I don't even get why this is a copyright violation? They're not selling OS X as their own. They're not calling it Psystar OSX. they are simply installing it on a machine other than an apple. Does the copyright state that you can legally only install OSX on a Mac? What if Microsoft did the same petty whiney baby stuff and banned all those dual booting mac people. Apple get off your high horse and quit whining.
That's a good point and the reason why Microsoft has such a large market share to begin. If you can install their software on your machine, go ahead and do it. If it doesn't work, then it's your fault.
If Psystar can get OSX to run well on a no-Apple product, more power to them. Apple is still selling software licenses.
I hope Microsoft does that now, so Apple supporters can feel the same they dish out, although I suspect they can dish it out but can't take it. So they will whine and claim how it violates their rights on owning hardware and being able to install whatever OS they want on it.. the irony would be fun to watch.
3. Transfer. You may not rent, lease, lend, redistribute or sublicense the Apple Software. Subject to the restrictions set forth below, you may, however, make a one-time permanent transfer of all of your license rights to the Apple Software (in its original form as provided by Apple) to another party, provided that: (a) the transfer must include all of the Apple Software, including all its component parts (excluding Apple Boot ROM code and firmware), original media, printed materials and this License; (b) you do not retain any copies of the Apple Software, full or partial, including copies stored on a computer or other storage device; and (c) the party receiving the Apple Software reads and agrees to accept the terms and conditions of this License. You may not rent, lease, lend, redistribute, sublicense or transfer any Apple Software that has been modified or replaced under Section 2D above. All components of the Apple Software are provided as part of a bundle and may not be separated from the bundle and distributed as standalone applications. Apple Software provided with a particular Apple-labeled hardware product may not run on other models of Apple-labeled hardware.
Apple has never been much of a software company, they don't make much money on OS X software licences, they make the money on the machines. If that changes, then Apple will have to completely restructure how they sell OS X, namely price increase and product keys.
Just because something is in a EULA does not make it legal. If the EULA said you had to give your first born child to Apple upon installing OS X does not mean it would be legal.
EULA stands for End User License Agreement. This agreement applies to End user, and Psystar was just distributing the product to consumers, the end users.
they are using the Apple trademark on MacOS to sell the machines. that is issue number one.
and the second is that even though they don't call it the PsystarOS, they still illegally hacked the software to make it work on their machines and in effect created a new software, stolen from the non open source portions of the MacOS.
No the copyright does not say that. The EULA says it. The EULA is not the copyright. The only rights afforded by a copyright are those that are spelled out by law.
I'd like to see Psystar prevail on this, even if it has to go to the Supreme Court, so that we can finally be rid of the silly notion of "You don't actually own a copy of the software, you only have a license to use a copy of the software" and our rights will be what the law says, not what the seller says.
Well said, Wilford. The question then is, "Does the EULA serve as an extension of the copyright holder's rights (for restricted use) to the user, and to what extent is it reasonable to restrict the license that is being sold?" (For now, I reserve my contention that the entire business of selling licenses to use information is a shameful, tragic joke)
I believe the rulings until now are far outside the bounds of reason.
Accepting an illegal license doesn't make it any more legal. In Darknerd's example of Apple requiring your first born to install OSX, there is surely some MacHead somewhere who would agree to such a term, but it would still be completely illegal and void.
@ lucas "they are using the Apple trademark on MacOS to sell the machines"
Apple's trademark claim is one of the weakest trademark claims I've ever heard of. You are allowed to use a trademark for informational purposes, so long as it isn't trademark infringement. Psystar isn't even using MacOS as a trademark (it would have to call its product Psystar MacOS" or something similar to do that. They are just saying "our computer runs MacOS," which is factually true. It's similar to Pepsi being allowed to say "We're better than Coca-Cola" or "78 out of 100 people couldn't tell the difference between our product and Coca-Cola." Yes, they are using the Coca-Cola trademark to sell their soda, but it still isn't trademark infringement.
I will admit that your "modified software" point is interesting, albeit possibly not valid either.
Following the commercial success (and technical disappointment) of the original Wildfire -- which featured a miserly 528MHz CPU and QVGA display -- HTC has returned with the Wildfire S.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
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.
I don't even get why this is a copyright violation? They're not selling OS X as their own. They're not calling it Psystar OSX. they are simply installing it on a machine other than an apple. Does the copyright state that you can legally only install OSX on a Mac? What if Microsoft did the same petty whiney baby stuff and banned all those dual booting mac people. Apple get off your high horse and quit whining.
Yes, it basically says exactly that.
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf
That's a good point and the reason why Microsoft has such a large market share to begin. If you can install their software on your machine, go ahead and do it. If it doesn't work, then it's your fault.
If Psystar can get OSX to run well on a no-Apple product, more power to them. Apple is still selling software licenses.
I hope Microsoft does that now, so Apple supporters can feel the same they dish out, although I suspect they can dish it out but can't take it. So they will whine and claim how it violates their rights on owning hardware and being able to install whatever OS they want on it.. the irony would be fun to watch.
From the EULA:
3. Transfer. You may not rent, lease, lend, redistribute or sublicense the Apple Software. Subject to the restrictions set forth below, you may, however, make a one-time
permanent transfer of all of your license rights to the Apple Software (in its original form as provided by Apple) to another party, provided that: (a) the transfer must
include all of the Apple Software, including all its component parts (excluding Apple Boot ROM code and firmware), original media, printed materials and this License; (b)
you do not retain any copies of the Apple Software, full or partial, including copies stored on a computer or other storage device; and (c) the party receiving the Apple
Software reads and agrees to accept the terms and conditions of this License. You may not rent, lease, lend, redistribute, sublicense or transfer any Apple Software that
has been modified or replaced under Section 2D above. All components of the Apple Software are provided as part of a bundle and may not be separated from the bundle
and distributed as standalone applications. Apple Software provided with a particular Apple-labeled hardware product may not run on other models of Apple-labeled
hardware.
Apple has never been much of a software company, they don't make much money on OS X software licences, they make the money on the machines. If that changes, then Apple will have to completely restructure how they sell OS X, namely price increase and product keys.
@MadMike
Just because something is in a EULA does not make it legal. If the EULA said you had to give your first born child to Apple upon installing OS X does not mean it would be legal.
@darknerd
yeah, but you're not required to accept the license. Psystar is choosing to accept the license. And they're also choosing to go against the license.
EULA stands for End User License Agreement. This agreement applies to End user, and Psystar was just distributing the product to consumers, the end users.
Jump off the high horse Apple!
they are using the Apple trademark on MacOS to sell the machines. that is issue number one.
and the second is that even though they don't call it the PsystarOS, they still illegally hacked the software to make it work on their machines and in effect created a new software, stolen from the non open source portions of the MacOS.
"Yes, it basically says exactly that."
No the copyright does not say that. The EULA says it. The EULA is not the copyright. The only rights afforded by a copyright are those that are spelled out by law.
I'd like to see Psystar prevail on this, even if it has to go to the Supreme Court, so that we can finally be rid of the silly notion of "You don't actually own a copy of the software, you only have a license to use a copy of the software" and our rights will be what the law says, not what the seller says.
Well said, Wilford. The question then is, "Does the EULA serve as an extension of the copyright holder's rights (for restricted use) to the user, and to what extent is it reasonable to restrict the license that is being sold?" (For now, I reserve my contention that the entire business of selling licenses to use information is a shameful, tragic joke)
I believe the rulings until now are far outside the bounds of reason.
@ Alex
Accepting an illegal license doesn't make it any more legal. In Darknerd's example of Apple requiring your first born to install OSX, there is surely some MacHead somewhere who would agree to such a term, but it would still be completely illegal and void.
@ lucas "they are using the Apple trademark on MacOS to sell the machines"
Apple's trademark claim is one of the weakest trademark claims I've ever heard of. You are allowed to use a trademark for informational purposes, so long as it isn't trademark infringement. Psystar isn't even using MacOS as a trademark (it would have to call its product Psystar MacOS" or something similar to do that. They are just saying "our computer runs MacOS," which is factually true. It's similar to Pepsi being allowed to say "We're better than Coca-Cola" or "78 out of 100 people couldn't tell the difference between our product and Coca-Cola." Yes, they are using the Coca-Cola trademark to sell their soda, but it still isn't trademark infringement.
I will admit that your "modified software" point is interesting, albeit possibly not valid either.