Psystar Not Closing Up Shop 439
Posted
by
ScuttleMonkey
from the but-i-don't-want-to-go-on-the-cart dept.
from the but-i-don't-want-to-go-on-the-cart dept.
Despite several sources reporting that post-indefinite-injunction Psystar was closing their doors for good, the company's lawyer is claiming Psystar plans on going forward with PC sales — they just won't be pre-loaded with Apple's OS X. Psystar plans on selling systems pre-loaded with "other operating systems," including Windows, as well as selling their "Rebel EFI software" that allows consumers to load OS X on generic PCs.
Re:Monopoly or not. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Monopoly or not. (Score:5, Informative)
You can buy a copy of Apple's OS independent of its hardware. It's not like it only ships pre-installed on Apple machines.
Is the copy that a consumer can purchase independent of Apple hardware a full license or is it only an upgrade license? Apple doesn't put too many restrictions at installation time to make it seem like it's an upgrade but they can certainly make an argument that all boxed copies of its software are upgrades. If that's vague, then all they have to do is change the packaging to make it clearer. Such a change would have no impact on the customer experience. Then the argument that you can buy a full license of Apple's OS independent of its hardware goes out the window.
In fact, here's the page from Apple [apple.com] on their online store. If you kindly click on the link that says "Find out which version you're using" you'll discover that there are two options for upgrade: from Leopard or from Tiger. I've looked all over their online store and couldn't find a full license of Snow Leopard sold anywhere that didn't require the consumer to own a previous version of OS X.
Perhaps you can show me where you are able to find a full license of OS X that is not an upgrade.
Re:Monopoly or not. (Score:5, Informative)
So, if I acquire a piece of open source software, I should be able to use it however I want?
Yes, you should. Key word there being -use- and there is a difference between use and redistribute.
That would mean that any company could ignore the GPL.
The GPL gives you the complete freedom to use a program how you see fit.
The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
Heck, the GPL lets you modify source within a corporation
No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders.
from the GPL FAQs
The GPL only restricts what you can do with A) a modified program or B) when you redistribute the program. The Apple license restricts what you can do -with- the program which is a whole lot more than just saying what you can do to redistribute or modify the program.
Re:Monopoly or not. (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, no you can't. Even today that the Mac hardware is paid for and not given away with the OS like the previous poster suggested, the EULA states plainly that if you do not accept the EULA and that the software product shipped pre-installed on the computer, you must return the whole package to Apple (quoted directly from the OS X license agreement) :
FOR APPLE SOFTWARE INCLUDED WITH YOUR PURCHASE OF HARDWARE, YOU MUST RETURN THE ENTIRE HARDWARE/SOFTWARE PACKAGE IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A REFUND.
http://www.apple.com/legal/sla [apple.com]
Well...this is awkward (Score:2, Informative)
Re:They are playing a dangerous game (Score:3, Informative)
Rebel EFI is already open source. It's not because Psystar doesn't respect the APSL that it isn't. They stole the code for it from the OSX86 community :
http://netkas.org/?p=299 [netkas.org]
Re:Monopoly or not. (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, because by making IE part of Windows, Microsoft was abusing their monopoly in the operating system market to get another monopoly in the browser market. And to make matters even worse, Microsoft created their own "standards" on how HTML, CSS and Javascript functions in their browser, so websites created for IE would not work properly in other browsers.
Abusing your monopoly is anti-competitive. Including one product with another is not.
Re:Monopoly or not. (Score:5, Informative)
Notice how apple is only going after pystar, not the homebrew hackintosh community.
Apple doesn't give a shit if you install OSX on a Dell. Apple only cares if you install it on a hundred dells and sell them as "OS X" computers.
notice the difference. if you want a hackintosh go ahead and do it. just don't do it for a profit.
Good luck with that (Score:3, Informative)
From the ruling:
"Rebel EFI will not be expressly excluded from the terms of the injunction. It should be clear, however, that this ruling is without prejudice to Psystar bringing a new motion before the undersigned that includes real details about Rebel EFI, and opening itself up to formal discovery thereon. This would serve the purpose--akin to a post-injunction motion vetting a 'design-around' in a patent action--of potentially vetting (or not vetting) a product like Rebel EFI under this order's decree.
"Moreover, Psystar may raise in such a motion any defenses it believes should apply to the factual circumstances of its new product, such as the 17 U.S.C. 117 defense raised in its opposition and at oral argument. Whether such a defense would be successful on the merits, or face preclusion or other hurdles, this order cannot predict. What is certain, however, is that until such a motion is brought, Psystar will be selling Rebel EFI at its peril, and risks finding itself held in contempt if its new venture falls within the scope of the injunction."
So the judge already has Psystar in the crosshairs if it continues to sell Rebel_EFI as it currently stands.
Yes! (Score:2, Informative)
So, if I acquire a piece of open source software, I should be able to use it however I want?
Yes, that is correct. GPL permits you to use GPL software however you want. Only if you choose to MODIFY AND DISTRIBUTE must you adhere to the rules of making available the source code with your changes.
Re:Monopoly or not. (Score:4, Informative)
Tying is the practice of making the sale of one good (the tying good) to the de facto or de jure customer conditional on the purchase of a second distinctive good (the tied good). It is often illegal when the products are not naturally related
I think it would be hard to argue that a computer and an operating system are not naturally related. Maybe you need to rethink your source material.
Re:Monopoly or not. (Score:4, Informative)
All of this is completely irrelevant. The parent post is correct. Whether one likes Apple or not, they are within their rights to sell whatever they want with whatever restrictions on it they choose. The hardware does not have to be unique, it just has to be sold as a single package. A refrigerator if you will It only becomes anti-competitive when they tell me I can only use it to access the Apple Website. Even that they could do as long as they made it clear that was all it did. Whether the consumer buys what they choose to sell is consumer choice. The difference with Microsoft, and the reason they got into trouble, was because they did not own the PC. The PC was designed to run whatever system you wanted, and they took steps to block that capability. Microsoft could just as well sell a standard PC with a Microsoft logo on it and forbid you to boot anything but Windows on it. The problem is they then have to compete in a commodity market. A problem Apple does not have.
Re:Yes! (Score:3, Informative)
In the same way that Psystar modified and redistributed OS/X in a manner inconsistent with the license?
Re:Monopoly or not. (Score:5, Informative)
the software creator/owner gets to choose the terms under which the software may be used
This is not the case. Nor should it be. The software creator/owner gets to choose how the software is redistributed.
As a software developer, I have no legal right to prevent you from using my code for evil purposes for instance. But I can define limitations for redistribution, which is what apple did. Apple can't legally prevent people from installing osx on a dell, but they have all the legal rights to prevent someone from selling osx in a fashion that they don't agree to.
In terms of use... I have the right to not sell you the software, if I believe that you will use it for evil. But if you buy it, you can do whatever the hell you want with it for your own use. As soon as distribution is involved, the license/eula applies.
Re:Monopoly or not. (Score:2, Informative)
Evidently even bigots get moderator points occasionally.
Re:Monopoly or not. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Monopoly or not. (Score:3, Informative)
All of the code I complied (both written by me or by others) that used the vector keyword made it through the GCC unscathed and actually functioned. I also recall seeing it specifically spelled out in the engineering manual as being there.
Oh, wait, I have RTFM. Have you?
Re:Send Free OS X with each computer? (Score:3, Informative)
4. Manufacturing, importing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to plaintiff's copyrighted Mac OS X software, including, but not limited to, the technological measure used by Apple to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers;
5. Manufacturing, importing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively protects the rights held by plaintiff under the Copyright Act with respect to its copyrighted Mac OS X software.
Re:Monopoly or not. (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, Apple doesn't have the right to determine what it is you do with the product after you buy it, so long as you don't produce more copies of it than you've bought.
But you can't buy a standalone versions of it. They're all upgrades. They might not enforce it, but that doesn't change it. The pricing varies too (e.g. look at Snow Leopard pricing), but even that doesn't change the fact that they're all upgrades and part of a total package.
Re:Monopoly or not. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Mod Parent Up! (Score:3, Informative)
Gentlemen, start your hairsplitters: (Score:3, Informative)
Its very, very pedantic, but I think its true that while the GPL2 didn't even give lip service to the idea that you might need a license to run the software, GPL3 tries to fix that for those of us in countries which don't have the US's somewhat enlightened* laws on fair use and the right to run software and make backups. The practical upshot is that, by acknowledging this, the GPL3 becomes a "use" license - albeit one where the terms of use are "do what you will".
This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program.
...
You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force.
(GPL3)
The second part could (if you feel argumentative) suggest that if you lose your GPL license (e.g. by breaking the distribution terms) you also lose your license to run the program.
The GPL 2, however just says:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted,
,,,which is somewhat self-contradictory but avoids implying that you need a license to run the program or that violating the GPL removes your right to run the software.
Yes folks, we're splitting hairs into quarters here...
I think that's the real concern with GPL3 - that by trying to "fix everything" it might have unintended consequences that, at the least, can be used to generate FUD.