OSX on sub notebook (MSI wind) - Page 4

keef247 · 07-08-2008, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by Agent

Keef, you're missing what the TheAnimus is saying. He has it spot on.

If Apple said they own your first born by installing OSX, would it be legal?

that's a bit over the top. as for cutting off hands again over the top.

I mean within reason... for example then so you'd download stuff if it wasn't a crime yet over here but was illegal somewhere else... course you would but don't you think if its for sale over here that's for a reason?
I mean just because you could download it without legal problems doesn't mean it wouldn't not be illegal does it. It just means we haven't got the law to prosecute you yet.

that's crazy... your condoning piracy with a "if you won't get caught its ok" attitude...

no-one has provide proof of a UK source stating the legalities the mac EULA vs the US one...

Gunbuster · 07-08-2008, 01:17 PM

Keef I think you have your points mixed up.

- Dubiousness of OS X's EULA illegality/legality. Fine I agree, but that is also why it should be tested.
- Piracy, If I buy a copy of OS X from John Lewis in a box right now and install it on non-Apple hardware that isn't piracy it's EULA violation and possibly a DMCA issue, but this is like you say the UK not the US.

Apple benefited quite nicely from from plainly illegal action in the form of ripping CDs for use with iPods for many years until the law changed. That law was passed by the UK goverment. The EULA you get from Apple was drafted by Apple and without being legaly tested we just don't know 100% that it right or wrong.

In the US they prohibit tying. This is to stop say Ford only allowing Ford Tyres or Ford Radios in their cars. Now in the case of the Radios, sure they can go non-standard with the connectors and the dimensions, but there is no EULA saying you can't buy an adapter for normal headunits.

Software EULAs are something in general need to be legally tested in my opinion as they just seem to be a means of the publisher making up what ever the hell conditions they want regardless of consumer rights.

dangel · 07-08-2008, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by Steve B

Apple make significantly less money on software than they do on hardware though, so there's absolutely no benefit in opening up their operating system.

That's a hard point to substantiate isn't it? I mean, how do you know what their margins are and what they would be should they sell 5 billion copies of OSX versus a couple of million macs? Plus all their other revenue streams (which probably prop up Apple MORE right now anyway). Remember i'm talking about just the mac - not the massive revenue from the iPod, the growing iPhone and the 'software'' revenue from iTunes. My arguement was that Apple isn't all about mac anymore - and that without mac hardware I really can't see them "up the creek" accordingly.

Originally Posted by Steve B

MS don't make the hardware though, so don't have much control over the quality of components put into people's systems.

Well they do - but I think you mean literal components rather than peripherals. Apple don't really do that anymore either - macs are mostly off the shelf bits (ignoring the case/mb) aren't they? I'm not convinced there's more 'quality' as a result - perception of maybe (and shiny box does go a long way) - moreover the 'quality' is a result of the closed, limited hardware platform. Of course that's not all pluses.

Originally Posted by Steve B

Agreed to some extent. The drivers will be higher quality, yes, but that doesn't mean they'll be better drivers. Video drivers for Windows machines are much more well developed, I suppose this could be to do with Direct X but I don't know much about that.

It means you don't have thousands of crappy drivers destabalising your platform (aka Windows). Why do you think MS bit the bullet with user mode drivers for Vista?

Originally Posted by Steve B

Do you think you prefer Apple running a very tight ship with lots of control?

Apparently so - as I said (twice) it's their business model..

aidanjt · 07-08-2008, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by keef247

that's a bit over the top. as for cutting off hands again over the top.

Not at all, you can't apply two standards of logic on two identical issues. I purposely picked an extreme example to demonstrate how braindead this idea is.

Originally Posted by keef247

I mean within reason... for example then so you'd download stuff if it wasn't a crime yet over here but was illegal somewhere else... course you would but don't you think if its for sale over here that's for a reason?

Nobody is talking about downloading OS X, the argument is void. And even at that, the media is not at issue, it's the license terms, what defines the copyright.

Originally Posted by keef247

I mean just because you could download it without legal problems doesn't mean it wouldn't not be illegal does it. It just means we haven't got the law to prosecute you yet.

That makes no sense at all, in one hand you're arguing that if it's legal here to download copyright material then it's actually illegal but nobody bothered to pass a law for it? If something is not illegal or no law exists for a particular act, it's not illegal, no ifs, buts, or maybes.

Originally Posted by keef247

that's crazy... your condoning piracy with a "if you won't get caught its ok" attitude...

Nobody here is condoning piracy. Personally, I'm condeming the rediculous assumption that EULAs are the law written in stone, and nothing could be further from the truth. If someone has purchased a license to use a peice of software they purchased, nobody has any business telling them what they can, or cannot install it on. It would be akin to buying a painting, with conditions that it may only be mounted on a north facing wall. It's unreasonable, anti-competitive, and against fair play in the context of software.

If the company doesn't want to support the software installed on a given platform that's fine, but purposely crippling the software so it doesn't run on generic hardware is wrong, and rambling off pesudo-legalities when there's no legal presidence for it's legality is even more wrong, dishonest at best.

Originally Posted by keef247

no-one has provide proof of a UK source stating the legalities the mac EULA vs the US one...

I think you're missing the point of law and how it ties in to copyright agreements, the purpose of the courts is to argue disputes in matters of law, if someone breaches an agreement or violates a law, it's up to the prosecuting party to prove that a particular section of the agreement is legally valid and reasonable, and in defence the defending party can argue presidences of similar issues and/or cite articles of laws which may dismiss the prosecuting parties claims and that they were within their rights to do as they did. The onus is on you to prove that it's illegal in the United Kingdom (the US is irrelivent for the purposes of this debate). Further more, my brief glimpse at copyright legislation already reveled two exemptions that allow an individual to ignore licensing terms for undisclosed periods of time.

The assumption of guilty until proven innocent is everything that's wrong with the world today, it violates human rights, and robs people of their freedom. This is especially the case when people assume that companies can make up arbitrary laws on a whim.

peterb · 07-08-2008, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by aidanjt

=====snip=====

Personally, I'm condeming the rediculous assumption that EULAs are the law written in stone, and nothing could be further from the truth. If someone has purchased a license to use a peice of software they purchased, nobody has any business telling them what they can, or cannot install it on. It would be akin to buying a painting, with conditions that it may only be mounted on a north facing wall. It's unreasonable, anti-competitive, and against fair play in the context of software.

=======snip=====

I don't have a problem with that - but now apply that to an MS OEM lEULA. I install it on a machine I built - then a year later I scrap the machine. According to the EULA, the licence dies with it - but if you apply the quoted argument, I could go ahead and install it on another machine. It isn't being installed or used on two machines at the same time.

Apple say I can only install their software on apple hardware;

MS say I can only install on one machine - ever;

Same type of restriction. They are either both valid, or both invalid.

keef247 · 07-08-2008, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by aidanjt

Not at all, you can't apply two standards of logic on two identical issues. I purposely picked an extreme example to demonstrate how braindead this idea is.

Nobody is talking about downloading OS X, the argument is void. And even at that, the media is not at issue, it's the license terms, what defines the copyright.

That makes no sense at all, in one hand you're arguing that if it's legal here to download copyright material then it's actually illegal but nobody bothered to pass a law for it? If something is not illegal or no law exists for a particular act, it's not illegal, no ifs, buts, or maybes.

Nobody here is condoning piracy. Personally, I'm condeming the rediculous assumption that EULAs are the law written in stone, and nothing could be further from the truth. If someone has purchased a license to use a peice of software they purchased, nobody has any business telling them what they can, or cannot install it on. It would be akin to buying a painting, with conditions that it may only be mounted on a north facing wall. It's unreasonable, anti-competitive, and against fair play in the context of software.

If the company doesn't want to support the software installed on a given platform that's fine, but purposely crippling the software so it doesn't run on generic hardware is wrong, and rambling off pesudo-legalities when there's no legal presidence for it's legality is even more wrong, dishonest at best.

I think you're missing the point of law and how it ties in to copyright agreements, the purpose of the courts is to argue disputes in matters of law, if someone breaches an agreement or violates a law, it's up to the prosecuting party to prove that a particular section of the agreement is legally valid and reasonable, and in defence the defending party can argue presidences of similar issues and/or cite articles of laws which may dismiss the prosecuting parties claims and that they were within their rights to do as they did. The onus is on you to prove that it's illegal in the United Kingdom (the US is irrelivent for the purposes of this debate). Further more, my brief glimpse at copyright legislation already reveled two exemptions that allow an individual to ignore licensing terms for undisclosed periods of time.

The assumption of guilty until proven innocent is everything that's wrong with the world today, it violates human rights, and robs people of their freedom. This is especially the case when people assume that companies can make up arbitrary laws on a whim.

your crazy.

buying a painting is a bit different... because a painting doesn't require any other components to be what it is or to be "used" if you like how it was intended...

where as a piece of software has requirements and rules and regulations... the license you pay for requires you to use it ON a mac. END of story. there are no ifs or buts as you say.
I don't remember reading "so you've paid money for this well done! now go mess about using it on unsupported hardware and break the license agreement aka rendering your copy illegitimate" I think NOT.

it is NOT windows jesus.

besides running it on anything other than a mac requires patching and modifying the distribution and what a surprise that breaks the license rendering your legit copy of os x as useless as a pirated one.

its about as stupid as buying a legit copy of windows and then putting a illegal serial code in and using it as if it was legit.

i love how you mentioned how it doesn't matter if you buy it or pirate it as well lmao. sounds like you don't buy much software tbh...

you said

If someone has purchased a license to use a piece of software they purchased, nobody has any business telling them what they can, or cannot install it on.

do you not know that when you purchase the software your agreeing to terms of its use

Gunbuster · 07-08-2008, 05:30 PM

Two points on those two EULAs.

- Tying a single copy of software to a single system is different to tying all copies to one make of hardware.
- Microsoft offer multiple licenses; OEM, Upgrade and Retail. Apple does not. If you need an untyed license buy a different one. Apple offer one.

Gunbuster · 07-08-2008, 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by keef247

do you not know that when you purchase the software your agreeing to terms of its use

How do I know the exact terms of use untill I buy it? so if I agree to the terms of use without seeing them is that even legal?

Also just because someone wrote terms of use does not make them legal.

For example if terms of use stated I must give up a right that it is illegal to give up or do something that is illegal and I ignore the terms of use am I acting illegally or is it the terms that are?

It might fully be the case that the Apple EULA is 100% legal, then fine cool I'd be in the wrong if I broke it. The question is then is it? I get the feeling with a lot of these EULAs the only reason they get away with saying the things they do is that no body wants to test them and that they wouldn't want to either in case it blew up in their face.

peterb · 07-08-2008, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by Gunbuster

Two points on those two EULAs.

- Tying a single copy of software to a single system is different to tying all copies to one make of hardware.
- Microsoft offer multiple licenses; OEM, Upgrade and Retail. Apple does not. If you need an untyed license buy a different one. Apple offer one.

So you are saying that because Apple chooses not to make alternative licences available, you are free to break the terms and conditions of the one they do sell?

Gunbuster · 07-08-2008, 09:17 PM

Originally Posted by peterb

So you are saying that because Apple chooses not to make alternative licences available, you are free to break the terms and conditions of the one they do sell?

No I am saying these are two key points of difference.

I realise I am not making my position very clear. I am not say I believe that breaking the Apple EULA is guaranteed legal. What I am saying is I am unconvinced that it is legal for it to be tyed down in this way. I guess a two wrongs don't make a right situation.

This is why Apple has only gone after companies breaking the EULA, not individuals. As making money from helping people break a license is different to a private individual making that choice themselves. To be honest I think Apple have greater legal weight now they are on x86. On PPC they had a monopoly of driver writers and other developers. You could say were the monopoly on PPC based desktops. Now on x86 you are in a different kettle of fish. However they can't now claim that the hardware used to run the software infringes on their patents as frankly the whole x86 based PC market would have to stop. Really the big difference is that Mac's use EFI and the rest use BIOS. It's starting to feel more like DVD region locking than illegally cloning say a whole game console.

Anyway I have had enough of this. I would encourage to everyone to stay within the bounds of UK law including Apple.

TheAnimus · 07-08-2008, 11:30 PM

Originally Posted by keef247

that's a bit over the top. as for cutting off hands again over the top.

I mean within reason... for example then so you'd download stuff if it wasn't a crime yet over here but was illegal somewhere else... course you would but don't you think if its for sale over here that's for a reason?
I mean just because you could download it without legal problems doesn't mean it wouldn't not be illegal does it. It just means we haven't got the law to prosecute you yet.

that's crazy... your condoning piracy with a "if you won't get caught its ok" attitude...

no-one has provide proof of a UK source stating the legalities the mac EULA vs the US one...

Ok think of it this way, i put in one of my EULAs (which obviously i don't write myself been a dev monkey) if you use this for more than 20 hours a day, i get to own your sister.

Its in the EULA, it must be law? No because its unfair and an illegal practice.

Ok, lets say in small print, after selling the product i say if you use it for more than 20 hours a day, you owe me 100x the original sale price.

again, its in the EULA, is it law? Hell no, its an unfair contract.

So, putting something in your EULA dosen't make it law, don't know how much more simply i can put it!

TheAnimus · 07-08-2008, 11:39 PM

Originally Posted by Steve B

Apple make significantly less money on software than they do on hardware though, so there's absolutely no benefit in opening up their operating system.

MS don't make the hardware though, so don't have much control over the quality of components put into people's systems.

Agreed to some extent. The drivers will be higher quality, yes, but that doesn't mean they'll be better drivers. Video drivers for Windows machines are much more well developed, I suppose this could be to do with Direct X but I don't know much about that.

Do you think you prefer Apple running a very tight ship with lots of control?

I really fail to see how this is pertinant to the original idea that it would be anti-competitive to enforce, needlessly your hardware for the OS.

I'm also guessing that your not an analyist. Apple's share inflation of late is largely due to iPod and iPhone, the hardware sales of apple computers is really little. Given that by far the biggest players in this game are software houses its interesting that apple insist on not directly competing with MS.

And it might not be because its an inferior product, it might simply be a case of rather going for the little niches.

Either way, my original comments are from a developer, not a users, point of view about the company. They really don't offer anything like as much as any other vendor out there. They also seam to play dog in a manger like sun used to during the late 90s....... But this is way off.

Steve B · 08-08-2008, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by TheAnimus

I really fail to see how this is pertinant to the original idea that it would be anti-competitive to enforce, needlessly your hardware for the OS.

How is it not pertinent? Microsoft allow windows to be installed on a large range of hardware, which reduces the amount of control they have over that hardware. Apple control exactly what hardware goes into the computer, so why then, should they not have control of the software that goes with it?

I'm also guessing that your not an analyist. Apple's share inflation of late is largely due to iPod and iPhone, the hardware sales of apple computers is really little. Given that by far the biggest players in this game are software houses its interesting that apple insist on not directly competing with MS.

Are you an analyst? I never made any comparisons between sales of computers and sales of iPods and iPhones. I said that apple make more money on hardware than they do on software.

And it might not be because its an inferior product, it might simply be a case of rather going for the little niches. Either way, my original comments are from a developer, not a users, point of view about the company. They really don't offer anything like as much as any other vendor out there. They also seam to play dog in a manger like sun used to during the late 90s....... But this is way off.

That's a subjective view. I think they offer more than other vendors out there.