Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Man.. OS X must be really giving Gates fits.

Man.. OS X must be really giving Gates fits. (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Kevin  (op)
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2007, 02:07 PM
 
ANd then when they go to run software update, they are screwed.
     
mdc
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NY²
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2007, 02:11 PM
 
Hacked OS X running on a PC can't use software update?

I have never had the slightest inclination to try get OS X running on a PC because a. I have a Mac b. don't have a PC and c. just can't be bothered.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Washington DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2007, 02:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
ANd then when they go to run software update, they are screwed.
It depends on the update. With 10.4.8, the last version I paid attention to when running on a PC, the update to 10.4.9 required only a single bit of extra effort to make it work. All you had to do was make a backup copy of one system app (LoginWindow.app, I think it was), run SoftwareUpdate, then replace the new version with your backup copy (which you'd be able to do because it would boot into Single User Mode just fine, it just wouldn't get you to a login screen. Some updates wouldn't necessarily require anything at all.

But in general, yes. You're right. People using OS X on generic hardware would have to be wary of system updates until it had been tested and a safe update method determined. Updates for anything else would be just fine, however.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2007, 02:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by mdc View Post
Apple has every right to restrict you to install their OS on devices that they say are eligible. aka. Apple-branded hardware.
Why? If I bought the OS from them in a shrink-wrapped retail box at full price (i.e. not bundled with a computer), and I figure out how to hack it to install on a Commodore 64, why should they be able to stop me? They can refuse to support it, of course, and if an update hoses the install it would be my job to fix it, but as long as I'm only running it one one computer at a time, why do they get to say which computer I run it on?
     
mdc
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NY²
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2007, 02:38 PM
 
For you to complete that installation of OS X you have to agree to their license agreement.
In said agreement it says:
Mac OS X 10.4 (”Tiger”) Software License (PDF)

2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time.
Technically Apple can't stop you because of the idea of them tracking you down or taking you to court for breaking the EULA wouldn't be worth the time or money, but you are breaking your end of the license that you agreed to when you clicked on Agree.

Why do they get to say which computer you run it on?
I guess the answer to that is "because they can and they do. It's their software."
You own the media on which the Apple Software is recorded but Apple and/or Apple's licensor(s) retain ownership of the Apple Software itself.
I'm not bothered by those points in the software license because I don't have any intention of trying to install OS X on anything other than my PowerBook, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Washington DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2007, 02:51 PM
 
Hmm, I wonder what the legal implications would be of hacking the installer to not require the EULA.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2007, 02:59 PM
 
How do they define "Apple-labeled"?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2007, 03:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cipher13 View Post
How do they define "Apple-labeled"?
A computer they built with their logo on it, possibly with an Apple ROM.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2007, 03:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by mdc View Post
Technically Apple can't stop you because of the idea of them tracking you down or taking you to court for breaking the EULA wouldn't be worth the time or money, but you are breaking your end of the license that you agreed to when you clicked on Agree.
Those EULAs are not legally binding in Europe.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2007, 03:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by mdc View Post
Technically Apple can't stop you because of the idea of them tracking you down or taking you to court for breaking the EULA wouldn't be worth the time or money, but you are breaking your end of the license that you agreed to when you clicked on Agree.

Why do they get to say which computer you run it on?
I guess the answer to that is "because they can and they do. It's their software."
Just because Apple puts it in the EULA doesn't necessarily mean that they are within their rights to demand something like that. It's their software, but you've paid them for a copy of it and have obtained certain rights in the process. It's just as silly as if the EULA said that to use OS X, you had to use a keyboard with the proper command logo key, and not the Windows Start Menu key.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Salt Lake City, UT USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2007, 03:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
Just because Apple puts it in the EULA doesn't necessarily mean that they are within their rights to demand something like that. It's their software, but you've paid them for a copy of it and have obtained certain rights in the process. It's just as silly as if the EULA said that to use OS X, you had to use a keyboard with the proper command logo key, and not the Windows Start Menu key.
And they could very well do that. Just because you paid for a copy doesn't mean you can set your own terms. The certain rights that you gain buy purchasing the license are outlined in the license.

They have the right to demand anything they dang well please in the license agreement. They can write in a stipulation allowing them full access to all files on your computer. It's your choice to accept or reject the agreement. A license agreement doesn't have to be practical, or reasonable. It's their software, and they own it. Not you. They allow you to use the software according to the conditions outlined in their agreement.
2008 iMac 3.06 Ghz, 2GB Memory, GeForce 8800, 500GB HD, SuperDrive
8gb iPhone on Tmobile
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2007, 04:01 PM
 
Can they demand that I hand over my firstborn child as part of the license agreement? No? Well then, they can't demand anything they dang well please.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Salt Lake City, UT USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2007, 04:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
Can they demand that I hand over my firstborn child as part of the license agreement? No? Well then, they can't demand anything they dang well please.
I'm not a student of law. I know that human beings cannot be sold, traded, owned, etc within the United States, but seriously, what's to stop them from putting a precedent like that in there, save for legal points?

There are plenty of examples of EULAs which contain stipulations like "You may not sell this", "You may not copy this", "You may not sell derivative works made with this product", "If your computer malfunctions, blows up, melts down, or dies, you may not hold the Licensor responsible" and on and on.

While my language of "Anything they dang well please" is extreme, my point is that as long as their license doesn't break the law, (and even if it does it takes someone to challenge it for it to come into question) your agreement to the license binds you to the terms of the license. Whether or not the license agreement is a legally-binding contract is a question of state law as it's not defined on the federal level (yet).

So ultimately, violating the license agreement invites the wrath of the licensor. That may or may not bring difficulty, but either way it's dishonest.
2008 iMac 3.06 Ghz, 2GB Memory, GeForce 8800, 500GB HD, SuperDrive
8gb iPhone on Tmobile
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2007, 05:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
Can they demand that I hand over my firstborn child as part of the license agreement? No? Well then, they can't demand anything they dang well please.
Dork., if I asked for your firstborn child, could I have it? If so, will you sell it? How much? I want to buy your child.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2007, 06:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by SirCastor View Post
I'm not a student of law. I know that human beings cannot be sold, traded, owned, etc within the United States, but seriously, what's to stop them from putting a precedent like that in there, save for legal points?

There are plenty of examples of EULAs which contain stipulations like "You may not sell this", "You may not copy this", "You may not sell derivative works made with this product", "If your computer malfunctions, blows up, melts down, or dies, you may not hold the Licensor responsible" and on and on.

While my language of "Anything they dang well please" is extreme, my point is that as long as their license doesn't break the law, (and even if it does it takes someone to challenge it for it to come into question) your agreement to the license binds you to the terms of the license. Whether or not the license agreement is a legally-binding contract is a question of state law as it's not defined on the federal level (yet).

So ultimately, violating the license agreement invites the wrath of the licensor. That may or may not bring difficulty, but either way it's dishonest.
I'm not a lawyer either, and base everything I know on reading the Internet. But based on what I have read, contracts are meant to be instruments that both sides negotiate, and come to an understanding that benefits both sides. EULA's are the opposite of that -- they are dictated by one side, and most of the time you can't even see the EULA until you buy the thing and open it, at which point you can't get a refund from the retailer if you don't like it. Under these circumstances, courts give deference to the party that didn't do the dictating, as long as they're acting in good faith.

And I would contend there's nothing dishonest about it. After all, I bought the CD, didn't I? After I buy it, I can do all sorts of things. I can install it on a Mac, I can put it in a microwave and nuke it, I can poop on it. Why shouldn't I be able to install it on a PC if that's the only machine I'm installing it on? If anything, it's Apple that's being dishonest, by claiming a right they don't have: controlling which computer I install the copy of OS X on.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2007, 06:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Dork., if I asked for your firstborn child, could I have it? If so, will you sell it? How much? I want to buy your child.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIipASEM1zU

The relevant part is 4 minutes in, if you're in a hurry....
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2007, 06:56 PM
 
An EULA is NOT an legally enforceable contract, so far as I know. When you paid for the product, you didn't have to sign any contract, you bought it in good faith with no obligations.

Is clicking an 'Agree' button legally binding? Last security conference I went to said that it was not (this was several years ago). I don't think clicking an agree button is legally binding.
( Last edited by Brass; Oct 24, 2007 at 09:47 PM. )
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2007, 07:34 PM
 
EULAs are not legally binding contracts. They are there to provide a minimum of protection for the company so they can deny you service or support if you break the terms in it.

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Salt Lake City, UT USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2007, 09:05 PM
 
from the source of all human knowledge...

Some courts that have addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license agreements have found some EULAs to be invalid, characterizing them as contracts of adhesion, unconscionable, and/or unacceptable pursuant to the U.C.C. —see, for instance, Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology (939 F.2d 91), Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd. (at harvard.edu) and Rich, Mass Market Software and the Shrinkwrap License (23 Colo. Law 1321.17). Other courts have determined that the shrinkwrap license agreement is valid and enforceable: see ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg (at findlaw.com), Microsoft v. Harmony Computers (846 F. Supp. 208, 212, E.D.N.Y. 1994), Novell v. Network Trade Center (at harvard.edu), and Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc. may have some bearing as well. No Court has ruled on the validity of EULAs generally; decisions are limited to particular provisions and terms.

The 7th Circuit and 8th Circuit subscribe to the "licensed and not sold" argument, while most other circuits do not [citation needed]. In addition, the contracts' enforceability depends on whether the state has passed the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) or Anti-UCITA (UCITA Bomb Shelter) laws. In Anti-UCITA states, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) has been amended to either specifically define software as a good (thus making it fall under the UCC), or to disallow contracts which specify that the terms of contract are subject to the laws of a state that has passed UCITA.
Granted, it is wikipedia...
2008 iMac 3.06 Ghz, 2GB Memory, GeForce 8800, 500GB HD, SuperDrive
8gb iPhone on Tmobile
     
mdc
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NY²
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2007, 07:07 AM
 


Joy of Tech agrees.
     
Kevin  (op)
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2007, 06:33 AM
 
AHahahah
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: CO
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2007, 09:07 AM
 
Who is this Bill Gates, guy?

I'm thinking he's somebody's grandpa who's never actually *used* a computa. ?¿?
TOMBSTONE: "He's trashed his last preferences"
     
Kevin  (op)
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2007, 10:16 AM
 
Oh he is a programmer! Just ask him.

Even though he had to buy another OS from a company to make it big. That is how he got the deal with IBM in the first place. Did the pretentious act and made them believe he had the skills to provide them with what they needed, and then bought someone else's OS and changed a few things and said "here it is" I feel sorry for the original guy that got screwed out of all that DOS money.

If only he'd had Bill's "business sense" in that way.

And that has basically been MS's business model ever since.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Salt Lake City, UT USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2007, 10:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
And that has basically been MS's business model ever since.
As much as we all hate it, it's a pretty dang good business model. Buying an reselling something and making a significant profit is a great way to make money.
In that particular case, he didn't even steal anything (as we're fond of accusing MS of doing), he just bought something and sold it.

I think the reason MS was so successful in it's early days is because instead of having a computer programmer in charge, they had a guy who was pretty business smart.
2008 iMac 3.06 Ghz, 2GB Memory, GeForce 8800, 500GB HD, SuperDrive
8gb iPhone on Tmobile
     
Kevin  (op)
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2007, 05:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by SirCastor View Post
As much as we all hate it, it's a pretty dang good business model. Buying an reselling something and making a significant profit is a great way to make money.
Right. And if that is all you are concerned about then fine. Just don't act like you are an innovator or leading the computer revolution Like MS does.
In that particular case, he didn't even steal anything (as we're fond of accusing MS of doing), he just bought something and sold it.
Well he bought something for very very very little knowing what he was going to get out of it. He knew he was screwing the owner.
I think the reason MS was so successful in it's early days is because instead of having a computer programmer in charge, they had a guy who was pretty business smart.
That so did Apple. Apple just didn't make the deals that MS did. Deals that the US gov found to be anti-competitive in nature, and made MS stop. But by then it was too late. And MS new it would be.
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Felton, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2007, 09:56 AM
 
HELLO Macs with Mac OS 9 preinstalled. Duh? Leopard won't run on any of them, but tiger will run on a Blue&White G3 that originally shipped with Mac OS 8.5.1.
Trainiable is to cat as ability to live without food is to human.
Steveis... said: "What would scammers do with this info..." talking about a debit card number!
     
Kevin  (op)
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2007, 10:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by ryaxnb View Post
HELLO Macs with Mac OS 9 preinstalled. Duh? Leopard won't run on any of them, but tiger will run on a Blue&White G3 that originally shipped with Mac OS 8.5.1.
What
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2007, 10:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIipASEM1zU

The relevant part is 4 minutes in, if you're in a hurry....
"Maitre'D . . . Maitre'D" is your answer?
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Felton, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2007, 10:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
What
Sorry I was talking about how Mac OS X is a full install.
Trainiable is to cat as ability to live without food is to human.
Steveis... said: "What would scammers do with this info..." talking about a debit card number!
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: BFE
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2007, 06:37 PM
 
OK. Let's assume that Apple's EULA is "valid" and "enforceable".

Someone installs it on their Dell PC. Now what? Apple finds out (something through software update, perhaps?). And...? What happens? What can Apple do? What can you do? What happens to that person? Jail time? Apple sues him? For what? Can he get his money back? Can Apple make him buy a Mac? How is Apple "hurt" (he had no intention to buy a Mac, ever). What if he truly didn't read it, but just clicked every "accept" window?

Let's not talk about what is "illegal", etc., but talk about the consequences and how they could possibly end up.

I'm a bird. I am the 1% (of pets).
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2007, 07:43 PM
 
The consequence to large scale EULA violations by people installing OS X on their PCs would be Apple instituting Microsoft-style product activation codes.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2007, 07:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post
OK. Let's assume that Apple's EULA is "valid" and "enforceable".

Someone installs it on their Dell PC. Now what? Apple finds out (something through software update, perhaps?). And...? What happens? What can Apple do? What can you do? What happens to that person? Jail time? Apple sues him? For what? Can he get his money back? Can Apple make him buy a Mac? How is Apple "hurt" (he had no intention to buy a Mac, ever). What if he truly didn't read it, but just clicked every "accept" window?

Let's not talk about what is "illegal", etc., but talk about the consequences and how they could possibly end up.
Apple can put a kext in the next update that causes Dells to catch fire.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2007, 07:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by analogika View Post
Those EULAs are not legally binding in Europe.
Sales contracts and copyright laws are legally binding. I'm sick of this hippy ****. Let's cut off Europe in trade and then see what they think of intellectual property rights.
--
Aristotle
15" rMBP 2.7 Ghz ,16GB, 768GB SSD, 64GB iPhone 5 S⃣ 128GB iPad Air LTE
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:13 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2014 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2