I would like to see what would happen if someone came along and took your product, re-badged it and sold it on as their own and paid you nothing. You then started to recieve support calls and complaints as your product wasn't working as it should or and update to your product broke theirs.
How would you react??
Apple sells Mac's. Mac OSX is Apple OS for their Mac's. Mac OSX is sold separately as an UPGRADE for existing Mac owners. Whenever Apple talks about OSX sales they talk about the number of Mac owners who have 'Upgraded' to OSX 10.xx.
I hope that Apple withdraws all copies of Mac OSX from stores and forces all Mac owners to purchase the upgrade online by providing their Mac serial number. This will prevent companies like Psystar from buying the software and selling it on their machines. Then the only way they would be able to do this would be through piracy, which would be an end to them.
First of all, I have to ask: are any of you Stepford MacHeads on this thread - the great and all powerful anti-truster himself - Monsieur Jobs? Just asking!
Second, to call the current retail version of OSX - that can be purchased at any number of physical, or online vendors - an "upgrade OSX" is just flat wrong and a purposely inaccurate discription. The fact is - the "retail" version of OSX is a full, standalone OS that can be installed on any empty drive - without having to have any previous OSX installations whatsoever. The only versions of OSX that cannot be installed cold, are the grey OEM OSX disc that come bundled to whatever particular Apple machine they are sold with, or the "drop in" CPU "upgrade" that may also they also may come bundled with. The retail OSX might be labeled or considered an "upgrade" by some over the dominant Windows OS, but it is a wholly complete OS all by it's lonesome self - that can be then "upgraded", or in actuality, "updated", as additional amendments, features, or tweaks are made available from Apple.
And lastly, no one would bother to alter OSX in the slightest if Apple themselves stopped trying to intentionally cripple OSX - with no other purpose or practical function in mind - other than to totally "control" the end use of their product by pointedly making the OS inoperable on non Apple hardware and by design, herding the consumer of the "Retail" OSX to Apple branded machines exclusively. All the "Hackintosh" and OSX "clone" folks are doing is removing, or altering ONLY the specific coding written into the OS for the explicit purpose of restricting (locking out) that open-end usage.
You Mactologist and copyright fetishists can shriek and scream and throw your indignant tantrums (talking about just who are the real "spoiled brats" here), defending Apple's party line that it can do as it damn well pleases - but the real reason you and your corporate squeeze (Apple) are so tyranical and hysterical at any and all would be HARDWARE challengers - is because of the dreaded possibility of actual competition in the HARDWARE market. OSX is not threatened in the least as a standalone OS. In fact, OSX would probably become much more popular and widely installed than it is right now if it wasn't artificially restricted. But the red line for Apple INC. - is when anyone else directly threatens - their very lucrative Apple HARDWARE ONLY policy - i.e. Apple's current and absolute monopoly in the OSX compatible HARDWARE market. That is the bottom line here - to stop ALL possible competition in the OSX compatible HARDWARE market.
Your numbers don't add up. A PowerMac G5 Dual 2.0 Ghz was introduced on October of 2005. If you purchased your Mac when it first became available and you got an extended AppleCare at the time you bought it, then you were covered under warranty till October 2008. That's less than 4 months ago. You can get a used PowerMac G5 Dual 2 Ghz for less than $800 on eBay right now. That includes ram, HD, drives, PS, Etc.. You can probably sell yours, as is, for $200.
And most people don't buy the extended AppleCare at the time they purchase the Mac. It already comes with a 1 year limited warranty. And you can purchase AppleCare anytime with in the year. So if you had waited until August of 2006 to purchase AppleCare for your Mac, your Mac would still be under warranty today.
And $400 for AppleCare on a Power Mac seems high. The most expensive AppleCare is usually on their expensive laptops. AppleCare for a MacBook Pro only cost $350, today. It only cost $250 for AppleCare on a MacPro. Which is now at least a $2800 Mac.
I'm not even going to ask how you manage to pay $740 for a graphic card that was nearly two years old when the PowerMac Dual 2 Ghz came out. And had a list price of $500.
Uuuh... dude, the first PowerMac G5 Dual 2ghz came out in 2003. I bought mine in Sept of 2004.
As far as Applecare, take the $350 and add 14% tax on it... $399.
I needed the x800 card for the ADC port to go with my adc 23" cinema display. The card was $650, add taxes and shipping.
First of all, I have to ask: are any of you Stepford MacHeads on this thread - the great and all powerful anti-truster himself - Monsieur Jobs? Just asking!
Second, to call the current retail version of OSX - that can be purchased at any number of physical, or online vendors - an "upgrade OSX" is just flat wrong and a purposely inaccurate discription. The fact is - the "retail" version of OSX is a full, standalone OS that can be installed on any empty drive - without having to have any previous OSX installations whatsoever. The only versions of OSX that cannot be installed cold, are the grey OEM OSX disc that come bundled to whatever particular Apple machine they are sold with, or the "drop in" CPU "upgrade" that may also they also may come bundled with. The retail OSX might be labeled or considered an "upgrade" by some over the dominant Windows OS, but it is a wholly complete OS all by it's lonesome self - that can be then "upgraded", or in actuality, "updated", as additional amendments, features, or tweaks are made available from Apple.
And lastly, no one would bother to alter OSX in the slightest if Apple themselves stopped trying to intentionally cripple OSX - with no other purpose or practical function in mind - other than to totally "control" the end use of their product by pointedly making the OS inoperable on non Apple hardware and by design, herding the consumer of the "Retail" OSX to Apple branded machines exclusively. All the "Hackintosh" and OSX "clone" folks are doing is removing, or altering ONLY the specific coding written into the OS for the explicit purpose of restricting (locking out) that open-end usage.
You Mactologist and copyright fetishists can shriek and scream and throw your indignant tantrums (talking about just who are the real "spoiled brats" here), defending Apple's party line that it can do as it damn well pleases - but the real reason you and your corporate squeeze (Apple) are so tyranical and hysterical at any and all would be HARDWARE challengers - is because of the dreaded possibility of actual competition in the HARDWARE market. OSX is not threatened in the least as a standalone OS. In fact, OSX would probably become much more popular and widely installed than it is right now if it wasn't artificially restricted. But the red line for Apple INC. - is when anyone else directly threatens - their very lucrative Apple HARDWARE ONLY policy - i.e. Apple's current and absolute monopoly in the OSX compatible HARDWARE market. That is the bottom line here - to stop ALL possible competition in the OSX compatible HARDWARE market.
Good luck with that!
Yes, its very lucrative hardware business that results in such good research and development, what horror. You still haven't answered my question, what is it you're really fighting for?
Second, to call the current retail version of OSX - that can be purchased at any number of physical, or online vendors - an "upgrade OSX" is just flat wrong and a purposely inaccurate discription. The fact is - the "retail" version of OSX is a full, standalone OS that can be installed on any empty drive - without having to have any previous OSX installations whatsoever. The only versions of OSX that cannot be installed cold, are the grey OEM OSX disc that come bundled to whatever particular Apple machine they are sold with, or the "drop in" CPU "upgrade" that may also they also may come bundled with. The retail OSX might be labeled or considered an "upgrade" by some over the dominant Windows OS, but it is a wholly complete OS all by it's lonesome self - that can be then "upgraded", or in actuality, "updated", as additional amendments, features, or tweaks are made available from Apple.
Nearly all "upgrade" disk contains the new software in whole. Windows "upgrade" can also be loaded on to a blank drive. PhotoShop "upgrades" can be loaded on to a drive without the previous version of PhotoShop installed. You just need to prove that you are entitle to the discounted price of the "upgrade" version. The discount is given to people that already has a license for an older version of the software. The price of an "upgrade" reflects that you paid for a previous license. Not that you already have some of the neccessary software on your drive.
If you want to load a Windows "upgrade" into a blank drive, it will ask you to place your previous version CD (or floppy) into the drive before it will load on to a blank drive. And it will load the complete new version even though it say "upgrade" on the box. The word "upgrade" lets the buyer know that he must have a previous license to use this version. Otherwise he has to buy the "full" version. The price of an "upgrade" reflects that you paid for a previous license. Not that you already have some of the neccessary software on your drive.
PhotoShop requires the serial number off your previous version (at least that the ways it was from PS4 to PS5 to PS6) before it will load the new version. It say "upgrade" version on the box. And like the Windows "upgrade" it requires a license for a previous version.
Mac OSX (Leopard) requires a Mac. All Mac sold with an OSX license. Therefore that's how OSX (Leopard) verifies that you had paid for a previous license. The "Mac" requirement isn't a hardware restriction. It's your proof that you had a previous license and thus are entitles to the "upgrade" price of the retail box of OSX (Leopard).
Psystar is not entitle to buy an "upgrade" version on OSX and install it on a box without a previous license for OSX. Psystar has to purchase a "full" version of OSX. And since Apple only sell retail box of OSX for the benifit of Mac owners that may want to "upgrade" to the newer version, there is no need to sell a "full" version. All Mac owners has a previous license.
And the difference between those grey OEM disk and the retail OSX disk is that the OEM is restricted to install on certain model Macs and may contain only the drivers for those models. While the retail "upgrade" disk will install on all newer Macs (and most olders ones) and contain all the drivers for those Macs. Both will do a full install as long as the Mac meets the requirement. In fact there are "patches" (hacks) that can be used to fool some of those OEM disk to load OSX on Mac models other than the ones they originally came with.
Quote:
And lastly, no one would bother to alter OSX in the slightest if Apple themselves stopped trying to intentionally cripple OSX - with no other purpose or practical function in mind - other than to totally "control" the end use of their product by pointedly making the OS inoperable on non Apple hardware and by design, herding the consumer of the "Retail" OSX to Apple branded machines exclusively. All the "Hackintosh" and OSX "clone" folks are doing is removing, or altering ONLY the specific coding written into the OS for the explicit purpose of restricting (locking out) that open-end usage.
It the same as trying to use a Windows "upgrade" disk to load on to a blank drive of a box that you built from scratch. You are not entitle to do so unless you have a previous Windows license on that PC box. You need to pay for a "full" version. Just because the "upgrade" version has all the codes neccessary to load on to a blank drive doesn't mean that you are entitle to use it without having paid for a previous version.
Quote:
You Mactologist and copyright fetishists can shriek and scream and throw your indignant tantrums (talking about just who are the real "spoiled brats" here), defending Apple's party line that it can do as it damn well pleases - but the real reason you and your corporate squeeze (Apple) are so tyranical and hysterical at any and all would be HARDWARE challengers - is because of the dreaded possibility of actual competition in the HARDWARE market. OSX is not threatened in the least as a standalone OS. In fact, OSX would probably become much more popular and widely installed than it is right now if it wasn't artificially restricted. But the red line for Apple INC. - is when anyone else directly threatens - their very lucrative Apple HARDWARE ONLY policy - i.e. Apple's current and absolute monopoly in the OSX compatible HARDWARE market. That is the bottom line here - to stop ALL possible competition in the OSX compatible HARDWARE market.
Good luck with that!
Now you're getting the picture. Apple has always been competing in the hardware business. Apple competes with Dell, Sony, HP, Acer, etc. in the computer market. They alway have. OSX is just one of the many ways Apple tries to make their computers better that their competitors. OSX is a feature exclusive to a Mac. It is not a "stand alone" OS. If HP, Dell, Acer or Psystar wants to compete, let them develop their own OS. Apple shouldn't have to supply them with a better OS than Windows. Apple wants you to use a Mac. They don't even care if you don't use OSX on it. They won't care if you went out develop a new OS that can run on a Mac.
You have no right to dictate what market Apple wants to compete in. If Apple wants to compete with MS in the OS market they will decide to do this on their own terms. Not because there are people to cheap to buy their hardware or don't like what's being offered (hardware wise).
If Apple did not make OSX available in a retail box, would you be here bitching about how Apple is being "monopolistic" or "anti-competitive"? Suppose OSX came only with the purchase of new hardware. Would you still be crying about how Apple is purposely keeping you from having OSX on some piece of crap hardware? So basically, Apple is trying to do a good deed for it's users by offering them an easy and affordable "upgrade" path for their Macs and you come along and turn it around to make it look like Apple is being unfair to the rest of the World.
Nearly all "upgrade" disk contains the new software in whole. Windows "upgrade" can also be loaded on to a blank drive. PhotoShop "upgrades" can be loaded on to a drive without the previous version of PhotoShop installed. You just need to prove that you are entitle to the discounted price of the "upgrade" version. The discount is given to people that already has a license for an older version of the software. The price of an "upgrade" reflects that you paid for a previous license. Not that you already have some of the neccessary software on your drive.
If you want to load a Windows "upgrade" into a blank drive, it will ask you to place your previous version CD (or floppy) into the drive before it will load on to a blank drive. And it will load the complete new version even though it say "upgrade" on the box. The word "upgrade" lets the buyer know that he must have a previous license to use this version. Otherwise he has to buy the "full" version. The price of an "upgrade" reflects that you paid for a previous license. Not that you already have some of the neccessary software on your drive.
PhotoShop requires the serial number off your previous version (at least that the ways it was from PS4 to PS5 to PS6) before it will load the new version. It say "upgrade" version on the box. And like the Windows "upgrade" it requires a license for a previous version.
Mac OSX (Leopard) requires a Mac. All Mac sold with an OSX license. Therefore that's how OSX (Leopard) verifies that you had paid for a previous license. The "Mac" requirement isn't a hardware restriction. It's your proof that you had a previous license and thus are entitles to the "upgrade" price of the retail box of OSX (Leopard).
Psystar is not entitle to buy an "upgrade" version on OSX and install it on a box without a previous license for OSX. Psystar has to purchase a "full" version of OSX. And since Apple only sell retail box of OSX for the benifit of Mac owners that may want to "upgrade" to the newer version, there is no need to sell a "full" version. All Mac owners has a previous license.
And the difference between those grey OEM disk and the retail OSX disk is that the OEM is restricted to install on certain model Macs and may contain only the drivers for those models. While the retail "upgrade" disk will install on all newer Macs (and most olders ones) and contain all the drivers for those Macs. Both will do a full install as long as the Mac meets the requirement. In fact there are "patches" (hacks) that can be used to fool some of those OEM disk to load OSX on Mac models other than the ones they originally came with.
It the same as trying to use a Windows "upgrade" disk to load on to a blank drive of a box that you built from scratch. You are not entitle to do so unless you have a previous Windows license on that PC box. You need to pay for a "full" version. Just because the "upgrade" version has all the codes neccessary to load on to a blank drive doesn't mean that you are entitle to use it without having paid for a previous version.
Now you're getting the picture. Apple has always been competing in the hardware business. Apple competes with Dell, Sony, HP, Acer, etc. in the computer market. They alway have. OSX is just one of the many ways Apple tries to make their computers better that their competitors. OSX is a feature exclusive to a Mac. It is not a "stand alone" OS. If HP, Dell, Acer or Psystar wants to compete, let them develop their own OS. Apple shouldn't have to supply them with a better OS than Windows. Apple wants you to use a Mac. They don't even care if you don't use OSX on it. They won't care if you went out develop a new OS that can run on a Mac.
You have no right to dictate what market Apple wants to compete in. If Apple wants to compete with MS in the OS market they will decide to do this on their own terms. Not because there are people to cheap to buy their hardware or don't like what's being offered (hardware wise).
If Apple did not make OSX available in a retail box, would you be here bitching about how Apple is being "monopolistic" or "anti-competitive"? Suppose OSX came only with the purchase of new hardware. Would you still be crying about how Apple is purposely keeping you from having OSX on some piece of crap hardware? So basically, Apple is trying to do a good deed for it's users by offering them an easy and affordable "upgrade" path for their Macs and you come along and turn it around to make it look like Apple is being unfair to the rest of the World.
First of all, I have to ask: are any of you Stepford MacHeads on this thread - the great and all powerful anti-truster himself - Monsieur Jobs? Just asking!
Second, to call the current retail version of OSX - that can be purchased at any number of physical, or online vendors - an "upgrade OSX" is just flat wrong and a purposely inaccurate discription. The fact is - the "retail" version of OSX is a full, standalone OS that can be installed on any empty drive - without having to have any previous OSX installations whatsoever. The only versions of OSX that cannot be installed cold, are the grey OEM OSX disc that come bundled to whatever particular Apple machine they are sold with, or the "drop in" CPU "upgrade" that may also they also may come bundled with. The retail OSX might be labeled or considered an "upgrade" by some over the dominant Windows OS, but it is a wholly complete OS all by it's lonesome self - that can be then "upgraded", or in actuality, "updated", as additional amendments, features, or tweaks are made available from Apple.
And lastly, no one would bother to alter OSX in the slightest if Apple themselves stopped trying to intentionally cripple OSX - with no other purpose or practical function in mind - other than to totally "control" the end use of their product by pointedly making the OS inoperable on non Apple hardware and by design, herding the consumer of the "Retail" OSX to Apple branded machines exclusively. All the "Hackintosh" and OSX "clone" folks are doing is removing, or altering ONLY the specific coding written into the OS for the explicit purpose of restricting (locking out) that open-end usage.
You Mactologist and copyright fetishists can shriek and scream and throw your indignant tantrums (talking about just who are the real "spoiled brats" here), defending Apple's party line that it can do as it damn well pleases - but the real reason you and your corporate squeeze (Apple) are so tyranical and hysterical at any and all would be HARDWARE challengers - is because of the dreaded possibility of actual competition in the HARDWARE market. OSX is not threatened in the least as a standalone OS. In fact, OSX would probably become much more popular and widely installed than it is right now if it wasn't artificially restricted. But the red line for Apple INC. - is when anyone else directly threatens - their very lucrative Apple HARDWARE ONLY policy - i.e. Apple's current and absolute monopoly in the OSX compatible HARDWARE market. That is the bottom line here - to stop ALL possible competition in the OSX compatible HARDWARE market.
Good luck with that!
I don't hate to piss on your parade, but the novels I'm writing, the mechanical engineering tools I'm designing and the software I'm writing are my copyrighted works.
I'll determine whether I f'n decide to copyleft or creative commons, or GPLv3 any of my stuff.
When I want to help Linux I respect their licensing scheme and comply.
Piss up a rope if you don't like that a creator dictates what they deem just with their own body of work.
I don't hate to piss on your parade, but the novels I'm writing, the mechanical engineering tools I'm designing and the software I'm writing are my copyrighted works.
I'll determine whether I f'n decide to copyleft or creative commons, or GPLv3 any of my stuff.
When I want to help Linux I respect their licensing scheme and comply.
Piss up a rope if you don't like that a creator dictates what they deem just with their own body of work.
You seem to have a little more than a just passing fetish for the idea of "pissing".
Okay, whatever floats your boat I'd say.
Mine, mine, mine, mine....yada, yada, yada. From the tenor of your "reply" to my post, I'm fairly sure that whatever claptrap "novels", "tools", or "software you claim to be "creating" wouldn't be worth anyones time of day to even think of infringing upon. And even if someone actually wanted to, it would probably end up improving it tenfold.
So "dictate" all you want - oh mighty "creator". Will thou bestow us with more golden liquid logic and damnable legal threats if thy would be infringing heathens do not submit to your high, holy "copyrighted"dictates?
And one last parting slap to all you anti-choice Apple Agro's: EFI-X USB Dongle. No fuss, no muss, no OSX software modifications. Not one hair of the "Retail" OSX install disc is disturbed, or hacked in any way. Not one line of Apple Developer's sacred code has been tampered with. Just pop in a wholly separate, self-contained USB Dongle on a compatible PC - and begin installing OSX - offering updates and all. Who knew that with just a tiny lil' HARDWARE tweak, most PC's can run OSX perfectly. After all, isn't that the basic premise behind what the old Virtual PC - and now Parallels- have been doing to allow Windows to run on a Mac - emulating a PC's motherboards Bios? Seems it can work just as easily the other way.
Maybe Apple should have stayed on the old PPC platform if they wanted to make sure that OSX remains a closed loop OS - because as long as Macs continue using the very same processor as most PC's use (Intel), all one has to do is to have a OSX compatible motherboard ( with a simple EFI Patch or Dongle), without any need to directly change or "infringe" on OSX software itself and the "- OSX only on Apple Hardware" - jig is up.
And one last parting slap to all you anti-choice Apple Agro's: EFI-X USB Dongle. No fuss, no muss, no OSX software modifications. Not one hair of the "Retail" OSX install disc is disturbed, or hacked in any way. Not one line of Apple Developer's sacred code has been tampered with. Just pop in a wholly separate, self-contained USB Dongle on a compatible PC - and begin installing OSX - offering updates and all. Who knew that with just a tiny lil' HARDWARE tweak, most PC's can run OSX perfectly. After all, isn't that the basic premise behind what the old Virtual PC - and now Parallels- have been doing to allow Windows to run on a Mac - emulating a PC's motherboards Bios? Seems it can work just as easily the other way.
Maybe Apple should have stayed on the old PPC platform if they wanted to make sure that OSX stayed a closed loop OS - because as long as Macs continue using the very same processor as most PC's use (Intel), all one has to do is to have a OSX compatible motherboard ( with a simple EFI Patch or Dongle), without any need to directly change or "infringe" on OSX software itself and the "- OSX only on Apple Hardware" - jig is up.
Flame on MacManiacs, flame on....
Don't equate Psystar and PearC to EFiX. EFiX is completely legal and operating well within the confines of, at least, US law. EFiX has even shunned EFiX USA, their US-based distributed for trying to sell clones. Even EFiX knows that selling clones in the US without consent of the copyright and IP holders is illegal. So, if selling unofficial clones with unaltered OS X is illegal what do you think selling unofficial clones with altered OS X is?
You seem to have a little more than a just passing fetish for the idea of "pissing".
Okay, whatever floats your boat I'd say.
Mine, mine, mine, mine....yada, yada, yada. From the tenor of your "reply" to my post, I'm fairly sure that whatever claptrap "novels", "tools", or "software you claim to be "creating" wouldn't be worth anyones time of day to even think of infringing upon. And even if someone actually wanted to, it would probably end up improving it tenfold.
So "dictate" all you want - oh mighty "creator". Will thou bestow us with more golden liquid logic and damnable legal threats if thy would be infringing heathens do not submit to your high, holy "copyrighted"dictates?
And one last parting slap to all you anti-choice Apple Agro's: EFI-X USB Dongle. No fuss, no muss, no OSX software modifications. Not one hair of the "Retail" OSX install disc is disturbed, or hacked in any way. Not one line of Apple Developer's sacred code has been tampered with. Just pop in a wholly separate, self-contained USB Dongle on a compatible PC - and begin installing OSX - offering updates and all. Who knew that with just a tiny lil' HARDWARE tweak, most PC's can run OSX perfectly. After all, isn't that the basic premise behind what the old Virtual PC - and now Parallels- have been doing to allow Windows to run on a Mac - emulating a PC's motherboards Bios? Seems it can work just as easily the other way.
Maybe Apple should have stayed on the old PPC platform if they wanted to make sure that OSX remains a closed loop OS - because as long as Macs continue using the very same processor as most PC's use (Intel), all one has to do is to have a OSX compatible motherboard ( with a simple EFI Patch or Dongle), without any need to directly change or "infringe" on OSX software itself and the "- OSX only on Apple Hardware" - jig is up.
Flame on MacManiacs, flame on....
You have 8 posts. All of them devoid of substance. This last one of course ignores the point I referenced with FOSS and GPLv3 projects--all of which I support, within their context and original intention. If I so choose to work within a group project with the expressly written GPLv3 license then I expect my reference to be so noted under the group listing of copyrighted efforts. Group projects are enriching and everyone wins by furthering their skills, creating new friends/colleagues and more.
Third parties that come along and violate the GPLv3 by leveraging the code, modifying it and not reporting the changes back into trunk should be held in contempt of that license and rightly sued for punitive damages.
I expect my copyright of my own private works, under the expressly written license I state, to guarantee that third parties violating that boundary be held by Copyright Law boundaries. I am in my right to sue their sorry butts for spitting all over an otherwise reasonable expectation.
You have 8 posts. All of them devoid of substance. This last one of course ignores the point I referenced with FOSS and GPLv3 projects--all of which I support, within their context and original intention. If I so choose to work within a group project with the expressly written GPLv3 license then I expect my reference to be so noted under the group listing of copyrighted efforts. Group projects are enriching and everyone wins by furthering their skills, creating new friends/colleagues and more.
Third parties that come along and violate the GPLv3 by leveraging the code, modifying it and not reporting the changes back into trunk should be held in contempt of that license and rightly sued for punitive damages.
I expect my copyright of my own private works, under the expressly written license I state, to guarantee that third parties violating that boundary be held by Copyright Law boundaries. I am in my right to sue their sorry butts for spitting all over an otherwise reasonable expectation.
mdriftmeyer wrote: "You have 8 posts. All of them devoid of substance." Well, I guess you told me what's what. The only "substance" I can glean out of your poobah posting is your affinity for the expelling of bodily fluids, i.e. "pissing, or "spitting". Maybe your next ranting post will include a reference to someone farting?
Honey, you can go and sue, sue, sue to your lil' ol' hearts desire if you feel that your precious "work" has been so aggrieved, defiled, disrespected (or most likely improved in your case).
Just keep your "substances" to yourself. Trust me, nobody wants to "infringe" on them in any way. You do flatter yourself..
Third parties that come along and violate the GPLv3 by leveraging the code, modifying it and not reporting the changes back into trunk should be held in contempt of that license and rightly sued for punitive damages.
Actually there is zero requirement in GPL to submit changes upstream. The requirements for providing code is always downstream. Meaning, I can take your code, create a derivative work, sell it to someone and give them the source and never return anything to you.
Just in case someone might think GPL is more viral than it is...
mdriftmeyer wrote: "You have 8 posts. All of them devoid of substance." Well, I guess you told me what's what. The only "substance" I can glean out of your poobah posting is the expelling of bodily fluids, i.e. "pissing, or "spitting". Maybe your next ranting post will include a reference to someone farting?
Honey, you can go and sue, sue, sue to your lil' ol' hearts desire is you fell that your precious "work" has been so aggrieved, defiled, disrespected (or most likely improved in your case).
Just keep your "substances" to yourself. Trust me, nobody wants them..
What are you 10? You're almost up to your apparent age in posts. One more and you're golden.
mdriftmeyer wrote: "You have 8 posts. All of them devoid of substance." Well, I guess you told me what's what. The only "substance" I can glean out of your poobah posting is your affinity for the expelling of bodily fluids, i.e. "pissing, or "spitting". Maybe your next ranting post will include a reference to someone farting?
Honey, you can go and sue, sue, sue to your lil' ol' hearts desire if you feel that your precious "work" has been so aggrieved, defiled, disrespected (or most likely improved in your case).
Just keep your "substances" to yourself. Trust me, nobody wants to "infringe" on them in any way. You do flatter yourself..
No, it's not and that's why you're too ignorant to understand the point the rest of us are making. You do not own software and have no right to determine its usage. You vote with your wallet, you don't force a company to adopt to your whims. You act like you're fixing some massive injustice, when the fact of the matter is that you're just the whiney, spoiled kid in the back of the class, whose having a bad day and is therefore utterly determined to ruin it for everyone else.
No, it's not and that's why you're too ignorant to understand the point the rest of us are making. You do not own software and have no right to determine its usage. You vote with your wallet, you don't force a company to adopt to your whims. You act like you're fixing some massive injustice, when the fact of the matter is that you're just the whiney, spoiled kid in the back of the class, whose having a bad day and is therefore utterly determined to ruin it for everyone else.
Oh go and hide under a rock. Your and your cohorts on this thread can continue your Apple Inc. circle- jerk, but if you think I'm a "brat", nuisance and irritant - I can't wait to see your apoplectic reactions when OSX exclusivity on Apple Only Hardware gets blown to smithereens in these next few years...Oh poor, poor Apple.
Oh go and hide under a rock. Your and your cohorts on this thread can continue your Apple Inc. circle- jerk, but is you think I'm a nuisance and irritant - I can't wait to see your apoplectic reactions when OSX exclusivity on Apple Only Hardware gets blown to smithereens in these next few years...
Buh Bye for now......
And you can just keep masturbating to the thought of that happening, but it never will. We hate you because your posts aren't just stupid, they are also devoid of substance. I propose a thought and you go on with your anti-Apple party line refusing to even consider the kernel of the idea we propose.
You haven't proposed one intelligent reason why OS X should be available on other hardware, you've simply complained about Apple's hardware prices and spewed alot of drivel about how courts will never uphold a EULA that they have for three decades. You're also trying desperately to justify companies that profit from the work of others as if it's their right. You use EU law, which believes imprisoning people for using a black list of words isn't a human rights violation, as if it is the be all, end of all legal authorities simply because a select group of its members (several of which have just left second world status) seem to agree with your idiocy. The body of American & Asian law is substantially more developed than its European counterpart, especially in the realm of Intellectual Property. Which isn't surprising seeing as most technological innovations have come from those two areas.
Believe me, you're opinion is wrong no matter what court your argue it under. You're the kind of person that takes the idea of socialism to help people and contorts it into a platform for forcing your own selfish desires on everyone else. No one will be apologizing to you. You can count of that.
........And one last parting slap to all you anti-choice Apple Agro's: EFI-X USB Dongle. No fuss, no muss, no OSX software modifications. Not one hair of the "Retail" OSX install disc is disturbed, or hacked in any way. Not one line of Apple Developer's sacred code has been tampered with. Just pop in a wholly separate, self-contained USB Dongle on a compatible PC - and begin installing OSX - offering updates and all. Who knew that with just a tiny lil' HARDWARE tweak, most PC's can run OSX perfectly. After all, isn't that the basic premise behind what the old Virtual PC - and now Parallels- have been doing to allow Windows to run on a Mac - emulating a PC's motherboards Bios? Seems it can work just as easily the other way.
Maybe Apple should have stayed on the old PPC platform if they wanted to make sure that OSX remains a closed loop OS - because as long as Macs continue using the very same processor as most PC's use (Intel), all one has to do is to have a OSX compatible motherboard ( with a simple EFI Patch or Dongle), without any need to directly change or "infringe" on OSX software itself and the "- OSX only on Apple Hardware" - jig is up.
Flame on MacManiacs, flame on....
You still don't get it. When you run Windows in Parallels or any "virtual" machine, you still need have a "full" version (license) of Windows before you can use any upgrade version. OSX is an "upgrade" version and thus can not be installed on a blank PC without a prior license. Thus the dongle is abetting in copyright infringement. It doesn't matter if none of the codes on a retail box of OSX is tampered with. The license for the retail OSX requires a previous license before you are entitle to use it.
It's like if you were to take a Beatles song and copy it whole, without altering a note, on to your own music CD. Or use some one elses copyrighted photo in your book. And you plan to market them for profit. You will still be guilty of copyright infringement. You had no right to use some one elses copyrighted work (parts of or whole) in a manner that the copyright owner doesn't want it to be used. You are protected some what by "fair use" for "personal use" only. Virtually no use for commercial profit falls under "fair use" or "personal use".
Comments
I would like to see what would happen if someone came along and took your product, re-badged it and sold it on as their own and paid you nothing. You then started to recieve support calls and complaints as your product wasn't working as it should or and update to your product broke theirs.
How would you react??
Apple sells Mac's. Mac OSX is Apple OS for their Mac's. Mac OSX is sold separately as an UPGRADE for existing Mac owners. Whenever Apple talks about OSX sales they talk about the number of Mac owners who have 'Upgraded' to OSX 10.xx.
I hope that Apple withdraws all copies of Mac OSX from stores and forces all Mac owners to purchase the upgrade online by providing their Mac serial number. This will prevent companies like Psystar from buying the software and selling it on their machines. Then the only way they would be able to do this would be through piracy, which would be an end to them.
First of all, I have to ask: are any of you Stepford MacHeads on this thread - the great and all powerful anti-truster himself - Monsieur Jobs? Just asking!
Second, to call the current retail version of OSX - that can be purchased at any number of physical, or online vendors - an "upgrade OSX" is just flat wrong and a purposely inaccurate discription. The fact is - the "retail" version of OSX is a full, standalone OS that can be installed on any empty drive - without having to have any previous OSX installations whatsoever. The only versions of OSX that cannot be installed cold, are the grey OEM OSX disc that come bundled to whatever particular Apple machine they are sold with, or the "drop in" CPU "upgrade" that may also they also may come bundled with. The retail OSX might be labeled or considered an "upgrade" by some over the dominant Windows OS, but it is a wholly complete OS all by it's lonesome self - that can be then "upgraded", or in actuality, "updated", as additional amendments, features, or tweaks are made available from Apple.
And lastly, no one would bother to alter OSX in the slightest if Apple themselves stopped trying to intentionally cripple OSX - with no other purpose or practical function in mind - other than to totally "control" the end use of their product by pointedly making the OS inoperable on non Apple hardware and by design, herding the consumer of the "Retail" OSX to Apple branded machines exclusively. All the "Hackintosh" and OSX "clone" folks are doing is removing, or altering ONLY the specific coding written into the OS for the explicit purpose of restricting (locking out) that open-end usage.
You Mactologist and copyright fetishists can shriek and scream and throw your indignant tantrums (talking about just who are the real "spoiled brats" here), defending Apple's party line that it can do as it damn well pleases - but the real reason you and your corporate squeeze (Apple) are so tyranical and hysterical at any and all would be HARDWARE challengers - is because of the dreaded possibility of actual competition in the HARDWARE market. OSX is not threatened in the least as a standalone OS. In fact, OSX would probably become much more popular and widely installed than it is right now if it wasn't artificially restricted. But the red line for Apple INC. - is when anyone else directly threatens - their very lucrative Apple HARDWARE ONLY policy - i.e. Apple's current and absolute monopoly in the OSX compatible HARDWARE market. That is the bottom line here - to stop ALL possible competition in the OSX compatible HARDWARE market.
Good luck with that!
Your numbers don't add up. A PowerMac G5 Dual 2.0 Ghz was introduced on October of 2005. If you purchased your Mac when it first became available and you got an extended AppleCare at the time you bought it, then you were covered under warranty till October 2008. That's less than 4 months ago. You can get a used PowerMac G5 Dual 2 Ghz for less than $800 on eBay right now. That includes ram, HD, drives, PS, Etc.. You can probably sell yours, as is, for $200.
And most people don't buy the extended AppleCare at the time they purchase the Mac. It already comes with a 1 year limited warranty. And you can purchase AppleCare anytime with in the year. So if you had waited until August of 2006 to purchase AppleCare for your Mac, your Mac would still be under warranty today.
And $400 for AppleCare on a Power Mac seems high. The most expensive AppleCare is usually on their expensive laptops. AppleCare for a MacBook Pro only cost $350, today. It only cost $250 for AppleCare on a MacPro. Which is now at least a $2800 Mac.
I'm not even going to ask how you manage to pay $740 for a graphic card that was nearly two years old when the PowerMac Dual 2 Ghz came out. And had a list price of $500.
Uuuh... dude, the first PowerMac G5 Dual 2ghz came out in 2003. I bought mine in Sept of 2004.
As far as Applecare, take the $350 and add 14% tax on it... $399.
I needed the x800 card for the ADC port to go with my adc 23" cinema display. The card was $650, add taxes and shipping.
Thanks for coming out.
First of all, I have to ask: are any of you Stepford MacHeads on this thread - the great and all powerful anti-truster himself - Monsieur Jobs? Just asking!
Second, to call the current retail version of OSX - that can be purchased at any number of physical, or online vendors - an "upgrade OSX" is just flat wrong and a purposely inaccurate discription. The fact is - the "retail" version of OSX is a full, standalone OS that can be installed on any empty drive - without having to have any previous OSX installations whatsoever. The only versions of OSX that cannot be installed cold, are the grey OEM OSX disc that come bundled to whatever particular Apple machine they are sold with, or the "drop in" CPU "upgrade" that may also they also may come bundled with. The retail OSX might be labeled or considered an "upgrade" by some over the dominant Windows OS, but it is a wholly complete OS all by it's lonesome self - that can be then "upgraded", or in actuality, "updated", as additional amendments, features, or tweaks are made available from Apple.
And lastly, no one would bother to alter OSX in the slightest if Apple themselves stopped trying to intentionally cripple OSX - with no other purpose or practical function in mind - other than to totally "control" the end use of their product by pointedly making the OS inoperable on non Apple hardware and by design, herding the consumer of the "Retail" OSX to Apple branded machines exclusively. All the "Hackintosh" and OSX "clone" folks are doing is removing, or altering ONLY the specific coding written into the OS for the explicit purpose of restricting (locking out) that open-end usage.
You Mactologist and copyright fetishists can shriek and scream and throw your indignant tantrums (talking about just who are the real "spoiled brats" here), defending Apple's party line that it can do as it damn well pleases - but the real reason you and your corporate squeeze (Apple) are so tyranical and hysterical at any and all would be HARDWARE challengers - is because of the dreaded possibility of actual competition in the HARDWARE market. OSX is not threatened in the least as a standalone OS. In fact, OSX would probably become much more popular and widely installed than it is right now if it wasn't artificially restricted. But the red line for Apple INC. - is when anyone else directly threatens - their very lucrative Apple HARDWARE ONLY policy - i.e. Apple's current and absolute monopoly in the OSX compatible HARDWARE market. That is the bottom line here - to stop ALL possible competition in the OSX compatible HARDWARE market.
Good luck with that!
Yes, its very lucrative hardware business that results in such good research and development, what horror. You still haven't answered my question, what is it you're really fighting for?
Second, to call the current retail version of OSX - that can be purchased at any number of physical, or online vendors - an "upgrade OSX" is just flat wrong and a purposely inaccurate discription. The fact is - the "retail" version of OSX is a full, standalone OS that can be installed on any empty drive - without having to have any previous OSX installations whatsoever. The only versions of OSX that cannot be installed cold, are the grey OEM OSX disc that come bundled to whatever particular Apple machine they are sold with, or the "drop in" CPU "upgrade" that may also they also may come bundled with. The retail OSX might be labeled or considered an "upgrade" by some over the dominant Windows OS, but it is a wholly complete OS all by it's lonesome self - that can be then "upgraded", or in actuality, "updated", as additional amendments, features, or tweaks are made available from Apple.
Nearly all "upgrade" disk contains the new software in whole. Windows "upgrade" can also be loaded on to a blank drive. PhotoShop "upgrades" can be loaded on to a drive without the previous version of PhotoShop installed. You just need to prove that you are entitle to the discounted price of the "upgrade" version. The discount is given to people that already has a license for an older version of the software. The price of an "upgrade" reflects that you paid for a previous license. Not that you already have some of the neccessary software on your drive.
If you want to load a Windows "upgrade" into a blank drive, it will ask you to place your previous version CD (or floppy) into the drive before it will load on to a blank drive. And it will load the complete new version even though it say "upgrade" on the box. The word "upgrade" lets the buyer know that he must have a previous license to use this version. Otherwise he has to buy the "full" version. The price of an "upgrade" reflects that you paid for a previous license. Not that you already have some of the neccessary software on your drive.
PhotoShop requires the serial number off your previous version (at least that the ways it was from PS4 to PS5 to PS6) before it will load the new version. It say "upgrade" version on the box. And like the Windows "upgrade" it requires a license for a previous version.
Mac OSX (Leopard) requires a Mac. All Mac sold with an OSX license. Therefore that's how OSX (Leopard) verifies that you had paid for a previous license. The "Mac" requirement isn't a hardware restriction. It's your proof that you had a previous license and thus are entitles to the "upgrade" price of the retail box of OSX (Leopard).
Psystar is not entitle to buy an "upgrade" version on OSX and install it on a box without a previous license for OSX. Psystar has to purchase a "full" version of OSX. And since Apple only sell retail box of OSX for the benifit of Mac owners that may want to "upgrade" to the newer version, there is no need to sell a "full" version. All Mac owners has a previous license.
And the difference between those grey OEM disk and the retail OSX disk is that the OEM is restricted to install on certain model Macs and may contain only the drivers for those models. While the retail "upgrade" disk will install on all newer Macs (and most olders ones) and contain all the drivers for those Macs. Both will do a full install as long as the Mac meets the requirement. In fact there are "patches" (hacks) that can be used to fool some of those OEM disk to load OSX on Mac models other than the ones they originally came with.
And lastly, no one would bother to alter OSX in the slightest if Apple themselves stopped trying to intentionally cripple OSX - with no other purpose or practical function in mind - other than to totally "control" the end use of their product by pointedly making the OS inoperable on non Apple hardware and by design, herding the consumer of the "Retail" OSX to Apple branded machines exclusively. All the "Hackintosh" and OSX "clone" folks are doing is removing, or altering ONLY the specific coding written into the OS for the explicit purpose of restricting (locking out) that open-end usage.
It the same as trying to use a Windows "upgrade" disk to load on to a blank drive of a box that you built from scratch. You are not entitle to do so unless you have a previous Windows license on that PC box. You need to pay for a "full" version. Just because the "upgrade" version has all the codes neccessary to load on to a blank drive doesn't mean that you are entitle to use it without having paid for a previous version.
You Mactologist and copyright fetishists can shriek and scream and throw your indignant tantrums (talking about just who are the real "spoiled brats" here), defending Apple's party line that it can do as it damn well pleases - but the real reason you and your corporate squeeze (Apple) are so tyranical and hysterical at any and all would be HARDWARE challengers - is because of the dreaded possibility of actual competition in the HARDWARE market. OSX is not threatened in the least as a standalone OS. In fact, OSX would probably become much more popular and widely installed than it is right now if it wasn't artificially restricted. But the red line for Apple INC. - is when anyone else directly threatens - their very lucrative Apple HARDWARE ONLY policy - i.e. Apple's current and absolute monopoly in the OSX compatible HARDWARE market. That is the bottom line here - to stop ALL possible competition in the OSX compatible HARDWARE market.
Good luck with that!
Now you're getting the picture. Apple has always been competing in the hardware business. Apple competes with Dell, Sony, HP, Acer, etc. in the computer market. They alway have. OSX is just one of the many ways Apple tries to make their computers better that their competitors. OSX is a feature exclusive to a Mac. It is not a "stand alone" OS. If HP, Dell, Acer or Psystar wants to compete, let them develop their own OS. Apple shouldn't have to supply them with a better OS than Windows. Apple wants you to use a Mac. They don't even care if you don't use OSX on it. They won't care if you went out develop a new OS that can run on a Mac.
You have no right to dictate what market Apple wants to compete in. If Apple wants to compete with MS in the OS market they will decide to do this on their own terms. Not because there are people to cheap to buy their hardware or don't like what's being offered (hardware wise).
If Apple did not make OSX available in a retail box, would you be here bitching about how Apple is being "monopolistic" or "anti-competitive"? Suppose OSX came only with the purchase of new hardware. Would you still be crying about how Apple is purposely keeping you from having OSX on some piece of crap hardware? So basically, Apple is trying to do a good deed for it's users by offering them an easy and affordable "upgrade" path for their Macs and you come along and turn it around to make it look like Apple is being unfair to the rest of the World.
Uuuh... dude, the first PowerMac G5 Dual 2ghz came out in 2003. I bought mine in Sept of 2004.
As far as Applecare, take the $350 and add 14% tax on it... $399.
I needed the x800 card for the ADC port to go with my adc 23" cinema display. The card was $650, add taxes and shipping.
Thanks for coming out.
My mistake. I thought you bought the "Dual Core" 2.0 Ghz G5 when I read "third generation". Which came out in 2005.
Nearly all "upgrade" disk contains the new software in whole. Windows "upgrade" can also be loaded on to a blank drive. PhotoShop "upgrades" can be loaded on to a drive without the previous version of PhotoShop installed. You just need to prove that you are entitle to the discounted price of the "upgrade" version. The discount is given to people that already has a license for an older version of the software. The price of an "upgrade" reflects that you paid for a previous license. Not that you already have some of the neccessary software on your drive.
If you want to load a Windows "upgrade" into a blank drive, it will ask you to place your previous version CD (or floppy) into the drive before it will load on to a blank drive. And it will load the complete new version even though it say "upgrade" on the box. The word "upgrade" lets the buyer know that he must have a previous license to use this version. Otherwise he has to buy the "full" version. The price of an "upgrade" reflects that you paid for a previous license. Not that you already have some of the neccessary software on your drive.
PhotoShop requires the serial number off your previous version (at least that the ways it was from PS4 to PS5 to PS6) before it will load the new version. It say "upgrade" version on the box. And like the Windows "upgrade" it requires a license for a previous version.
Mac OSX (Leopard) requires a Mac. All Mac sold with an OSX license. Therefore that's how OSX (Leopard) verifies that you had paid for a previous license. The "Mac" requirement isn't a hardware restriction. It's your proof that you had a previous license and thus are entitles to the "upgrade" price of the retail box of OSX (Leopard).
Psystar is not entitle to buy an "upgrade" version on OSX and install it on a box without a previous license for OSX. Psystar has to purchase a "full" version of OSX. And since Apple only sell retail box of OSX for the benifit of Mac owners that may want to "upgrade" to the newer version, there is no need to sell a "full" version. All Mac owners has a previous license.
And the difference between those grey OEM disk and the retail OSX disk is that the OEM is restricted to install on certain model Macs and may contain only the drivers for those models. While the retail "upgrade" disk will install on all newer Macs (and most olders ones) and contain all the drivers for those Macs. Both will do a full install as long as the Mac meets the requirement. In fact there are "patches" (hacks) that can be used to fool some of those OEM disk to load OSX on Mac models other than the ones they originally came with.
It the same as trying to use a Windows "upgrade" disk to load on to a blank drive of a box that you built from scratch. You are not entitle to do so unless you have a previous Windows license on that PC box. You need to pay for a "full" version. Just because the "upgrade" version has all the codes neccessary to load on to a blank drive doesn't mean that you are entitle to use it without having paid for a previous version.
Now you're getting the picture. Apple has always been competing in the hardware business. Apple competes with Dell, Sony, HP, Acer, etc. in the computer market. They alway have. OSX is just one of the many ways Apple tries to make their computers better that their competitors. OSX is a feature exclusive to a Mac. It is not a "stand alone" OS. If HP, Dell, Acer or Psystar wants to compete, let them develop their own OS. Apple shouldn't have to supply them with a better OS than Windows. Apple wants you to use a Mac. They don't even care if you don't use OSX on it. They won't care if you went out develop a new OS that can run on a Mac.
You have no right to dictate what market Apple wants to compete in. If Apple wants to compete with MS in the OS market they will decide to do this on their own terms. Not because there are people to cheap to buy their hardware or don't like what's being offered (hardware wise).
If Apple did not make OSX available in a retail box, would you be here bitching about how Apple is being "monopolistic" or "anti-competitive"? Suppose OSX came only with the purchase of new hardware. Would you still be crying about how Apple is purposely keeping you from having OSX on some piece of crap hardware? So basically, Apple is trying to do a good deed for it's users by offering them an easy and affordable "upgrade" path for their Macs and you come along and turn it around to make it look like Apple is being unfair to the rest of the World.
That was very well said and I completely agree.
That was very well said and I completely agree.
I agree. Well done, DavidW!
First of all, I have to ask: are any of you Stepford MacHeads on this thread - the great and all powerful anti-truster himself - Monsieur Jobs? Just asking!
Second, to call the current retail version of OSX - that can be purchased at any number of physical, or online vendors - an "upgrade OSX" is just flat wrong and a purposely inaccurate discription. The fact is - the "retail" version of OSX is a full, standalone OS that can be installed on any empty drive - without having to have any previous OSX installations whatsoever. The only versions of OSX that cannot be installed cold, are the grey OEM OSX disc that come bundled to whatever particular Apple machine they are sold with, or the "drop in" CPU "upgrade" that may also they also may come bundled with. The retail OSX might be labeled or considered an "upgrade" by some over the dominant Windows OS, but it is a wholly complete OS all by it's lonesome self - that can be then "upgraded", or in actuality, "updated", as additional amendments, features, or tweaks are made available from Apple.
And lastly, no one would bother to alter OSX in the slightest if Apple themselves stopped trying to intentionally cripple OSX - with no other purpose or practical function in mind - other than to totally "control" the end use of their product by pointedly making the OS inoperable on non Apple hardware and by design, herding the consumer of the "Retail" OSX to Apple branded machines exclusively. All the "Hackintosh" and OSX "clone" folks are doing is removing, or altering ONLY the specific coding written into the OS for the explicit purpose of restricting (locking out) that open-end usage.
You Mactologist and copyright fetishists can shriek and scream and throw your indignant tantrums (talking about just who are the real "spoiled brats" here), defending Apple's party line that it can do as it damn well pleases - but the real reason you and your corporate squeeze (Apple) are so tyranical and hysterical at any and all would be HARDWARE challengers - is because of the dreaded possibility of actual competition in the HARDWARE market. OSX is not threatened in the least as a standalone OS. In fact, OSX would probably become much more popular and widely installed than it is right now if it wasn't artificially restricted. But the red line for Apple INC. - is when anyone else directly threatens - their very lucrative Apple HARDWARE ONLY policy - i.e. Apple's current and absolute monopoly in the OSX compatible HARDWARE market. That is the bottom line here - to stop ALL possible competition in the OSX compatible HARDWARE market.
Good luck with that!
I don't hate to piss on your parade, but the novels I'm writing, the mechanical engineering tools I'm designing and the software I'm writing are my copyrighted works.
I'll determine whether I f'n decide to copyleft or creative commons, or GPLv3 any of my stuff.
When I want to help Linux I respect their licensing scheme and comply.
Piss up a rope if you don't like that a creator dictates what they deem just with their own body of work.
I don't hate to piss on your parade, but the novels I'm writing, the mechanical engineering tools I'm designing and the software I'm writing are my copyrighted works.
I'll determine whether I f'n decide to copyleft or creative commons, or GPLv3 any of my stuff.
When I want to help Linux I respect their licensing scheme and comply.
Piss up a rope if you don't like that a creator dictates what they deem just with their own body of work.
You seem to have a little more than a just passing fetish for the idea of "pissing".
Okay, whatever floats your boat I'd say.
Mine, mine, mine, mine....yada, yada, yada. From the tenor of your "reply" to my post, I'm fairly sure that whatever claptrap "novels", "tools", or "software you claim to be "creating" wouldn't be worth anyones time of day to even think of infringing upon. And even if someone actually wanted to, it would probably end up improving it tenfold.
So "dictate" all you want - oh mighty "creator". Will thou bestow us with more golden liquid logic and damnable legal threats if thy would be infringing heathens do not submit to your high, holy "copyrighted"dictates?
And one last parting slap to all you anti-choice Apple Agro's: EFI-X USB Dongle. No fuss, no muss, no OSX software modifications. Not one hair of the "Retail" OSX install disc is disturbed, or hacked in any way. Not one line of Apple Developer's sacred code has been tampered with. Just pop in a wholly separate, self-contained USB Dongle on a compatible PC - and begin installing OSX - offering updates and all. Who knew that with just a tiny lil' HARDWARE tweak, most PC's can run OSX perfectly. After all, isn't that the basic premise behind what the old Virtual PC - and now Parallels- have been doing to allow Windows to run on a Mac - emulating a PC's motherboards Bios? Seems it can work just as easily the other way.
http://www.efi-x.com/index.php?optio...nguage=english
Maybe Apple should have stayed on the old PPC platform if they wanted to make sure that OSX remains a closed loop OS - because as long as Macs continue using the very same processor as most PC's use (Intel), all one has to do is to have a OSX compatible motherboard ( with a simple EFI Patch or Dongle), without any need to directly change or "infringe" on OSX software itself and the "- OSX only on Apple Hardware" - jig is up.
Flame on MacManiacs, flame on....
And one last parting slap to all you anti-choice Apple Agro's: EFI-X USB Dongle. No fuss, no muss, no OSX software modifications. Not one hair of the "Retail" OSX install disc is disturbed, or hacked in any way. Not one line of Apple Developer's sacred code has been tampered with. Just pop in a wholly separate, self-contained USB Dongle on a compatible PC - and begin installing OSX - offering updates and all. Who knew that with just a tiny lil' HARDWARE tweak, most PC's can run OSX perfectly. After all, isn't that the basic premise behind what the old Virtual PC - and now Parallels- have been doing to allow Windows to run on a Mac - emulating a PC's motherboards Bios? Seems it can work just as easily the other way.
http://www.efi-x.com/index.php?optio...nguage=english
Maybe Apple should have stayed on the old PPC platform if they wanted to make sure that OSX stayed a closed loop OS - because as long as Macs continue using the very same processor as most PC's use (Intel), all one has to do is to have a OSX compatible motherboard ( with a simple EFI Patch or Dongle), without any need to directly change or "infringe" on OSX software itself and the "- OSX only on Apple Hardware" - jig is up.
Flame on MacManiacs, flame on....
Don't equate Psystar and PearC to EFiX. EFiX is completely legal and operating well within the confines of, at least, US law. EFiX has even shunned EFiX USA, their US-based distributed for trying to sell clones. Even EFiX knows that selling clones in the US without consent of the copyright and IP holders is illegal. So, if selling unofficial clones with unaltered OS X is illegal what do you think selling unofficial clones with altered OS X is?
You seem to have a little more than a just passing fetish for the idea of "pissing".
Okay, whatever floats your boat I'd say.
Mine, mine, mine, mine....yada, yada, yada. From the tenor of your "reply" to my post, I'm fairly sure that whatever claptrap "novels", "tools", or "software you claim to be "creating" wouldn't be worth anyones time of day to even think of infringing upon. And even if someone actually wanted to, it would probably end up improving it tenfold.
So "dictate" all you want - oh mighty "creator". Will thou bestow us with more golden liquid logic and damnable legal threats if thy would be infringing heathens do not submit to your high, holy "copyrighted"dictates?
And one last parting slap to all you anti-choice Apple Agro's: EFI-X USB Dongle. No fuss, no muss, no OSX software modifications. Not one hair of the "Retail" OSX install disc is disturbed, or hacked in any way. Not one line of Apple Developer's sacred code has been tampered with. Just pop in a wholly separate, self-contained USB Dongle on a compatible PC - and begin installing OSX - offering updates and all. Who knew that with just a tiny lil' HARDWARE tweak, most PC's can run OSX perfectly. After all, isn't that the basic premise behind what the old Virtual PC - and now Parallels- have been doing to allow Windows to run on a Mac - emulating a PC's motherboards Bios? Seems it can work just as easily the other way.
http://www.efi-x.com/index.php?optio...nguage=english
Maybe Apple should have stayed on the old PPC platform if they wanted to make sure that OSX remains a closed loop OS - because as long as Macs continue using the very same processor as most PC's use (Intel), all one has to do is to have a OSX compatible motherboard ( with a simple EFI Patch or Dongle), without any need to directly change or "infringe" on OSX software itself and the "- OSX only on Apple Hardware" - jig is up.
Flame on MacManiacs, flame on....
You have 8 posts. All of them devoid of substance. This last one of course ignores the point I referenced with FOSS and GPLv3 projects--all of which I support, within their context and original intention. If I so choose to work within a group project with the expressly written GPLv3 license then I expect my reference to be so noted under the group listing of copyrighted efforts. Group projects are enriching and everyone wins by furthering their skills, creating new friends/colleagues and more.
Third parties that come along and violate the GPLv3 by leveraging the code, modifying it and not reporting the changes back into trunk should be held in contempt of that license and rightly sued for punitive damages.
I expect my copyright of my own private works, under the expressly written license I state, to guarantee that third parties violating that boundary be held by Copyright Law boundaries. I am in my right to sue their sorry butts for spitting all over an otherwise reasonable expectation.
You have 8 posts. All of them devoid of substance. This last one of course ignores the point I referenced with FOSS and GPLv3 projects--all of which I support, within their context and original intention. If I so choose to work within a group project with the expressly written GPLv3 license then I expect my reference to be so noted under the group listing of copyrighted efforts. Group projects are enriching and everyone wins by furthering their skills, creating new friends/colleagues and more.
Third parties that come along and violate the GPLv3 by leveraging the code, modifying it and not reporting the changes back into trunk should be held in contempt of that license and rightly sued for punitive damages.
I expect my copyright of my own private works, under the expressly written license I state, to guarantee that third parties violating that boundary be held by Copyright Law boundaries. I am in my right to sue their sorry butts for spitting all over an otherwise reasonable expectation.
mdriftmeyer wrote: "You have 8 posts. All of them devoid of substance." Well, I guess you told me what's what. The only "substance" I can glean out of your poobah posting is your affinity for the expelling of bodily fluids, i.e. "pissing, or "spitting". Maybe your next ranting post will include a reference to someone farting?
Honey, you can go and sue, sue, sue to your lil' ol' hearts desire if you feel that your precious "work" has been so aggrieved, defiled, disrespected (or most likely improved in your case).
Just keep your "substances" to yourself. Trust me, nobody wants to "infringe" on them in any way. You do flatter yourself..
Third parties that come along and violate the GPLv3 by leveraging the code, modifying it and not reporting the changes back into trunk should be held in contempt of that license and rightly sued for punitive damages.
Actually there is zero requirement in GPL to submit changes upstream. The requirements for providing code is always downstream. Meaning, I can take your code, create a derivative work, sell it to someone and give them the source and never return anything to you.
Just in case someone might think GPL is more viral than it is...
mdriftmeyer wrote: "You have 8 posts. All of them devoid of substance." Well, I guess you told me what's what. The only "substance" I can glean out of your poobah posting is the expelling of bodily fluids, i.e. "pissing, or "spitting". Maybe your next ranting post will include a reference to someone farting?
Honey, you can go and sue, sue, sue to your lil' ol' hearts desire is you fell that your precious "work" has been so aggrieved, defiled, disrespected (or most likely improved in your case).
Just keep your "substances" to yourself. Trust me, nobody wants them..
What are you 10? You're almost up to your apparent age in posts. One more and you're golden.
What are you 10? You're almost up to your apparent age in posts. One more and you're golden.
How parental. Got to keep the rabble in line eh?
mdriftmeyer wrote: "You have 8 posts. All of them devoid of substance." Well, I guess you told me what's what. The only "substance" I can glean out of your poobah posting is your affinity for the expelling of bodily fluids, i.e. "pissing, or "spitting". Maybe your next ranting post will include a reference to someone farting?
Honey, you can go and sue, sue, sue to your lil' ol' hearts desire if you feel that your precious "work" has been so aggrieved, defiled, disrespected (or most likely improved in your case).
Just keep your "substances" to yourself. Trust me, nobody wants to "infringe" on them in any way. You do flatter yourself..
No, it's not and that's why you're too ignorant to understand the point the rest of us are making. You do not own software and have no right to determine its usage. You vote with your wallet, you don't force a company to adopt to your whims. You act like you're fixing some massive injustice, when the fact of the matter is that you're just the whiney, spoiled kid in the back of the class, whose having a bad day and is therefore utterly determined to ruin it for everyone else.
No, it's not and that's why you're too ignorant to understand the point the rest of us are making. You do not own software and have no right to determine its usage. You vote with your wallet, you don't force a company to adopt to your whims. You act like you're fixing some massive injustice, when the fact of the matter is that you're just the whiney, spoiled kid in the back of the class, whose having a bad day and is therefore utterly determined to ruin it for everyone else.
Oh go and hide under a rock. Your and your cohorts on this thread can continue your Apple Inc. circle- jerk, but if you think I'm a "brat", nuisance and irritant - I can't wait to see your apoplectic reactions when OSX exclusivity on Apple Only Hardware gets blown to smithereens in these next few years...Oh poor, poor Apple.
Buh Bye for now......
Oh go and hide under a rock. Your and your cohorts on this thread can continue your Apple Inc. circle- jerk, but is you think I'm a nuisance and irritant - I can't wait to see your apoplectic reactions when OSX exclusivity on Apple Only Hardware gets blown to smithereens in these next few years...
Buh Bye for now......
And you can just keep masturbating to the thought of that happening, but it never will. We hate you because your posts aren't just stupid, they are also devoid of substance. I propose a thought and you go on with your anti-Apple party line refusing to even consider the kernel of the idea we propose.
You haven't proposed one intelligent reason why OS X should be available on other hardware, you've simply complained about Apple's hardware prices and spewed alot of drivel about how courts will never uphold a EULA that they have for three decades. You're also trying desperately to justify companies that profit from the work of others as if it's their right. You use EU law, which believes imprisoning people for using a black list of words isn't a human rights violation, as if it is the be all, end of all legal authorities simply because a select group of its members (several of which have just left second world status) seem to agree with your idiocy. The body of American & Asian law is substantially more developed than its European counterpart, especially in the realm of Intellectual Property. Which isn't surprising seeing as most technological innovations have come from those two areas.
Believe me, you're opinion is wrong no matter what court your argue it under. You're the kind of person that takes the idea of socialism to help people and contorts it into a platform for forcing your own selfish desires on everyone else. No one will be apologizing to you. You can count of that.
........And one last parting slap to all you anti-choice Apple Agro's: EFI-X USB Dongle. No fuss, no muss, no OSX software modifications. Not one hair of the "Retail" OSX install disc is disturbed, or hacked in any way. Not one line of Apple Developer's sacred code has been tampered with. Just pop in a wholly separate, self-contained USB Dongle on a compatible PC - and begin installing OSX - offering updates and all. Who knew that with just a tiny lil' HARDWARE tweak, most PC's can run OSX perfectly. After all, isn't that the basic premise behind what the old Virtual PC - and now Parallels- have been doing to allow Windows to run on a Mac - emulating a PC's motherboards Bios? Seems it can work just as easily the other way.
http://www.efi-x.com/index.php?optio...nguage=english
Maybe Apple should have stayed on the old PPC platform if they wanted to make sure that OSX remains a closed loop OS - because as long as Macs continue using the very same processor as most PC's use (Intel), all one has to do is to have a OSX compatible motherboard ( with a simple EFI Patch or Dongle), without any need to directly change or "infringe" on OSX software itself and the "- OSX only on Apple Hardware" - jig is up.
Flame on MacManiacs, flame on....
You still don't get it. When you run Windows in Parallels or any "virtual" machine, you still need have a "full" version (license) of Windows before you can use any upgrade version. OSX is an "upgrade" version and thus can not be installed on a blank PC without a prior license. Thus the dongle is abetting in copyright infringement. It doesn't matter if none of the codes on a retail box of OSX is tampered with. The license for the retail OSX requires a previous license before you are entitle to use it.
It's like if you were to take a Beatles song and copy it whole, without altering a note, on to your own music CD. Or use some one elses copyrighted photo in your book. And you plan to market them for profit. You will still be guilty of copyright infringement. You had no right to use some one elses copyrighted work (parts of or whole) in a manner that the copyright owner doesn't want it to be used. You are protected some what by "fair use" for "personal use" only. Virtually no use for commercial profit falls under "fair use" or "personal use".