to install software anywhere unless they themselves were software's author/copyright holder.
On the other side of the discussion, it has been suggested that due to the fundamental nature of how and why computer software exists in the first place, those two copies (from the installation disc onto a system hard drive, and from the hard drive into RAM) must be reasonably considered to be fair uses of the software even without the existence of an EULA, provided that no more than one such installation exists at any given time from any given original installation disc.
EULA has nothing to do with copyright.
Companies demand that you click-through to EULAs precisely because copyright law doesn't permit them to restrict the kind of things that are spelled out in those license agreements.
P2P music sharing is altogether different. There is no EULA for music (have you ever seen one on an audio CD?) Copyright law directly prohibits duplication and distribution of music. No special license is needed or used to enforce this.
you are right. I guess the copyright law does not apply here.
"Single Use and Family Pack License for use on Apple-labeled Systems" (Leopard OS X EULA)
A. Single Use. This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use
or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one
computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time. (Leopard EULA)
So, psystar cannot by EULA install leopard in a system that is not apple-labeled systems.
1. General. The software (including Boot ROM code), documentation and any fonts accompanying this License whether preinstalled on Apple-labeled hardware, on disk, in
read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (collectively the “Apple Software”) are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Inc. (Leopard EULA)
which means, you do not owned anything as a customer. So, you are bind to license agreement.
3. Transfer. You may not rent, lease, lend, redistribute or sublicense the Apple Software. Subject to the restrictions set forth below, you may, however, make a one-time
permanent transfer of all of your license rights to the Apple Software (in its original form as provided by Apple) to another party, provided that: (a) the transfer must
include all of the Apple Software, including all its component parts (excluding Apple Boot ROM code and firmware), original media, printed materials and this License; (b)
you do not retain any copies of the Apple Software, full or partial, including copies stored on a computer or other storage device; and (c) the party receiving the Apple
Software reads and agrees to accept the terms and conditions of this License. You may not rent, lease, lend, redistribute, sublicense or transfer any Apple Software that
has been modified or replaced under Section 2D above. All components of the Apple Software are provided as part of a bundle and may not be separated from the bundle
and distributed as standhardware. (Leopard EULA)
EULA clearly specifies that "You may not rent, lease, lend, redistribute or sublicense the Apple Software."
i think can anticipate an argument towards this one. What if Psystar just buy a whole lot of Leopard OSs and install it in every computer and then sell that to another person. It is still legal because they did not redistribute the software. They just transfer the ownership from them to their customer. They just happen to buy a lot of leopard OS copy and install it in different computer.
The problem with this is, Psystar cannot sell the computer as new. If they do, they are redistributing the apple software. but if they sell the computer as used computers, then Psystar will be safe because they can say they just transferred their ownership.
Ok, now i understand why Psystar want sell the computers at a very cheap price. To bad, they did not mention anything about new or used. That would have help the argument. If Psystar opens the computer first, and then install the software, it can be categories as used. I see where Psystar might have a chance against apple.
But, Psystar never mention it to be used.
here are the sites for Apple's EULA
http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf
No. If there is no EULA, then as with any copyrighted work, nobody can make any additional copies of it (outside of the cases that are covered by fair use and related doctrines) without first seeking the copyright holder's permission.
The argument has been put forward that, without an EULA, it would be impossible to make the copy of the software off the installation disc and onto the computer's hard drive without violating copyright. Subsequently, it would be impossible to make the copy of the software off the hard drive and into the computer's system RAM in order to execute it, without violating copyright.
These people would argue that the existence of an EULA is a necessary precondition to any form of software distribution within the legal framework of a society that embraces copyright. That, without the existence of an EULA, it would never be legal for anybody to install software anywhere unless they themselves were software's author/copyright holder.
On the other side of the discussion, it has been suggested that due to the fundamental nature of how and why computer software exists in the first place, those two copies (from the installation disc onto a system hard drive, and from the hard drive into RAM) must be reasonably considered to be fair uses of the software even without the existence of an EULA, provided that no more than one such installation exists at any given time from any given original installation disc.
i see what u mean. I was wrong on that. So it is clear that the copyright is not violated, its the EULA that is being disputed.
you are right. I guess the copyright law does not apply here.
"Single Use and Family Pack License for use on Apple-labeled Systems" (Leopard OS X EULA)
A. Single Use. This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use
or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one
computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time. (Leopard EULA)
So, psystar cannot by EULA install leopard in a system that is not apple-labeled systems.
1. General. The software (including Boot ROM code), documentation and any fonts accompanying this License whether preinstalled on Apple-labeled hardware, on disk, in
read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (collectively the ?Apple Software?) are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Inc. (Leopard EULA)
which means, you do not owned anything as a customer. So, you are bind to license agreement.
3. Transfer. You may not rent, lease, lend, redistribute or sublicense the Apple Software. Subject to the restrictions set forth below, you may, however, make a one-time
permanent transfer of all of your license rights to the Apple Software (in its original form as provided by Apple) to another party, provided that: (a) the transfer must
include all of the Apple Software, including all its component parts (excluding Apple Boot ROM code and firmware), original media, printed materials and this License; (b)
you do not retain any copies of the Apple Software, full or partial, including copies stored on a computer or other storage device; and (c) the party receiving the Apple
Software reads and agrees to accept the terms and conditions of this License. You may not rent, lease, lend, redistribute, sublicense or transfer any Apple Software that
has been modified or replaced under Section 2D above. All components of the Apple Software are provided as part of a bundle and may not be separated from the bundle
and distributed as standhardware. (Leopard EULA)
EULA clearly specifies that "You may not rent, lease, lend, redistribute or sublicense the Apple Software."
i think can anticipate an argument towards this one. What if Psystar just buy a whole lot of Leopard OSs and install it in every computer and then sell that to another person. It is still legal because they did not redistribute the software. They just transfer the ownership from them to their customer. They just happen to buy a lot of leopard OS copy and install it in different computer.
The problem with this is, Psystar cannot sell the computer as new. If they do, they are redistributing the apple software. but if they sell the computer as used computers, then Psystar will be safe because they can say they just transferred their ownership.
here are the sites for Apple's EULA
http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf
crikey I hope thats right.... Pystar can win..!!
1/ Buying the software has the characteristics of a sale...as has been mentioned previously..NOT licensing it. Pretty sure you can't read or even see the EULA without opening it..meaning possible misrepresentation by the shop and or Apple. The Apple website doesn't clealry state that you are buying a licence not an actual produt.
2/ Apple labelled??? fine just put a sticker on it!!!
edit according to PCMAG.com the thrust of Apple's case is reputational damage and assumed afilliation to them by unwitting Psystar customers!
a weak case on both points IMO.
crikey I hope thats right.... Pystar can win..!!
1/ Buying the software has the characteristics of a sale...as has been mentioned previously..NOT licensing it. Pretty sure you can't read or even see the EULA without opening it..meaning possible misrepresentation by the shop and or Apple. The Apple website doesn't clealry state that you are buying a licence not an actual produt.
2/ Apple labelled??? fine just put a sticker on it!!!
edit according to PCMAG.com the thrust of Apple's case is reputational damage and assumed afilliation to them by unwitting Psystar customers!
a weak case on both points IMO.
no no, i think u misunderstand, you are buying the cd and the license. It does not mean you owned it. and it is clearly specify in the EULA. I think i bold it in my previous comment.
I agree with you on the apple-labeled system. It can be misinterpret.