Well, I guess that's a bit weird anyhow, 'rereleasing software with a different license', this means that the software/source which was already out there isn't subject to the same license (they should have thought of that before the released the software/source).. Otherwise it would also be possible to just change the license completely to having to pay for it, so that would mean anyone who already was using it should have to pay, that's something that wouldn't hold up in court..
True enough, but then all Apple need to do is make a slight change to the EFI, Netkas can modify his and all previous hackintosh's are rendered useless/nonupgradeable until they install his new EFI with the non commercial agreement.
Where's the claim that they're selling the software?
Are you saying that it is unacceptable to charge money for the service of installing free software and making sure it works on purchased hardware? If so, you better tell Redhat and all of the other companies and I.T. pros making money by selling services around free software.
That would have to be proven in court. It is pretty hard to prove "selling code" vs. "paying someone for their time to install free code because the customer isn't savvy enough to do it themselves".
I'm not a lawyer, but I am a code contributor to several open source projects. I haven't seen the licenses in question, but I know I wouldn't bother to attack a company that was selling machines with my code on it. If I wanted to restrict people from using my code, I wouldn't be contributing to open source projects in the first place...I'd use a license key or a dongle like everyone else. "Restrict" and "open" don't really go together, do they?
that's my question as well... at no point do they offer to sell you someone else's code. From what I see, they are not even charging for their service. So from what I can tell, it's no different than asking a friend to install it for you.
I'm always amused when people that release free software get offended when someone or some company uses it in a way they don't agree with. If you don't want people to use it then don't release the source. It would be interesting to know what license (if any) Netkas' source code was originally released under.
Given that he had to re-release under a non-commercial license this suggests that the original license does allow Psystar to do what they claim to be doing. I'd really like to know what the original license was, my guess is some version of the BSD license (since the new license is similar to the BSD license). If so they could do pretty much anything they want with it, including sell it. They wouldn't even have to tell anyone they're using it aside from some mention of it in the computer's documentation.
If you don't want people to use your code in ways that you don't agree with then don't release the damn source code. And if you do you'd better be sure that the license you release it under only allows people to use it in ways in which you agree with. Otherwise just STFU and let people use it how they want.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Selling on OSx86 for commercial gain is no different than selling pirated software for commercial gain.
I'm glad Netkas has re-released his software under a non commercial licensing agreement, hopefully everyone else will too.
Well, I guess that's a bit weird anyhow, 'rereleasing software with a different license', this means that the software/source which was already out there isn't subject to the same license (they should have thought of that before the released the software/source).. Otherwise it would also be possible to just change the license completely to having to pay for it, so that would mean anyone who already was using it should have to pay, that's something that wouldn't hold up in court..
True enough, but then all Apple need to do is make a slight change to the EFI, Netkas can modify his and all previous hackintosh's are rendered useless/nonupgradeable until they install his new EFI with the non commercial agreement.
Where's the claim that they're selling the software?
Are you saying that it is unacceptable to charge money for the service of installing free software and making sure it works on purchased hardware? If so, you better tell Redhat and all of the other companies and I.T. pros making money by selling services around free software.
Free and non commercial are not the same thing.
Using Netkas' EFI hack is the only way to get OS X running the vanilla kernel on Intel hardware.
That's the software they're selling and they have no right to do so.
That would have to be proven in court. It is pretty hard to prove "selling code" vs. "paying someone for their time to install free code because the customer isn't savvy enough to do it themselves".
I'm not a lawyer, but I am a code contributor to several open source projects. I haven't seen the licenses in question, but I know I wouldn't bother to attack a company that was selling machines with my code on it. If I wanted to restrict people from using my code, I wouldn't be contributing to open source projects in the first place...I'd use a license key or a dongle like everyone else. "Restrict" and "open" don't really go together, do they?
that's my question as well... at no point do they offer to sell you someone else's code. From what I see, they are not even charging for their service. So from what I can tell, it's no different than asking a friend to install it for you.
I'm always amused when people that release free software get offended when someone or some company uses it in a way they don't agree with. If you don't want people to use it then don't release the source. It would be interesting to know what license (if any) Netkas' source code was originally released under.
Given that he had to re-release under a non-commercial license this suggests that the original license does allow Psystar to do what they claim to be doing. I'd really like to know what the original license was, my guess is some version of the BSD license (since the new license is similar to the BSD license). If so they could do pretty much anything they want with it, including sell it. They wouldn't even have to tell anyone they're using it aside from some mention of it in the computer's documentation.
If you don't want people to use your code in ways that you don't agree with then don't release the damn source code. And if you do you'd better be sure that the license you release it under only allows people to use it in ways in which you agree with. Otherwise just STFU and let people use it how they want.