Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga Hardware Issues and discussion => Topic started by: Phoenix on July 18, 2003, 09:26:24 AM
-
If buy an Amiga one, can I run osX instead of linux until os4 becomes available??
(apologies if this is a daft question)
-
no, not on its own. Mac On Linux is possible.
-
The Mac On Linux packages and kernel modules are available here (http://members.optusnet.com.au/amigaone/).
-
Step wrote:
no, not on its own. Mac On Linux is possible.
How does that impact on the hardwares performance??
-
Excuse my Ignorance, but I was under the impression that MOL was for MacOS9 software... can it support MacOSX software too?
-
Step wrote:
no, not on its own. Mac On Linux is possible.
Hmm, I don't see why it couldn't... At least with a hacked kernel. After all, if I recall correctly, OSX does run on top of MacOS just like LinuxPPC.
-
Hi Phoenix
What my fellow amiga.org members MEANT to say, was that running Mac OS X on an AmigaONE is illegal. It violates the EULA of Mac OS X.
This is not a pirates discussion board. The short answer is no, the only answer is No.
-
What?? How can that be a violation of EULA?? Apple got some sort of restriction saying you can't run OSX on a non-Apple product?
And what does this discussion have to do with piracy?
-
@bloodline
Both MacOS X 10.1 and 10.2 have been reported to work under Mac on Linux.
-
Apple's End User License Agreement specifically prohibits using Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware.
This is the agreement you agreed to when you installed Mac OS X, regardless of what country you live in.
Running unlicensed software is *piracy* There is no other definition of piracy.
This may surprise some of you, but the vast majority of all software sold is not really a physical product...its a limited license.
All of you who bought 'Mac OS X' bought nothing but a license to use Mac OS X on your Mac. That's it.
Not a single one of you ever bought Mac OS X to run on your AmigaONE, because Apple will not sell you such a license and sold none of you such a license.
You are running un-licensed software. Period.
And, I really don't care for the ridiculous excuses you make for your piracy. If Wayne wants to turn this into a pirates discussion board...that's up to him.
But, I will tell you this, lets go down the roll call of people who want to support illegal activity. Go ahead, jump in this thread with your whole hearted support of piracy. But later, when Amiga OS 4 is being pirated into oblivion, remember, you have nothing to say about it.
-
What Xeron, Peter Gordon meant to say, was that it's unsupported and illegal.
And, if Peter Gordon supports piracy of Mac OS X, then I'm sure he supports piracy of OS 4, as there is no moral difference in pirating things from one company or another.
-
Phoenix wrote:
If buy an Amiga one, can I run osX instead of linux until os4 becomes available??
(apologies if this is a daft question)
Hi,
Yep Mac OS X works fine under MOL on both Teron and Pegasos boards. I've had 10.2.6 for quite a while on my iMac G4 and its not as fast (obviously) but still very usable on Peg (around the same speed or faster than my old iMac G3-450).
The EULA permits you to install on one "Apple-Branded" machine but its seriously not something Apple would enforce - people have been building their own Macs for years. (eg. http://www.macopz.com/buildamac/) and I have not heard of anyone getting into trouble over running MacOS on them.
So long as you actually bought the OS I can't see Apple being bothered.
-
If its a genuine cd with paperwork that is not piracy as for apple why should they tell you what you can run your software you have paid for on .Its like microsoft with the xbox its a stripped out pc and can run linux but if the users all done it microsoft would lose loads of money due to hardware being sold for less than it cost to make ,they make the money back on the software so they lose out.If i have paid for something and own it i would do whatever i want with it .if it is a copy of the disc that is piracy. :-o
-
OK Lando...
you fall into the group of pirates who say 'you won't get caught'
Yep, its true. Most people won't get caught who steal Mac OS X or Amiga OS 4. I didn't say you would get caught, I said its illegal.
Now, the other thing...you said 'as long as you bought a copy'
re-read my earlier post, you can only buy a license to use Mac OS X on apple branded hardware.
Since no one here bought a license for Mac OS X on AmigaONE...no one has bought a license to run it on their AmigaONE....period.
Lando, if Apple wanted to write a license that said you can build Mac Clones, they could. If they wanted to write a license that said you only have a license to use this product if you bought it! They could.
The license says you may use it only on Apple Branded hardware.
It's absurdity for you to suggest apple's intentions...absolutely insane. The license is a legal document, a very carefully crafted legal document...and that document represents apple's position on the subject...not your absurd speculations.
-
I should mention that I own three original OS X licences/CD sets (one that came with my iBook, one that came with my G4 iMac, and one boxed retail copy that I bought from the Apple Centre Manchester).
When I bought it I was not asked if I owned a Mac, I was not asked if I would be running it on a Mac, they were quite happy to let me pay my £100 and walk out of the store with OS X.
-
@amigamad,
I'm not surprised to see you in this thread supporting piracy.
The cd-media contains a copy of the code for your convenience in installing on your apple branded hardware. If you think otherwise, you are wrong. License agreements are a fundamental part of the software industry even in the UK.
You aren't being sold the cd-rom...you are being sold a limited use license. Perhaps a concrete thinker has difficulty with this concept, but I'm telling you this is fundamental to the software industry, so look it up.
-
It's not apple's fault because they didn't assume people would break the agreement.
The person who breaks the agreement, guess what...thats their responsibility.
-
@MarkTime
We get your point so shut up and stop being a w@nker.
-
I have today written an email to the Swedish Competition Authority asking for clarification on this Apple EULA issue, will post their reply as soon as i get it.
-
I don't understand why you have to get on such a moral trip every time someone mentions running OS X on a non-apple machine, MarkTime.
It costs £100 to buy OS X. It costs apple pennies to duplicate the CDs, maybe a couple of pounds for packaging, and a small amount goes to the resellers. Result: Apple make money.
Now, if everyone who owns a Pegasos or AmigaONE thinks like you, none of them would buy OS X. If, however, they consider it acceptable to ignore a small clause in the EULA, Apple makes more profit. I really don't see a problem, unless you want to be pedantic for the sake of it.
Now, if someone downloads an ISO of OS4 from the net, burns a copy, and uses it, I really think that wrong, and I totally disagree with it.
However, if someone purchased OS4 for CSPPC and hacked it themselves to run on a Pegasos, guess what? I really couldn't care less. Good for them, I say. They've supported the efforts of hyperion, and increased the userbase of OS4. As long as they don't spread their hacked copy, that is.
Now, technically, both are illegal. However, only one is, in my eyes, immoral.
Your opinion has been made very clear, MarkTime, there is no need to post it over and over again in this thread.
-
Oh yes...
What Xeron, Peter Gordon meant to say, ....
Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't mean to say that at all, you did.
-
What my fellow amiga.org members MEANT to say, was that running Mac OS X on an AmigaONE is illegal. It violates the EULA of Mac OS X.
I think that depends on where you live. I took a computer law course at university and if I understood it correctly any "contract" must be agreed to before you pay for your software in Sweden. Any other "contract" is invalid. So, the "click yes to agree" type of license/contract is meaningless here. It does not matter if you can return the software and get your money back. Maybe it works the same in the rest of the EU too, I can't remember.
DISCLAIMER: It's been a few years since i took that course so 1. I might remember incorrectly, 2. the laws may have changed since then. Don't blame me if you get into trouble. :-)
-
What?? How can that be a violation of EULA?? Apple got some sort of restriction saying you can't run OSX on a non-Apple product?
Yes.
And what does this discussion have to do with piracy?
Depends how you look at it. EULA violation is normally a civil matter, but installing an OS in violation of the EULA could be construed as making unauthorised copies, which is a criminal offence (Piracy).
-
@casper
If you don't think you have a valid contract, in the EULA, in your country.....Then you simply don't have a contract at all. A contract to use the software on an AmigaONE, didn't materialize out of thin air, certainly.
Don't you see, no contract, means no contract!!!!
license agreements are valid in all euorpean countries, these types of arguments 'it's legal in my country' are very hard to counter, because I readily admit, I don't know the laws of every country of the world. but its by and large BS.
europe and america both have very strong intellectual property laws, and don't allow piracy.
The reason I will be fairly vocal on this subject, is I am looking for practice in making a certain point clear.
Its obvious to me, that many people feel piracy is OK, and thats life....but many people don't really understand why its wrong, and so its good to sharpen ones skills on this point.
For example, spending $100 to buy a license for using Mac OS X on a single piece of apple branded hardware, allows you to use Mac OS X for whatever you want? nooooo, not really.
can you buy a 10 person license and use it for 15? Is that OK? Can you buy an upgrade license for XP, and use it to make a full install on an OEM machine?
Of course, all these things are wrong...but now...looking at other threads, I see one thing....many of you are not against piracy in any form...you outright support it fully...and the arguments are just misdirection
@Xeron, Peter Gordon...if you are against piracy, you will say it, you can say it at any time.
I know that you didn't literally mean to say you were against piracy, and I did put those words in your mouth...but anyone can tell from reading it I was facetious, and you've made it more than clear your feelings on the subject. At no point did you take a stance against piracy...
feel free to do so at any time.
-
Swedish Competition Authority? What's that? Svenska Tävlingsmyndigheten? Never heard of?
-
konkurrensverket kanske låter mer bekant för en svensk :-D
-
The point is the difference between Law and what is fair. Lawyers did not get the stereotype they have for nothing. They make the laws to keep themselves in a job. (I have a daughter finishing law school and she would agree).
Same poin for the EULA. Is it legal to use OS10 on a non-Apple branded device. No Is it fair to pay for it and be able to use on one. No
"can you buy a 10 person license and use it for 15? Is that OK? Can you buy an upgrade license for XP, and use it to make a full install on an OEM machine?"
Noone would argue that this is unfair to the owner of the IP, as well as distributers ect.. But using a paid for , on one machine at time by the purchaser, software seems fair to all. Unfair laws need to be changed. Perhaps this is the form of protest chosen by some.
I have no desire ofr OS10 and am waiting for OS4 before purchasing an A1. If OS4 doesn't materialize so much for the A1. Feel sorry for the early adopters in that case.
Stew
-
europe and america both have very strong intellectual property laws, and don't allow piracy.
Yes, but this is definitely NOT counted as piracy everywhere.... It is not here, i can install that OS on every piece of hardware i want, as long as i bought the cd.
American law does NOT apply to whole world..
Btw... In america you are not even allowed to record a tvshow for personaly usage on your digital box, to watch it later... This is a imorral sick law if you ask me... I wonder why they even sell boxes with recording ability over there..
-
The act of buying software is a bit misleading. As Marktime said we only buy a license to use it, and normally that is only on a single machine. Enthasised by the use of HW or SW dongle.
My mother thought that was rediclulous until I said that when we enter an exhibition you only buy the right to look at the exhibits, we don't own them.
I wonder if it would really be ok if I bought a copy of OS4 and used it on an iMac. I doubt it because why would they build a dongle into the Amiga system?
I remember having a CBM 64 when I first heard the goldie "it only costs a few pence for them to copy and they sell the game for so much". It's a suprise people still think like that.
Now I am wondering how many unlicensed copies of old Amiga stuff there is, and we wonder why there are so little new stuff being developed.
Valan
-
Hey Tomas,
Guess what, all western european countries have a concept of a license agreement and have laws to protect those licenses.
You believe you purchase a CD, and then you invent the license? Wrong.
You think the license agreement isn't valid, and so you can change it. You can unilaterally make it a license to run on AmigaONE. Interesting, and so you can also upgrade your license to be a server license? Can you also upgrade your license to change the name of it and re-sell it? Can you upgrade the license from one user to two?
There is no country in the world where you can modify the license to your liking, simply because you don't like the terms of the license. You have to have an agreement to use someone elses intellectual property. If you don't want to make an agreement, then you can back away, and not use Mac OS X. What you cannot do, is force Apple to accept your terms without any discussion or any agreement.
If you think your country is like that, then you must believe your country has virtually no intellectual property laws at all.
You are wrong. There is no country in the world that says by purchasing CD media you are then allowed to write your own terms on the software license. If you think I'm wrong, just post a link to the laws you are citing.
In all european countries, Apple has the ability to enter into contracts and make software licenses.
-
oh yes, I forgot the standard verbage.
If Tomas believes that its OK to re-write the license on Mac OS X in his country, then I assume he will also support the copying of Amiga OS 4 within his country, for use on alternate platforms like pegasos.
Even though Genesi doesn't pay the Amiga license, just as Eyetech doesn't pay apple any license, and both companies, Apple and Eyetech expect to make part of their money from hardware sales....
In other words, that $100 isn't what apple needs to make on OS X, neither is the purchase price of OS 4, what Amiga expects to make...they rely on hardware sales too. Hardware sales, that under this logic, we are all free to circumvent.
according to Tomas, this mechanism is foolish, since the end user can do an end run around on such agreements, if they simply purchase cd-media.
buy an Amiga ONE and just copy Mac OS X?
Hmmm, if you reasoning is so good, why doesn't someone just buy the cheapest board (pegasos) and copy both Amiga OS 4 and Mac OS X?
or maybe that is what you plan on doing. Anyway, its still wrong.
-
Well, I'm not in any way promoting piracy. Atleast not now and on the Amiga. But 10 years ago it helped build the Amiga community. At least I know I could hardly afford buying the hardware then, let alone software too... None that I know of did either. Did you?
These days it's a bit of a different story. Piracy on the Amiga today is outright stupid..
So, It's all about circumstances.. Or am I wrong?
-
This is the way it works in Norway at least:
Anyone who has bought a product with a license-agreement has to be shown this agreement before the payment is made.
If this is not the case, the license-agreement is not regarded as valid and can be cancelled. Thats the way it is...
We also have laws that give everyone the right to make one personal copy of so-called intellectual property for personal use.
This means that you can copy a CD to use in your car, or indeed run OSX on non-Apple hardware.
I would guess that the same goes for Sweden, but then you guys are part of the EU. We're not, but thats a whole other story....
:-D :-D
-
Well, a whole lot of strange things happens when u join that union.. Cant really keep track of it all anymore..
-
The reason Apple won't press anyone in the courts is because of the fact that in the US and most countries fair use laws prevent software publishers (OS Publishers as well) from stipulating wich hardware you use the product on. This is why emulation of amigaos on pcs and windows on macs etc. is legal. Most eulas have a disclamer usually toward the end, to the effect that state and federal laws may preempt or excempt certailn provisions of the eula .
-
@Unit21
Your response has the air of legitimacy about it. Unfortunately most countries do not have such a law...but it is a very good law...that a person could back out of a contract that was not clearly explained to them. They could cancel the contract, get their money back. Etc....it doesn't give them the ability to write into the contract new terms, though. They can't give themselves a license for an AmigaONE, for example.
Now, a backup copy for personal use. Very few countries have a law like that. But I can believe a non-EU country would have a law like that. Unfortunately, trade agreements are very complex, and the U.S. (among others) have been pressuring everyone to adopt IP laws as part of trading agreements....(not uncommon, just as mexico forced many concession from the U.S. to get the NAFTA agreement signed)....
so you find most countries are not really unique in the IP law area....but I kind of like your countries laws...but for those of us who don't live there, and most of the pirates on this board don't live in such a country...for us its illegal.
For you, its only immoral, not illegal. You still clicked on a box and said 'I agree'...but you don't agree. Honesty....its hardly ever heard, but its mostly what I need....from youuuuuuu<-singing a stupid Billy Joel song.
I'm kidding, in your country I'd buy the pegasos and copy the Amiga OS 4 and Mac OS X, and build myself a triple boot system....but I don't live there...so sad.
I wonder if Hyperion will weigh in on this and give every permission to make those backup copies of Amiga OS 4 to put on their pegasos.
That would put the whole issue to rest, at least for Amiga OS 4....of course, I don't expect to hear from apple.
-
Well I think there is such a law in Sweden too.. Atleast there was before EU.. I dunno.. Copy for personal use not for spreading.. As you may record a CD or LP on tape or copy your own videocassetes and such.. But not for spreading.. Those cases are probably handled by Apple/Microsoft Sweden/Norway respectively in some manner..
-
Bulsh..., if you bought genuine software. That's simple, you are'nt a pirate EVEN if apple doesn't agree with that. Maybe we don't see EULA in the same manner. I'm not agreeing with apple or any othesr companies on these type of licenses. Paid something and BE forced to buy the same branded product, thats for me is simple: a forced selling (or a deny of free choice).
Maybe if you bought a new car and by your contract must use a particular branded fuel cause it's writed (same as EULA) ... Er you wouldn't agree if same fuel exist on the same manner but cheap. Is that how i see clause in EULA sometimes. Piracy is when you don't bought software or you stole code for doing what you want with it.
Er and i'm not so good with english as you can read.
Philespin :)
by the way don't tell me if you aren't agree don't buy... It's by the fault of consummer who never read EULA that's these thing can exist. i will not extend on that
-
@Marktime:
You are mostly talking out of your arse and making a complete tosser of yourself, on this one. You are not even stating the actual position within the USA, which is in some ways tighter (or has been in the past, more accurately) than many other locations. As for countries where you do indeed purchase the CD with the software on it, to use as you see fit? Yep. India was like that, might still pretty much amount to it. Until recently, it was even better - having no software copyright laws at all and no will to enforce them. This was why at one point 90% of their PCs ran Windows95, but noone had ever bought a legal licence for it (MS refused to sell on the grounds that their product was not protected! LOL). Things have changed there, but other nations are very much like that. Turkey, for example, I think has some 'odd' (to the USA at least) laws regarding this issue. It actually goes much deeper and is a cultural thing for you.
As regards the law.. well, in the UK the idea that you can restrict the use of the software, designed as an operating system, to one proprietary hardware design, would almost certainly be considered what is called an "unenforcable contract". As I understand it, under English law, the rest of the contract would apply (especially with the disclaimer at the bottom saying to ignore clauses that local laws don't allow to be enforced). Also, I am pretty sure the current English precedent (I honestly don't recall the Scottish position, and yes we have different laws) is that you can make copies of your media for the purpose of protecting your investment. You can also demand replacement media for a nominal fee (to cover fabrication and delivery) if your media become damaged.
Oh, I almost forgot! No, it's not covered under the definition of "software piracy" either. Which actually is a layman term. Only "theft" applies as regards the law, from what I recall. Under English (and Scots) law, you have to deprive someone of legitimate use of something or else legitimate revenue (applies in this case). If you paid for a copy of the software, you have not stolen at all. So you can hack it all you like. Distributing it is NOT permitted though, for a whole host of reasons. Tools that enable you to crack/hack it for your own legitimate use (i.e. you did purchase a copy) are fine however :¬)
Incidentally, your position would outlaw emulation. That point was settled, even in the USA, long ago.
edit: punctuation altered for greater clarity and reading ease.
-
Wow are you wrong, and totally misrepresenting the laws in the UK.
The UK also has End User License Agreements on their software packages, very very similar to the USA.
And they state things like "This is a license, not a product"
Making sure you understand you are buying a limited use license, and the CD is simply media that contains the bits and bites.
I don't expect software pirates to deal in the plain truth.
My position doesn't outlaw emulation at all. I don't even outlaw running Mac OS X on an AmigaONE. My position makes it perfectly acceptable for Apple to agree to such a thing...only apple didn't, so its illegal.
Emulation is perfectly acceptable as well, as long as in doing the emulation you didn't steal someone's IP. Which btw, many emulators are illegal for that reason.
And that was settled long ago. If you don't believe me, try releasing UAE with Kickstart ROM's included. You can't, and Amiga, Inc. will shut you down.
Fact is, you can do UAE without violating Amiga's IP...thats legal, and great. But you want the IP, you pay Cloanto, cause thats the ONLY legal version and you well know it.
The same is true of MOL...its perfectly legal to install MOL, and I never said otherwise, but it won't run Mac OS X without Mac OS X......
Again, though, you aren't even trying to be honest here.
-
@philespin
hey I'm not going to argue with your feelings about things...I'm just talking law, you can feel the law is wrong, (and I agree a lot of laws are wrong).
But, just be clear, you can do all with Amiga OS 4, that you are saying you can do with Mac OS X, right?
One person already said as much, and I respect that position more, even if I don't agree with it.
-
I even seem to recall that a few of the Amiga games I bougth actually recommended that you made copies of the game disks and store them safely. Not those games with heavy copy protection though;)
-
@Marktime:
No, I am not totally wrong at all! LOL
Yup, everywhere has EULA. In many places it means nothing, in far more parts of it simply do not apply.
Never said it was a "product" though actually, a licence to use software is itself a product. Yup, the CD is exactly that. Which is why it is legal to copy it at will. Odd then that many try and prevent it...
Neither do *I* expect software pirates to deal in truth.. but then I see none here, nor do I expect most people to deal in it. Many are ignorant, others simply lie :¬)
Actually, what you advocated would indeed outlaw it. Parts of US law do as well. In the EU for example, reverse engineering is perfectly legal if the intention is not to pirate the product but to allow other products to work with it and you do not distribute the knowledge you gain, in itself.
Emulation never steals anyone else's property. Also you can't own knowledge anyway :¬) Which would be why there is a petition here (http://www.eurolinux.org) to make sure the EU starts properly applying its own laws and doesn't adopt half arsed US ones.
Mac-on-Linux runs OS X on a Linux supporting hardware platform, potentially regardless of what that platform is. They note success on plenty of non-Apple machines :¬)
Sorry, but trying to call me a liar won't wash. By the way, is there a good reason for you starting another thread? Or was it just so you could pontificate your crap on two separate posts?
edit: I apologize, it was not you who started the other. I still think you are making a tit of yourself.
-
Some of you are getting very confused about making copies and backups of things with breaking a license agreement.
You are not placing Mac OS X on your AmigaONE as a backup copy.
That's just a lame excuse aimed at making this legal through a loophole in just a few countries in the world.
BUt honestly, you didn't buy it as a backup copy, or using it under a personal use exemption if you don't even own a Mac...(those that own real Mac's could do a personal use exemption in those few countries)
But lets discuss things HONESTLY. HONESTLY, you want to run Mac OS X on your AmigaONE and ignore the licensing agreement.
Is breaking a licensing agreement piracy? Of course it is, piracy is a laymens term, but that is what the term means.
Piracy is not going into a store and stealing CD's...that is just shoplifting...piracy is breaking the licensing agreement.
I'm not against fair use, not against emulators, not against backup copies. I'm against piracy and piracy alone.
And when someone makes some software, they have the right to decide if they will sell it to you or not, you cannot demand of them that they license it to you under your terms. Hogwash. Not in the UK, thats for sure.
Sure in some countries like India you might find your exception, but you don't live in India so give me a break.
Also on the moon where there is no official government, this sort of thing is completely legal, but just try getting your broadband connection on the moon, I dare ya.
-
if mol is piracy , the winuae and such is also piracy , so REMOVE YOUR install of uae now mark!
i hope everyone will understand the seriousness of this , finally all uae users can go stuff their head in a bucket :)
along with all mol users , maybe they can start a bucket club for locked out people...cool...
sorry...but i found this thread very....MARK(ED) :) , but if its correct then i agree with mark, but that must also go for all other emu's (and such) aswell..
Xwin is ilegal also then=? ...hmmm ok we live in a dangerous world...glad i have my amiga classic here :)
-
MarkTime
You seem to be under the impression the contract holds regardless of local laws, this is not true.
I'll give you an example:
I signed an 11 month contract to rent an apartment in Holland once. This was a rather meaningless contract because after 9 months the law states that the renter can stay permanently. This law overrules that clause of the contract. If the landlord tells me to leave after 11 months I can go tell him to take a jump, irrespective of what I signed.
This also holds for software EULAs. I do not believe that clause has ever been tested in court and in some countries -possibly even the US- it will be overruled.
You also seem to be confusing "breach of contract" with piracy. If I run OS X on a different computer it may well be breach of contract but if I've paid for it it is not piracy since I haven't broken any copyright laws.
-
Is breaking a licensing agreement piracy? Of course it is, piracy is a laymens term, but that is what the term means.
Nope. I already gave you the legal status of the term "software piracy". In fact it was me who stated it was a "lay term".I'm not against fair use, not against emulators, not against backup copies. I'm against piracy and piracy alone.
In which case, you are either mistaken about what constitutes piracy or else you are against something other than piracy, specifically you are against people 'breaking' EULAs that in many cases never existed and in others were ammended to allow the use they have in fact made of the software. If your nation does not allow it (and in fact the jury is out because the precedent is not clear, some cases support it, others not) that is your problem. Believe me, it is quite clear under English law.
And when someone makes some software, they have the right to decide if they will sell it to you or not, you cannot demand of them that they license it to you under your terms. Hogwash. Not in the UK, thats for sure.
On my terms? Nope. Within English/Scottish law? Absolutely. I know this is difficult for you to grasp.. so I'll repeat myself.. the clauses you are complaining about are unenforcable under current English law. I think they are even impossible under EU law regarding competition and fair use, but I am not certain and it does not matter to me wrt this current thread.
Sure in some countries like India you might find your exception, but you don't live in India so give me a break.
How would you know where I live? :¬) As it happens, I have indeed lived in India. I have lived in several other countries too, and by fluke they all would allow exactly what I stated, either by the fair use thing, or else by simply not recognizing the ability to licence it all in that way. (Some countries say you own the code on the CD, for your own use, including reverse engineering, disassembling, etc)
Also on the moon where there is no official government, this sort of thing is completely legal, but just try getting your broadband connection on the moon, I dare ya.
There is NO government nor law on the moon at all. Nevermind an "official" one. Despite the USA trying to claim to own parts of the moon, as well as jurisdiction in space. :¬) It amuses me that you, of all people raised this one... hehe
-
Marktime, are all americans like you?
You are hard, man! It's not piracy!
-
AmigaMad: If its a genuine cd with paperwork that is not piracy as for apple why should they tell you what you can run your software you have paid for on .Its like microsoft with the xbox its a stripped out pc and can run linux but if the users all done it microsoft would lose loads of money due to hardware being sold for less than it cost to make ,they make the money back on the software so they lose out.If i have paid for something and own it i would do whatever i want with it .if it is a copy of the disc that is piracy.
Um, I think you just made a huge point, and then ignored it.
I completely agree with MarkTime, not because, "it's piracy", but because people don't understand how computer companies make money, and don't care. My big problem with stuff like MacOnLinux, MorphOS, and stuff like that is that there's more to software than just code and libraries. There's design, planning, testing, advertising, sales relationships... all of that costs money. Some developers spread out that cost across several products, and then write licenses to ensure those products are used in unison, and their profit margins are distrubuted properly. Microsoft loses money on XBox and makes up for it on software sales. That's the way to make money on consoles. So, it's understandable that they're upset over something like Linux running on XBox. Microsoft can't really increase the price of XBox to compensate or make special Linux versions of XBox. It would result in an even worse financial situation.
If you just pay the license fee for software that's designed to be used with a particular piece of hardware, you're probably not paying the "whole" cost of the product. Increasing the price of MacOS to compensate would hurt Mac customers, so they write license restrictions instead.
It's perfectly reasonable. If you don't like it, buy a Mac and use the "real" version of MacOS. You have no right to use the product in a way other than specified by the developer. You can still try, and you may not get caught, but then, you might. :-)
Gaidheal: In which case, you are either mistaken about what constitutes piracy or else you are against something other than piracy, specifically you are against people 'breaking' EULAs that in many cases never existed and in others were ammended to allow the use they have in fact made of the software. If your nation does not allow it (and in fact the jury is out because the precedent is not clear, some cases support it, others not) that is your problem. Believe me, it is quite clear under English law.
Maybe UELA's mean something in America, and nothing elsewhere in the world, but I find it hard to believe that there are not other license restrictions local to other parts of the world. Remember all those ROMs for MAME that specifically state that the original machines were illegal to sell outside Japan, or Canada, or whatever? Each country has its own restrictions. That's why there's different Apple divisions in each country.
I still think that if someone writes software, writes music, makes a movie, etc... they should have complete control over how they sell it. Whether they do a good job or not, and screw their legal, paying customers, is the real issue. I remember piracy in its early days, when people traded discs and downloaded stuff off BBS's at 9600 baud, but they made no excuses. These days, people think it's their God given right to do whatever the hell they want. People's interpretation of copyrights has really gotten f***ed up since Napster came along.
MarkTime: ...you fall into the group of pirates who say 'you won't get caught'
That doesn't help, either. Just about everyone I know falls into this category.
Ponos2D: Marktime, are all americans like you?
You are hard, man! It's not piracy!
I don't know if piracy is the correct term, legally, but if someone writes software, their copyright gives them total control over how they sell it. Period. If you release or distribute a patch to help users violate license agreements, don't be surprised if your webserver gets shut down and you end up in a lawsuit.
-
@Ponos2d
yes I am exactly like all american's
@Gaidheal,
There is another debate mechanism called complex argument...its where a person brings up so much simultaneious BS, that the responder can't possibly hope to correct everything.
Congratulations, you succeeded with that tactic.
And you got me on another one....just one, but I admit it....there is no law on the moon so nothing is legal. I was supposed to say its not illegal...dagnabit.
But anyway, most people understood what I meant, its not against the *law* anywhere where there is no law.....but just because something is not against the law, doesn't mean you can say its legal, my bad.
But your basic premise, still falls down and you completely ignore FACTS over and over again.
1. You purchase a license to use Mac OS X on apple branded hardware
2. See above
There really isn't any point in you following me around from thread to thread acting like some kind of psycho...at least I'm only responding to the thread, what are you doing...are you actually offended by a thread on a BBS? good grief.
yes, you are dishonest.
A question was put to you when you installed the Apple Software: Do you agree to the terms of this license?
You clicked: Yes
But you don't agree. The honest answer was: No
-
Can you also upgrade your license to change the name of it and re-sell it?
Offcourse you cant.. This is about personal use, the freedom to use it on whatever hardware you want, as long as it is for personal use ONLY... This applies to music also, here it is still legal to make a backup of your own music cds, for example copy it over to a mini disc or make a extra copy as safety in case you scratch up your orginal disc... And this makes fully sense... When i own the disc, i should be able to use it wherever i want.
-
There is another debate mechanism called complex argument...its where a person brings up so much simultaneious BS, that the responder can't possibly hope to correct everything.
Nope, a complex argument is one that is complex and has nothing to do with being right or wrong. If you are finding this one complex, I have to wonder why you attempted to debate it at all.
But your basic premise, still falls down and you completely ignore FACTS over and over again.
Which facts? What basic premise? The facts are I know the law in the UK and you are quite incorrect on the definition of piracy in any nation. My premise is simple: you are talking out of your arse as regards it being piracy and you are ignorant of the laws you claim you are bothered about.
1. You purchase a license to use Mac OS X on apple branded hardware
Nope. Never owned any Apple branded anything. Not likely to either, except just maybe a G5. Macs are too slow, too expensive, have too small a user base and software market and are proprietary.
There really isn't any point in you following me around from thread to thread acting like some kind of psycho...at least I'm only responding to the thread, what are you doing...are you actually offended by a thread on a BBS? good grief
Sorry to shatter your fantasy world, but I am not following anyone around, least of all you. Psycho? Might want to look in the mirror given your above delusion. Offended? No.. you seem to be though LOL
Good grief, indeed :¬)
No, not dishonest. No, no question put to me, but even had it been, the parts you are whingeing about would not constitute part of where I live anyway. I clicked nothing. Boring... already answered.. why don't you move on and just admit you don't actually know what you are on about and wanted to try and flame AOS4 people "by the backdoor"?
-
then I assume he will also support the copying of Amiga OS 4 within his country, for use on alternate platforms like pegasos.
If you have paid for the cd, yeah.. then you should have the possibility to run it on pegasos if you want, also you should be able to hack the hardware if you need...
Modchips hacks is also still legal here ;-) Shops currently offer to mount it for you, in your ps2 or xbox or whatever...
-
@marktime
If you don't think you have a valid contract, in the EULA, in your country.....Then you simply don't have a contract at all. A contract to use the software on an AmigaONE, didn't materialize out of thin air, certainly.
Don't you see, no contract, means no contract!!!!
license agreements are valid in all euorpean countries, these types of arguments 'it's legal in my country' are very hard to counter, because I readily admit, I don't know the laws of every country of the world. but its by and large BS.
I didn't say thay EULAs weren't valid in Sweden in all cases. I just said that EULAs you can only agree to after you've paid for the software aren't valid.
I actually think this is a good thing. What if you buy an OS for a lot of money and when you get home the EULA says that you can only use it every other sunday between 2 and 3 AM? You've just paid for something that you can hardly ever use and you had no idea these restrictions were there until you tried to install it. At best it's a hassle to get your money back, at worst you don't see that money again.
If you knew about this EULA before you paid for your software you would never have bought it and bought something else instead better suited to your needs.
europe and america both have very strong intellectual property laws, and don't allow piracy.
The reason I will be fairly vocal on this subject, is I am looking for practice in making a certain point clear.
Its obvious to me, that many people feel piracy is OK, and thats life....but many people don't really understand why its wrong, and so its good to sharpen ones skills on this point.
I don't think it is piracy. If you paid for OS X and want to use it on your AmigaONE instead of your Mac, it is still paid for. If you use it on both your Mac and your A1, then it would be piracy (which would most certainly be illegal here in Sweden).
For example, spending $100 to buy a license for using Mac OS X on a single piece of apple branded hardware, allows you to use Mac OS X for whatever you want? nooooo, not really.
can you buy a 10 person license and use it for 15? Is that OK? Can you buy an upgrade license for XP, and use it to make a full install on an OEM machine?
Not if you have agreed to the EULA in a legally binding way (before you paid for the product). But I think it is actually up to the software company to ensure that their EULA is valid.
Should I just agree to everything that is in the EULA just out of the godness of my heart?
-
We also have laws that give everyone the right to make one personal copy of so-called intellectual property for personal use.
Exactly!!
-
But I can believe a non-EU country would have a law like that.
Actually i believe sweden has the same law.
I believe most of EU is similar there... I think its mostly only US and UK that dosent allow this.
-
@Gadboy
I'm not offended, but I do think amiga.org members like to keep things in a specific thread, so the thread on MorphOS on AmigaONE shouldn't be for the piracy discussion.
It's just common etiquette, or can we dismiss with etiquette too because its not illegal where you live?
OK, as for what I'm about, *exactly*...its not a secret at all. Fact is, I think its ridiculous for the Amiga Fan's to insist you can't copy OS 4, when they copy Mac OS X.
I said from the beginning, if you believe you can copy both....OS 4 and Mac OS X, then at least you are consistent and you have more of my respect.
I'm sorry you don't know the debate mechanism complex argument, and that some of the meanings of the word complex escape you, but I will refer everyone to www.dictionary.com to look up the meaning. Or a standard debate text to look up another meaning for it.
Again, though you did manage to make one point about my use of the word 'legal' for the most part you are just bantering on, not really making much sense, and trying to be insulting in kind of an adolescent way.
Eventually I will find this boring....sigh, such a shame. Usually no one even tries to defend piracy, you are at least giving it your best, to bad your best isn't a little better :-)
-
UK is in the EU. If the EU position were that, it would apply in the UK as well. Incidentally, we have two legal systems in the UK - Scotland has an independent legal system to England and Wales. Both of them have the concept of "unenforcibility" wrt contracts and both have ideas of "fair use" and "fitness for purpose".
The last is tangential to this discussion, but has popped up before with software. "Fair use" is important though. Precedent in England is pretty much that it is fair enough for you to install an OS on a machine that you own, having purchased only a single copy, so long as it is only in use in one machine at a time. Noone can write in licence condition that contravene certain rights, especially consumer rights with regard to products purchased "retail". Good luck trying to tie someone to running an operating system on only a proprietary system when it can be run on others.
-
@Thomas
We also have laws that give everyone the right to make one personal copy of so-called intellectual property for personal use.
Exactly!!
But I can believe a non-EU country would have a law like that.
Actually i believe sweden has the same law.
I believe most of EU is similar there... I think its mostly only US and UK that dosent allow this.
Actually, the "copy for personal use" is not valid for software in Sweden, only for other types of copyrighted works such as music and movies. There is talk about removing this right for all types of copyrights in the near future though.
You were allowed to make a copy of your software for backup purposes but then you had to store that copy and it could only be used if the original was destroyed but I'm not sure if this is still allowed.
-
@Marktime:
I assume you meant me by "Gadboy" so..
You are the one who suggested someone was offended, sounds like projection to me.
I don't see anyone discussing piracy in the MorphOS thread yet. Besides, neither are you discussing it, you are talking crap about EULAs.
I couldn't care less about fanboys of any type. If you want to flame them, #### off to some pointless flamer site and do it.
Attempting to appear superior as regards debating is not going to impress me. As someone who actually studied Formal Logic at University as part of my degree I see through your bullshit rather quickly. I only mention the fact I did study so you and anyone else can see exactly where I am coming from, not as some ego boost. As for complex, I think you might need to look at the definition before trying to imply I in anyway misused it.
Only you think there was any point made about your use of the word legal, personally, I assumed the bit about the moon was some light humour. I see now it was a serious point, which is worrying. As for being adolescent, you need to look in the mirror, mate. And the sense in my posts is quite apparent, along with the facts and refutations based on them you have forced me to repeat in two separate threads.
As for finding it boring.. we can hope, but trolls and flamers rarely do.. however, I find you boring, thus I shall now ignore your nonsense. I think it is quite apparent anyway, to anyone else, that it is nonsense. As for defending piracy? LOL Sorry, but the fact you still have not grasped that what you are talking about is not piracy, as well as failing to see that I did not defend piracy anyway, really says it all.
-
also... If the software company does not want to accept the local laws, they should not make their product avaliable there.
-
Tomas, they are well aware the EULA is not enforcable in many cases.. hence the disclaimer, to show that they never tried to (in some countries this would be a serious offence in itself and could cost them millions). Also, Microsoft did exactly that.. of course piracy (yes, real actual software piracy as recognized legally in most nations) meant it made no difference.
-
As someone who retails software and has to explain these licences on a daily basis I understand the confusion.
A company can make up any licence for thier software. If it says that you have to a certain age, nationality, or run it one certain software then they are quite entitled to. It doesn't matter how immoral or wrong it is but if you use thier software and you break thier EULA then you can be considered as a pirate. I know it's wrong but it is thier product and they can distribute it however they want to.
At the end of the day you 'do not own' the software, you only have a licence to use it. If you breach that agreement (End User Licence Agreement) then they are quite within thier rights to remove or make the product unusable.
The common assumption with every day products like the ones from M$ is that if you have the disk and you paid for it then it's yours to do whatever you like with it. Once you tell people that they cannot copy the software or duplicate you always end up with the same old argument.
The LAW here is fuzzy because laws within countries are different. In the U.K. there was such a thing as a privacy law...however, M$ are allowed to probe your machine for information and pass your information to other companies???
The balance has to be between the manufacters 'Intellectual rights' and whatever they use to enforce it and what might seem to be wrong.
I think from Apples point of view that it would be very difficult to enfonce this type of agreement when it could be difficult to probe a non-apple computer for serial codes (like they do with M$ software). Making software which is hardware dependant could cause serious legal problems when you pay for software and it doesn't work due to a mechanical problem when the description on the box clearly says it works!
-
Thanks GAG for that help, and also from Microsoft UK website:
Most people believe they own the actual software when they buy it. In fact, you're buying the 'licence to use' the software and NOT the software itself.
Things at Microsoft UK that they explain are illegal, or doing things like transferring pre-loaded software from one computer to another. Microsoft's EULA actually prohibits moving software from the pre-loaded machine to another machine that you legally own.
This is UK copyright law, not the U.S.
and btw, despite popular belief in some ways the UK is more stringent than the U.S....this was especially true a few years ago, but since the DMCA, the U.S. has gotten really wicked mean in some areas...hey, I don't actually advocate the DMCA, just bearing the bad news about it.
Another thing for those who want to really read up about Europe's laws:
EU directive on IP (http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=en&numdoc=31991L0250&model=guichett)
p.s.
for those who keep saying it unenforceable.
yes, you won't get caught. Amiga OS 4's copy protection scheme also won't work.
The question is just for each individual, do you want to pirate or not? I say, don't....but thats just me :-)
-
Guys, guys...
Re: All this crap.
-EULA enforceability does vary by jurisdiction, contract law, etc. Germany seems to be in a bind with the GPL, of all things, because it's considered unlawful to agree to *revoke* certain rights in contract. Sure, EU law applies too, but it'll take Europe a while to even approach the level of coherency of the US... Intellectual property issues are presently a crapshoot everywhere. (As an aside - all USians, let's thank Lessig for bringing it to the Supreme Court, bungling his overeager argument, and accidentally proving Congress *can* extend copyright forever. Thanks, Lawrence! (http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/archives/2003_01.shtml#000889))
-AInc. / Eyetech have gone to the 'dongled' technique in part *because* such covenants are unenforcable in certain parts of the world -- it's not about not running MacOS (though since Apple doesn't want other equipment running MacOS, that was one less reason to contract for an OpenFirmware when the simple PPCBoot/U-Boot loader could be brought up to snuff for free -- and they get the PR of supporting the open source project) ... it's about making it inconvenient to do the possibly-legal-but-maybe-not-what-the-company-needs-to-survive thing. You couldn't run Classic AmigaOS (post 1.x) without Kickstart ROMs; you couldn't run Classic MacOS (pre-9.x.x?) without Apple ROMs. There were better technical reasons back then (ROMs were fast, disks were small); today, the smaller fish can't claim a technical excuse, but they really could use that revenue.
-Apple are selling tools that may be used for copyright infringement or piracy. (Rip. Mix. Burn. Please don't steal music.)
-Eyetech are selling tools that may be used for copyright infringement or piracy...
-Copper wire and RCA connectors can be used for copyright infringement or piracy.
-Apple probably don't mind making the extra $100 off users who'd never touch their hardware anyway; similarly, they doubtless enjoy reserving the power to bring suit (re: the EULA) should such sales become a threat to their business model.
-Now, ignoring the debates of what the *law* allows you to do in your jurisdiction, here's a better question -- Why on earth should you support a platform that doesn't want you as a customer? However you use MoL, it means you'll be running Mac software, not Linux or Amiga software. Apple have bit the PowerPC community once, and, at present, have shown no interest in 'opening' their platform to other hardware. If you demand the arguable 'ease of use' of a Mac, you should probably be paying for a Mac. If you demand the GPL/BSDware available, you should be running the same on Linux or BSD, and if you demand the commercial software - fine, slink by in the gray area until ports occur, but you'd be remiss not to point the developers to your favorite OS4 or MOS.
-Especially in today's economy, software fees are unmaintanable, and while people *are* morons post-Napster, this endless He'sAPirateShe'sAPirateYou'reAPirateWe'reAllPirates whinging is crippling everyone's ability to conduct business. Apple's charged roughly $100 thrice now for OS X, which would, of course, be less an issue if the first two versions were little more than demos. (Nobody said it would be easy for them; nobody said they wanted to get screwed, either.) On the other hand, they do have the sense to have made the one license good for all Macs owned, instead of per-seat. Is this progress? Is it not progress? Vote with your dollars, *and don't give them the benefit of a userbase* if it's not worth the asking price.
-No matter where you are, it should be perfectly legal to *ask* a company to engage in maintanable practices for the mutual benefit of the end user and themselves. Make suggestions; petitions can be fun, but often the management already knows. If information wants to be free, don't follow the Napsterites error, and mistake piracy for a form of speech -- Linux, BSD, and AROS could always use a hand.
-
GAG wrote:
At the end of the day you 'do not own' the software, you only have a licence to use it. If you breach that agreement (End User Licence Agreement) then they are quite within thier rights to remove or make the product unusable.
Just to clarify the issue, this is *still in dispute* just about everywhere, as the laws contradict themselves. In the US, we've got the good ol' Copyright Act, pledging the right to fair use, while the DMCA, Telecom Act and other laws have been put on the books atop it.
One school of thought argues that, should you fail to agree to the EULA, you've still exchanged money for a copyrighted work, and are thus entitled Fair Use.* The other argues that It Ain't 1976 Anymore, copyright as we knew it no longer exists, and you'd better pay up just in case.
Court decisions across the US have been split. The Supreme Court decision I whined about only dealt with duration of copyright - so far as I know, it addressed no issues of fair use, though extrapolated ad infinitum, it does point to the killing of the "creative commons." In lower courts, there have been "victories" and "losses" for both sides of the issue, and very little coherent picture has emerged, other than that, if the material in question is music, you're probably #### out of luck even if you didn't do anything. (http://chewplastic.com/))
The DMCA applies to specific violations of "protection techniques;" whether EULAs, Mac hardware design, or ROT13 are applicable as "protection techniques" has been left to the courts to make conflicting decisions over. Whether misrepresentation (misuse of Philips' 'CDDA' logo on a copy-protected, CDDA-spec-violating-disc) trumps the producer's interest under the DMCA is, as far as I know, another area still in dispute.
*Very very roughly, as would apply to 'consumer' use of software, "whatever the hell you want, as long as you don't give it or share it with anyone else." Copyright was invented to apply to printed works, and the intention was that it shouldn't be made thoughtcrime to manipulate data you've already purchased, so long as you're not reselling said data in some way. Fair Use advocates argue that, for instance, reverse engineering should still be legal - at least until such point as it's visited in a copyright or DMCA-violating product.
-
Check out this link: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25956.html (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25956.html)
"MS security patch EULA gives Billg admin privileges on your box"
Microsoft has just assumed the right to attack your computer and surreptitiously install code of its choosing. You will not be warned; you will not be offered an opportunity examine the download or refuse it. MS will simply connect remotely and install what it will, or install it secretly when you contact them.
-
My understanding of copyrights is that they are to do with who has a *right* to *copy* - in particular, to do with distribution of a work. This is nothing to do with asking what someone may do with software that they have legally obtained.
So even if breaking an EULA is illegal (which is dubious for various reasons - such as the fact that clicking a button can't be necessarily taken as meaning a user knowingly agreed to a contract, or the fact that these contracts are forced upon the user after they've paid for the product), at best it is breaking a contract, and *not* copyright infringement, piracy, or whatever else you want to call it. It would only be that if they gave copies to someone else.
In what countries/states has an EULA been legally upheld? Perhaps there are some, but I don't believe they are in the majority.
GAG wrote:
A company can make up any licence for thier software. If it says that you have to a certain age, nationality, or run it one certain software then they are quite entitled to. It doesn't matter how immoral or wrong it is but if you use thier software and you break thier EULA then you can be considered as a pirate. I know it's wrong but it is thier product and they can distribute it however they want to.
At the end of the day you 'do not own' the software, you only have a licence to use it. If you breach that agreement (End User Licence Agreement) then they are quite within thier rights to remove or make the product unusable.
A company may be able to refuse to sell software to someone for whatever reasons it likes, but it's another matter to prevent them using it *after they have bought the product*, and when they were not informed of such conditions and restrictions when the contract of purchase was made.
The common assumption with every day products like the ones from M$ is that if you have the disk and you paid for it then it's yours to do whatever you like with it. Once you tell people that they cannot copy the software or duplicate you always end up with the same old argument.
Yes, it's not yours to do what you like with - for example you can't give copies to other people. That's copyright law which exists in many countries under the Berne Convention. But at the same time, that doesn't mean that companies have a right to do what they like, nor does it mean that you aren't allowed to do things just because some company tells you, because you use a product of theirs that you legally obtained.
Making software which is hardware dependant could cause serious legal problems when you pay for software and it doesn't work due to a mechanical problem when the description on the box clearly says it works!
I think it's also a serious legal problem if I'm supposedly a pirate for using software I've paid for legally, in a manner perfectly consistent with the description of the software on the box.
-
[color=CC0000]Stop!![/color]
@Marktime
I only asked if it were possible to run OsX on Amiga1, not for a legal debate but I will look in to it for myself, please find your own thread. I woul still like to know more about Osx on A1 cheers.
Any thoughts Webmaster??
-
@Phoenix,
Sorry, but I found this invalueble.
I have an iMac and want to buy an A1 but not use just Linux.
Now I know that I CAN LEGALLY put OSX onto the A1.
Also I want to upgrade to OSX.23.
My one remaining question is, can I buy MOL and OSX together in a bundle and hopefully save money?
Any link would be much appreciated.
Valan
-
My one remaining question is, can I buy MOL and OSX together in a bundle and hopefully save money?
MOL is free.
-
@Gaidheal
I found your comments very insightful(apart from the personal attacks on Marktime).
Anyway while I am here I wondered if you could answer a question for me.
I want to buy another seat of Lightwave3d. Am I correct that I do not need one since I can use the same CD and get a software dongle for a couple of quid?
I hope the answer is "yes" then I can have Lightwave working on both my PCs without having to switch the dongle all the time.
Any help would be much appreciated
Thanks
Valan
BTW. I know I can already use the A1 as a LW rendering machine as the plug-in is supplied FREE from NewTek.
-
@Xeron
"MOL is free."
GREAT!
No Link?
Ok, I'll just do a search.
THanks
Valan
-
@MarkTime:
They can't give themselves a license for an AmigaONE, for example.
Sorry, wrong.
The whole point is that the EULA is not concidered a contract in Norway. You buy a product, and guess what? You can choose how to use this, because you NEVER AGREED TO FOLLOW THE EULA WHEN PURCHASING THE PRODUCT.
So I can buy OSx and use it on my AmigaOne, and there's NOTHING anyone can say about it. Why? Because I never put my name on any paper saying I will obey the EULA. The ONLY thing that prevents you running OSX on MOL is the EULA, and if the EULA is invalid, why would I have to invent new clauses? It's invalid, therefore there is nothing preventing you from using it.
Please try and wrap your head around the idea that some countries have a bit more freedom than others.
-
I've paid for a copy of OSX and wrote to Apple to se what they say about me being prepaired to install it on my AmigaOne system. I also wrote them and mentioned I a\have owned over 100 Apple machines over the last 10 years and have send in my registration cards on all of them. they have my name address and the proof in that. Lets see what they say when I tell them I will no lonf\ger support such a company if they tell me I can not install it on a machine that will run it just fine after all the years of support. A sad ploy sure, but who cares....
-
AFAIK
if you buy something in denmark, it is yours, you can do with it as you like. except make copies to other persons than yourself.
So (correct me if I am wrong), in Denmark, you would be allowed to install macos on you A1, since you bought both.
you can even piss on it a exhibit as a sculpture
-
@Valan:
Personal attacks? Hmm. Possibly headed that way..
Anyway, you are correct, so long as what you mean is "I want to use LW on another machine, while not using it on the machine I originally installed it on."
If you use them simultaneously, or allow someone else to use the other, you would breaking the law and it would indeed come under "Software Piracy"
Essentially, what you are wanting is a second dongle, to make it more convenient for you to use whichever machine you prefer at any given moment. So long as you don't intend to use both AT THE SAME TIME you are well within the "fair use" idea.
-
AFAIK
if you buy something in denmark, it is yours, you can do with it as you like. except make copies to other persons than yourself.
So (correct me if I am wrong), in Denmark, you would be allowed to install macos on you A1, since you bought both.
you can even piss on it a exhibit as a sculpture
Yes, but as said here before, you usually don't buy software, you're buying the right to use it. It usually say somewhere that the developer retains the ownership of the product. It more like you're renting it from the developer.
If you buy software you would have all rights to it, including its source code.
-
Hmm I was under the impression, that CD with SW is the same as CD with music.
But as I said I could be wrong.
-
But are you buyinjg the right to use it only on every second sunday each month and with the need to sacrifice a goat to stop it from crashing, or do you buy the right to use it (period).
Because the EULA is given to the customer AFTER he has paid for the product, it cannot be enforced. There is NO LEGAL documents you need to sign in order to receive your copy, so why should you be afraid of using MacOSX on non-apple hardware? As has been said repeatedly in this thread, emulation has been deemed within the "fair use" clause of piracy laws (you're buying two products and putting them together for personal use, no more, no less). MOL is an emulation layer. I don't see the problem.
Of course, OSX is a non-case for me, as I never had any interest in MacOS. I've sold my soul to Debian, I'm afraid... Beats selling it to Santa, though.
-
@Gaidhea,
DAmn!
Then I cannot use my version of OSX on 2 machines at the same time either?
MOL looks great by the way.
Thanks
Valan
-
Using it on multiple machines is obviously not covered by "fair use".
-
@Phoenix,
let me help you with your understanding.
You got the answer to your question, you are free to stop reading whenever you want. I am not forcing you to continue to read this thread long after your question has been answered.
It is very telling about your character that you cannot stop yourself from reading but instead will call to the webmaster to have another person censored.
it is *absurd* to single me out for censorship, why didn't you call upon all parties to stop?
I'll answer that for you, you agree with the pirate Gadheal, and therefore you didn't see any need for him to stop.
Wayne is free to censor people for being anti-piracy if he wants. He can turn this into a pirate board, if he wants. But he won't. He is anti-piracy too.
I don't speak for his opinions in this specific matter, of course, but despite popular opinion, breaking EULA's is both pirate activity, and quite frankly, shows a lack of character.
-
@olegil
Your country sweden is not the WHOLE WORLD.
This is what many people have been trying to drill into this discussion.
There are many countries in the world, and in the vast majority of Europe and America, the idea that you can buy a service, license a product, is central to IP ownership. You do not BUY OS X. You buy a limited license to use OS X under certain restrictions.
And every country, including Sweden, has the ability to sell services. Services are a valid concept in sweden. You can buy a license in sweden. Sweden is not simply restricted to only physical product sales.
Everytime I have checked out someone's story about 'their' country...presenting themselves as expert in order to make a point that they don't believe will be checked, they have been completely wrong.
The laws in UK were ENTIRELY misrepresented and completely false.....and I checked with UK governmetn websites, the writings of EU on the subject (to check EU countries) and even Microsoft UK division.
I don't have time to check Sweden now to correct your errors, but nevertheless, its fine. Sweden is just one country, and the vast majority of the EU and all of North America, you can sell a limited use license, and its how software is distributed.
@olegil
And btw, I am quite well aware that the pro-piracy europeans in this website will try the dirty tactic of being 'anit-american'...when they need to silence some opinion...'you american are all alike' has already been heard.
and your comment that american don't have freedom, another.
and the idea that 'I'm the expert on my country, and you can't say anything cause you aren't from here'
All, very *low-brow*, *dirty* debate tactics that you should be ashamed of....there really should be no place for bringing in nationalism and anti-american prejudice into this board.
I'll tell ya right out, EUROPE IS NOT IN ANOTHER GALAXY.
I can read spanish, russian and english, and while that doesn't cover the bajillion languages of europe, I'll tell ya right now, I will check UK government sites and EU sites to see what the law really says.
And the fact is, the guy from the UK was completely misrepresenting the law in the UK, and he just didn't think the 'american' was going to check.
I did. He's wrong. I've posted links. I can post more.
EU in *general* and the UK, most definately do have software licensing agreements, and software is not distributed as physcal sales, but is sold, mostly, as limited use licenses.
-
@marktime
Your country sweden is not the WHOLE WORLD.
Olegil is from Norway as far as I recall, but I guess it was an honest mistake. :-) I, on the other hand, am from Sweden.
There are many countries in the world, and in the vast majority of Europe and America, the idea that you can buy a service, license a product, is central to IP ownership. You do not BUY OS X. You buy a limited license to use OS X under certain restrictions.
And every country, including Sweden, has the ability to sell services. Services are a valid concept in sweden. You can buy a license in sweden. Sweden is not simply restricted to only physical product sales.
Of course this is so. I don't recall anyone saying otherwise. Since you don't seem to have bothered to read my previous response I will repeat myself again.
The only thing that is not valid in Sweden are licenses that you can only agree to after you have paid for the license. The "click wrapped" EULAs that are present in most installers are therefore not a valid license agreement. For a license to be valid here you must be able to read it and agree to it before you pay for it, otherwise that license is invalid and you are not bound by it.
-
@Casper
LOL, my mistake, I apologize for confusing Sweden and Norway.
Is it too late to excuse this by way of saying, I'm from North America?
I was directing my coments at olegil and the country he is from, I did read your earlier comments, and I didn't add any further comment about them, because I thought they stood up well by themselves and were very informative.
-
@marktime
LOL, my mistake, I apologize for confusing Sweden and Norway.
Is it too late to excuse this by way of saying, I'm from North America?
No problem.
I was directing my coments at olegil and the country he is from, I did read your earlier comments, and I didn't add any further comment about them, because I thought they stood up well by themselves and were very informative.
I was replying because he and I were saying the same thing, and you didn't seem to understand what we were saying. The laws in Norway and Sweden seem to be similar in this respect .
Perhaps we can lay this issue to rest now at least in regards to what is valid and not valid in Sweden and Norway.
@swedes and norwegians
Before you do use OS X on your A1, check that the license agreement isn't printed on the outside of the box. If it is, you are bound by it, since you were able to read it before you paid for it. The law in sweden does not require you to sign an agreement with your name in order for it to be valid (I just checked) so the fact that you paid for it is an indication that you accepted the license agreement. Apple do have to prove that it was you who agreed to it though (a signature is therefore recomended for contracts), but you still have commited a breach of contract.
-
Sometimes you are'nt funny. You did some bad shortcut in your text. Maybe you just studborn. You won't read what other says: Fair use, just fair use and not abusive contract (refer to some clause of EULA). In my land, you can't force someone to buy things with another. If you sell an OSX retail, that's it, you can use it where you want as long as you use it only on One computer at once.
Simple no. Eula isn't the truht every time. I don't sign a contract with my name, i don't know that before open the box ... where the law stand here, i'm wondering...
Maybe we can say Marktime the studborn, but that kind of comportement isn't funny. So please stay in debate.
Philespin
-
Valan wrote:
@Gaidhea,
DAmn!
Then I cannot use my version of OSX on 2 machines at the same time either?
MOL looks great by the way.
Thanks
Valan
I can't find where he said that, but I was a little off. The regular $130 Jaguar is single-seat, while $69 more gets you the family pack (http://www.macnn.com/news/15966), explicitly allowing 5 installs, again on Real Macs you personally own. Which isn't a *horrible* deal, if you're interested in supporting Apple. (I'd like to see Hyperion offer something similar with OS4, but it looks like it'll be one-license-per-AmigaOne, but perhaps more free/affordable upgrades than Apple have provided per point-release.)
If you're going to disagree with the EULA, and "fall back" to your rights under copyright (which, again, depends how/if they're defined in your country, and you should be prepared to defend yourself in the odd chance you get sued)... you have the right to make copies for personal use; in the US, this has somehow been eroded to "you have the right to make backups" when it comes to things digital (so somewhere, *executing* the code has been decided different from reading it/owning_a_legal_copy_of_it), but I have no idea what the case histories actually say.
In a business scenario, you're best off purchasing licenses Just In Case; yes, it's a scare tactic, but if the BSA ever comes-a-knockin', you do want to be able to wave the paperwork and say "Ha! We have a contract!" This is why the really huge corporations cut site-licenses and other such deals with companies like MS or IBM; the licensees get to know their rights under contract law (rather than messy, ungainly Copyright law), and the software vendors get a nice chunk of change, sometimes selling the same thing twice ("Okay, want to buy a site license for all those Dells that came with $50+ of Windows XP?").
-
MarkTime wrote:
Your country sweden is not the WHOLE WORLD.
This is what many people have been trying to drill into this discussion.
Sweden was an example of a country where EULAs are definately not enforceable. However, we've yet to have an example of a country (or even an individual state) where an EULA has been upheld in court.. how many are there?
There are many countries in the world, and in the vast majority of Europe and America, the idea that you can buy a service, license a product, is central to IP ownership. You do not BUY OS X. You buy a limited license to use OS X under certain restrictions.
Yes, but those restrictions are defined by copyright law; they are not defined by what extra conditions a company decides to spring on you, after the contract of purchase has already been completed.
It's all very well saying that the EULA is a legal licence, but you're forgetting that before that happens, the user has paid money in exchange for the right to use the software (as described by the laws of their country). So unless the terms of the EULA are presented at the time of purchase, they mean nothing - if the user refuses to accept the EULA, then big deal - they still have a right to use the software, and do anything that can be considered "fair use".
The way that the argument is supposed to go, as far as I can see, is that because the user clicked "I accept", then that means they *did* accept the contract. However this seems dubious to me, mainly because the user is forced to do this in order to use the product that they have a legal right to use, but also because clicking a button in a computer program isn't generally recognised as a means of necessarily agreeing with a contract (if I walk around with a sticker on my forehead which says "if you shake my hand, you must pay me £1000", if I managed to get someone to unwittingly do that, I'd be surprised if that would hold up in court). And also, this means that if the user gets round this (ie, installing without clicking okay somehow, whether it's done by installing manually, or hacking it somehow), then there would be no way they could have been said to have agreed with the EULA.
Getting more on-topic, the licence agreement for AmigaOS 3.9 says "This License allows you to install and use the Amiga Software on a single Amiga-labeled or Amiga-licensed computer at a time", which could be taken to mean that you aren't allowed to run it on an emulator. Though in this case you don't even have to click "I accept" to it; I just don't accept what this says, and stick with what the law allows me to do (or perhaps I could instead get round it by sticking an Amiga label on my PC;)
Remember that Sony were unable to prevent people from selling Playstation emulators - though I'm unable to find out whether Playstation games typically have a "you can only play this on a real Playstation" type EULA.. anyone know more about this case?
-
Please excuse me for loving this thread. I am finding it interesting, amusing, and informative even though some might be getting a little hot under the collar! So here's something for you guys to chew on...
Taking into account what has been said so far lets put this all into perspective.
Imagine, if you will, that I have written a killer application for the Amiga and everone wants to use it, port it etc etc. However, to ensure that my program isn't pinched, reverse engineered or damn right stolen from me I have made up an EULA to protect my software. This EULA is agreed to by the user who purchases it BEFORE installation.
In this EULA I say something like "It can only be used on an Amiga (hardware)", is this wrong? If I said something like "you must be over 30 years old", is that wrong? O.k. it's age descrimanation and some countries probably have laws against that, but you don't have to agree!
It all comes down to what the user agrees before installation. You DON'T have to agree but doing so means you cannot use the software. The problem arrives when you take the software back to the store saying that you didn't use it or install it and ask for a refund. There are also laws/rules for retailers when it comes to returned software. It's very tricky to work out if the customer is entitled to a refund especially as you can easily copy, registered, and return software without it bieng checked by the store. This is probably where software should be checked with a central database to see whether the software was installed or registered. M$ are trying to do this by enforcing thier registration techniques via the internet, but no check is made at the stores.
By selling the software the customer/user may own the physical disk (by law) but they do not own the software or the right to do as they please with it. There is something called 'Intellectual property' whereas the software is not owned by the person who has the disk...they simply just 'rent' the software (so to speak). An everyday example is a bank or credit card. That card may be yours, it has your name on it, but the bank owns the card and they can withdraw it at any time.
At the end of the day, if I said that in order to use my software you have to comply with MY rules, no matter how immoral they may be, then I can inforce that because the software is mine (intellectual property). If you continue to use the software and by doing so have agreed to my rules, should you break these rules then you have broken an agreement (or contract) and you can, quite rightly, be classed as a pirate!
The world of computing has turned from 'Personal Computing' to simply using terminals on the internet. The end user owns nothing but the physical product. :-(
-
I enjoy the phrase "Minitels from Microsoft."
Edit: As has been brought up time and again in SCO threads, "intellectual property" is a meaningless phrase, at least under US law. Real structures include copyrights, trademarks, patents, and contracts -- and more obscurely, things like 'trade secrets,' 'network elements,' 'telecommunications services,' and 'customer information,' all knowledge/communications artifacts regulated and protected under various laws. As I keep saying, the regulations and their enforcement are very much in flux -- but just because there's a riot on doesn't mean you're obligated to loot the store.
-
EULAs are a legal minefield.
Anyone remember the infamous Borland EULA (http://freshmeat.net/articles/view/369/)?
Clauses like that, hidden in small print make you wonder if the software company is really being fair to the customer, should they be allowed to go to such extreme lengths to protect their software?
IMHO there is scope in EULAs for flexibility. In their contract they can extend their fair use policy to any paying customer if they want to.
Of course it is upto the company involved to do so but i think a clearer and simpler policy would do them a lot of good in the long run.
Anyway maybe this topic has been dicussed to death eh ? It does seem to be dragging on a bit. Time to let it rest I think.
-
Your country sweden is not the WHOLE WORLD.
But USA is the whole world right? The laws there are correct, while other laws of other countries is incorrect?
-
The laws in UK were ENTIRELY misrepresented and completely false.....and I checked with UK governmetn websites, the writings of EU on the subject (to check EU countries) and even Microsoft UK division.
That is true... UK law is very similar to US in this issue... I believe the UK law regarding this, is one of the tightest/strict laws in Europe.
And btw, I am quite well aware that the pro-piracy europeans in this website will try the dirty tactic of being 'anit-american'...when they need to silence some opinion...'you american are all alike' has already been heard.
How can you call US pro piracy when this is not regarded as piracy here? You are being kinda of an racist now, telling us that our laws is wrong, while your countries law is right...
I have not checked this, but i believe the licensing terms might be different in the copies you buy here... Often those license say it applies to US/Canada..
-
GAG wrote:
This EULA is agreed to by the user who purchases it BEFORE installation.
In this EULA I say something like "It can only be used on an Amiga (hardware)", is this wrong? If I said something like "you must be over 30 years old", is that wrong? O.k. it's age descrimanation and some countries probably have laws against that, but you don't have to agree!
It all comes down to what the user agrees before installation. You DON'T have to agree but doing so means you cannot use the software.
Well this is exactly the question - are we talking about an EULA that takes place at the time of purchase, or one that happens during installation? IMO there is a fundamental difference.
I would say that in the latter case, you don't have agree, but nonetheless you can still use the software. In the former case, the company can refuse to sell the software to whoever for whatever reason, and force customers to sign legal contracts before purchase. But we don't have to do this for any other kind of product; I'd find it scary if this became commonplace for software.
By selling the software the customer/user may own the physical disk (by law) but they do not own the software or the right to do as they please with it. There is something called 'Intellectual property' whereas the software is not owned by the person who has the disk...
What can and can't be done is covered by copyright law. Which says nothing about letting companies have total control in saying what you can and can't do with the software.
they simply just 'rent' the software (so to speak).
Except the majority of software (including MacOS X, and AmigaOS 3.9) isn't rented.
At the end of the day, if I said that in order to use my software you have to comply with MY rules, no matter how immoral they may be, then I can inforce that because the software is mine (intellectual property). If you continue to use the software and by doing so have agreed to my rules, should you break these rules then you have broken an agreement (or contract) and you can, quite rightly, be classed as a pirate!
If you give the rules upfront, then perhaps. But you can't change the rules after you've already accepted money from your customers. And a pirate is someone who copies without permission; not someone who doesn't accept the contract that you try to impose after purchase.
The world of computing has turned from 'Personal Computing' to simply using terminals on the internet. The end user owns nothing but the physical product. :-(
Erm, except it hasn't. I don't know about you, but the software I run is running locally on my machine, and not on some remote server.
-
At the end of the day, if I said that in order to use my software you have to comply with MY rules, no matter how immoral they may be, then I can inforce that because the software is mine (intellectual property).
__________________________________________
While no one would argue that the producer needs to be compensated what ever they ask for their product (well excluding pirates), telling what kind of machine to run it on seems unfair. Was it Legal to dump tea in Boston harbour ?
I don't know how many would obey a 25mph speed limit on the interstate. Silly example but that is how I feel when a stupid EULA is written. I have bought the product retail and everybody involved has been compensated . How is this wrong?
Note I am talking about fair and not the Legality of something.
-
@ MarkTime
What if I install a program manually? What I mean is if I install software without using an installer and never click on the "I Agree" button when the "Contract" comes saying I have to run it on specific hardware.
I often install software manually, so if I never click the "I Agree" button and the shop keeper where I bought my software doesn't make me sign or agree to anything saying I have to run it on "this particular" hardware am I breaking the law?
I've never seen a software box or been told buy someone selling me software that I "have to use the installer" or I can't use their software. I have also never heard of a law that says I have to use the "Included Installer"....so?
AmigaGuy
-
You know what I would like to see? More developers putting their license conditions on their websites, so you can read them BEFORE you buy their products. Most companies do this for downloadable products, but not boxed products.
As for this thread, there's not a lot of helpful information, here. Personally, I don't care what the law says. I care what the developer/publisher says, and if they're going to screw me with stupid license restrictions, I'll just buy someone else's software.
The real problem is that people don't complain when they get screwed. They ignore the licenses and use the software anyway, then get all pissy when privacy, security, and reliability start becoming a problem, and they have no legal recourse because they didn't abide by the licenses.
Money talks. Boycott. Buy stuff from companies that don't put you through license hell. Don't steal it or use it illegally.
WISE UP!
-
better, unionize. and protest..
The fact is, the Eula's are bad for consumers. But the companies have all the power. If the Eula is a contract, it is one presented under duress. Now that Linux is under attack, that duress is greater.
It is not possible for one person to renogotiate the Eula. Let's say for OSX. But a user's union, comprising say 25% of their market share, could do something.
Also protest. Go to the store and buy a piece of software. Take it home, open the box, read the Eula on the packaging or if they leave it til install, on the install screen. Take it back. Get another copy. See if it has a better Eula. If not take it back. An organized effort could leave few unopened boxes
The "xproduct branded" Eula's should not be allowed to go unchallenged. Look at the precedent..
Sony pictures makes a blockbuster movie "Lesbian Sex Kittens from Mars".. And eventually sends it off to Sony Entertainment to press DVD's. Then someone bright at Sony sees that Apple has successfully defended this Eula term in court. "hey," says she, "let's put a Eula on this DVD. "
So to watch Lesbian Sex kittens from Mars we all have to buy a Sony DVD player. See where that could go?
-
:roflmao:
-
haha omg this whole topic cracks me up!
i'm with everyone who says licences that try dictate to you what you can and can not do with something you have *paid for* are absurd :-)
@MarkTime
"re-read my earlier post, you can only buy a license to use Mac OS X on apple branded hardware."
damn, does that mean I have to stop wiping my ass with OSX cds? would an apple tattoo on my left cheek satisfy the EULA? :-P
man! and all this time i've been feeding my chickens ground osx-cd feed. i suppose that violates the EULA too doesn't it. ho hum. now what will i feed the chooks? ;-)
what i'm trying to say is that, as long as you have paid for it, i believe it should be up to the individual as to what they do with it. if i pay for something i'm gunna do damn well what i want with it, regardless of what its original intended use is ;-)
-
@Marktime
Get one thing straight, I would not at anytime call on the webmaster to restrict another persons views I find even the idea offensive! Secondly I started this thread to ask about the technical hard/software issues and not the legal/moral implications. I will be doing my homework on legal side thanks to your posts though.
-
There's a thing called Fair Use that probably applies here. It allows you to use a copyrighted work for your own purposes as long as you paid for one copy. If Apple decided to enforce their EULA agreement via lawsuit, they might lose given the history of fair use. There is legal precedent I believe, (IANAL) that enables someone to reverse-engineer a product, although it is, like all copyright issues today, seriously threatened by pending legislation.
It's a grey area. A license may be a contract, but it is not a law.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled ennui.
mango
-
I dunno if I have got this right but if I haven`t then this might seem like a good idea to help stop pirating software. Or maybe I am just repeating old news....hmmm...here goes.
Apple are using this great idea which they have introduced into thier own music software, itunes, where you can preview and listen to a music track before paying a small fee and downloading. This is an old idea iirc but finally put to good use with Mac OSX and iTunes 4. It`s known as the Apple Music store.
Ah, but what if you download the music and then copy it onto CD? Well, from what I understand you can put that music file onto a CD or copy it 10 times before it becomes unusable...however I believe the track itself is encoded and they use some sort of serial number or encoding to make sure you don`t pass it around. O.K. so there are ways around it but the idea seems good.
Maybe this is what M$ are trying to do with thier EULA and registration thingy? They are going to encode the files and you can`t access them without the key which is generated via the serial number/s on your computer when you registeryour PC to M$ via the internet?
I have read all the articles about how M$ can access PC`s without your concent and change files remotely and how windows XP expects to connect to a M$ server when you go online!
What scares me most is that you computer gets probed ever minute by some scumbag and leaves a great gaping hole in your internet security.
THE BEST WAY to stop people copying software is to put a sodding big book with the disk and do what `Frontier Elite` did....ask for the word in a paragraph or page xxx! By the time you have photocopied all the pages you might as well have bought it! :-)
-
@derklempner
i'm with everyone who says licences that try dictate to you what you can and can not do with something you have *paid for* are absurd
why the asteriges around paid for? you dont seem to under stand what a licence is all about when you have bought and legaly agreed to a licence you must follow the licence. how absurd is that
"re-read my earlier post, you can only buy a license to use Mac OS X on apple branded hardware."
true.damn, does that mean I have to stop wiping my ass with OSX cds? would an apple tattoo on my left cheek satisfy the EULA?
you seem to be getting confused, a licence is for the software - not the medium on which it came... do you understand the difference between software and media? it seems to me you dont.
man! and all this time i've been feeding my chickens ground osx-cd feed.
well thats your problem... if you want me to reccomend a psychologist for you... i suppose that violates the EULA too doesn't it.
again, you are confused with software versus A CD... and it probably does not violate the EULA, you would still own the right to the software(which is IP) even if you were to destroy the CD(which is a physical thing) ho hum. now what will i feed the chooks?
i dont get your point here, moving on...what i'm trying to say is that, as long as you have paid for it, i believe it should be up to the individual as to what they do with it.
you are free to believe whatever you want! if you have some software, you may release it under what ever damn licence you choose. however they meaning the software developer, have their oppinion too, and that is spelled out in the EULA... dont agree to it? then dont agree to it! simple as that! send the software backif i pay for something i'm gunna do damn well what i want with it,
so i assume that might mean pirate & modify it as well? well you will have to take that with apple, wont you..regardless of what its original intended use is
its original intended use is for sale... to be sold to make the developer money.. if you dont like that derklempner, dont buy it
basically your attitude shows me your ignorance
your posts give insight into your psychology,
and the thing about feeding CD's only proves your poor state of mind...
... you are not well my friend, and your rant might just show how much professional help you may need
unless you are joking of course ;-) i would prefer to believe(for your sake) that you are only playing devils advocate here, and are not serious.
(who ever said ignorance is bliss? :-o )
-
Look, first of all, ALL americans are not like Marky boy here. Most of us, are normal, and not an anally retentive A**hole.
I agree 100% with the poster above. The box, Says os X. It does not say, OSX EULA. You are PURCHASING OSX. That is the deal. You pay for it, its yours to do with as you please. Apple has NO right to tell you what to do with said digital bits, as long as you do not break the copyright laws. EULA's dont hold up, end of story. You have purchase a CD, with digital bits on it. Nowhere on an os X box (and I am looking at one as I type!) does it say that you are purchasing a license. It advertises features, which are software. Now, I can do anything I please with said software.
Its punks like you that allow yourself to be tromped on and laws made that take away our rights as consumers. If I want to buy OSX and install it in the onboard ecm in my winnebago, I will damn well do it. I paid for it, and Apple has made their profit. Apple charges what they feel is a fair price. I paid that price, and now I can do as I please. If I chose to put the cd up on a pedastal and never install it at all, thats my choice.
You may be TECHNICALLY correct about the EULA, although I am sure it would be knocked down in court. What you don't realize, is that you are letting apple take away YOUR and my rights, by telling you what you can and cannot do with something you legitemately purchased.
Apple makes a profit, I don't care otherwise.
What I do with the CD which I purchased, and the software on IT which I purchased, is my business.
Whats next? Food companys selling food you can only put in certain refrigerators?
Come on, its really REALLY stretching the point to call someone who buys OSX and puts it on MOL a pirate!
-
The OS X EULA is ...
-EDIT: Took out links to Apples Website due to the fact it violated their online policy. Also being called schmuck has traumatized me for life and will be in therapy until further notice. :-)
Here is the Uses and Restrictions: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. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time,and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time. You may make one copy of the Apple Software (excluding the Boot ROM code) in machine-readable form for backup purposes only; provided that the backup copy must include all copyright or other proprietary notices contained on the original.
B. Certain components of the Apple Software have been or may be made available by Apple on its Open Source web site (http://www.opensource.apple.com/) (collectively the “Open-Sourced Components”). You may modify or replace only these Open-Sourced Components; provided that: (i) the resultant Apple Software is used, in place of the unmodified Apple Software, on a single Apple-labeled computer; and (ii) you otherwise comply with the terms of this License and any applicable licensing terms governing use of the Open-Sourced Components. Apple is not obligated to provide any maintenance, technical or other support for the resultant Apple Software.
C. Except as and only to the extent permitted in this License and by applicable law, you may not copy, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify, or create derivative works of the Apple Software or any part thereof. THE APPLE SOFTWARE IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEMS, LIFE SUPPORT MACHINES OR OTHER EQUIPMENT IN WHICH THE FAILURE OF THE APPLE SOFTWARE COULD LEAD TO DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE.
Here is where it states the type of Machine to run the software on:
This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time.
I think that this would be hard to prove in court for Apple for I could write Apple on my computer and it would be Apple Labled.
(-edit-)
(disclaimer) I am not an attourney and this should not be regarded in any way as advice towards what rights you may or may not have. Also "Apple Labeled" may be covered in there legal paperwork covering trademarks and the such.
While we are on the subject here is the definition of piracy:
Main Entry: pi·ra·cy
Pronunciation: 'pI-r&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Medieval Latin piratia, from Late Greek peirateia, from Greek peiratEs pirate
Date: 1537
1 : an act of robbery on the high seas; also : an act resembling such robbery
2 : robbery on the high seas
3 : the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright
as stated in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/home.htm).
I hope that this helps.
(-edit-)
I hope someone takes the baton to find out what Apples EU EULA is and what the legal ramifications are.
-
This is really a sad thread. Hundreds of people debating about an operating system that isn't even Amiga related in the slightest. Even sadder is how many people have actually viewed it compared to the other Amiga-related posts.
Perhaps if Amiga had a modern operating system release, people would quit trying to install other operating systems on a hardware architecture that was designed to support Amiga OS, and then this entire discussion would be a moot point. It seems kind of senseless to be trying to install OS X on AmigaOne hardware, regardless of whether it can actually be done. If you want to do that, why not just buy a Mac in the first place - more powerful, less expensive (in many cases), nicer designs, more software, and certainly more up-to-date than comparable AmigaOne motherboards/systems.
What's the point??? Isn't this an Amiga discussion forum? :-o
-
Wow. This was a monster thread. :-P
Unfortunately it is much ado about nothin. The so called "user agreement" comes after its been purchased. You can't expect someone to obide by/or enforce an agreement after the sale has been made.
No court in the land (US) would take this case. :-D
You buy it, you use it, have fun! :-) :-D ;-) :-P :-x
-
Macintosh is poor OS. There, thats settled! :-D
-
@ MarkTime
But, I will tell you this, lets go down the roll call of people who want to support illegal activity. Go ahead, jump in this thread with your whole hearted support of piracy. But later, when Amiga OS 4 is being pirated into oblivion, remember, you have nothing to say about it.
you talk as if you are the copyright owner of OSX, you also talk as if there was some way of stopping piracy in its tracks, when in fact OS4 or some other new amiga program may be found on a news server or kaza or some sh!t a week befor its released. in the computer world, it dont matter what software for what computer it is, it will be pirated just for the sake of barder.
PIRACY CAN NOT BE STOPPED AND thats a fact that Amiga zelots have to get use to. Its up to the companies that create the new Amiga boards and the OS to market the platform good enough to get enough QUALITY developers with QUALITY PRODUCTIVITY and ENTERTAINMENT SOFTWARE that will attract enough customers interested in the platform, where they will also start to see sales that will turn a profit regarless of some piracy.
-
Thoughts on the issue from a few local Apple retail representatives who have collectively been invovled with the company for 20+ years:
"MarkTime"'s argument is perfectly valid, and if you were to disclose to Apple Computer that you're indeed running MacOS X on hardware other than Apple's, you *would* be admitting to software fraud.
But to rank "piracy" on account of a technicality (voided license) up there with the literal/traditional act of "pirating" software (as he does when making reference to piraring OS 4) isn't concrete support. Not that it's really needed. Mark is right either way, but I wanted to point out the weak brick in the fortress.
In any case, "Apple is in no possition to care, in the grand scheme of distrubution, sales, and share, if you're really going to run OS X on a true Mac box or other hardware. They're happy to take your money either way. Tell your Amiga friends to 'keep their lips sealed.'" (Quote from regional distribution manager who will remain anonymous at her request.)
If you want to come to a compromise, install Apple's Darwin only.
(And remember that issues in life are not always 0 or 1. And SSRI's do wonders for obsessive compulsive disorder.)
-
Buying MacOS X is NOT Piracy. Running a purchased copy of MacOS X on non-Mac hardware is NOT Piracy but it DOES mean you are breaking Apple's EULA.
Piracy is stealing, but what applie saying that it will not support or condone use of MacOS on non-Mac hardware.
Please do not use word 'Piracy' when it does NOT apply here.
Anyway I doubt MacOS X would work on an AmigaOne or Pegasos anyway without some sort of hack...
-
If you want to do that, why not just buy a Mac in the first place - more powerful, less expensive (in many cases), nicer designs, more software, and certainly more up-to-date than comparable AmigaOne motherboards/systems.
Because maybe people want to run Amiga software and other platforms, without having to buy two machines? Admittedly yes, at the moment you can't run anything Amiga related on the AmigaOne, but it's still a relevant question either for the Pegasos, or for when OS4 is finally released. Emulation of other systems on Amiga hardware has always been on topic for Amiga forums.
-
Buying MacOS X is NOT Piracy. Running a purchased copy of MacOS X on non-Mac hardware is NOT Piracy but it DOES mean you are breaking Apple's EULA.
Piracy is stealing, but what applie saying that it will not support or condone use of MacOS on non-Mac hardware.
Please do not use word 'Piracy' when it does NOT apply here.
Anyway I doubt MacOS X would work on an AmigaOne or Pegasos anyway without some sort of hack...
__________________________________________
If that is true that would also apply in the case of running OS4 on a Peg. That would not be piracy either. I wonder what AI and Eyetech would say about that!
Stew
-
Step wrote:
I have today written an email to the Swedish Competition Authority asking for clarification on this Apple EULA issue, will post their reply as soon as i get it.
Don't forget that you can put ANYTHING in a EULA, but that doesn't necessarily mean they have a legal right to do so. If the use is protected by the Copyright law as "Fair Use" then the EULA is useless. United States Fair Use laws win in conflicts with a EULA. a EULA is not a law.
According to the Register of Copyrights, Marybeth Peters, "fair use is a flexible, technology-neutral doctrine, allowing reasonable and socially desirable uses of copyright works, even when they are not authorized by the copyright owner"
US Copyright law:
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > Sec. 117. Prev | Next
Sec. 117. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1)
that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner,
(Sorry Apple, US Copyright Law supercedes your EULA)
-
Hey, yo you schmuck, you cannot just link to the fruitcompany's site like that!
sheesh!!
http://www.apple.com/legal/default.html
You may not use any “deep-link”, “page-scrape”, “robot”, “spider” or other automatic device, program, algorithm or methodology, or any similar or equivalent manual process, to access, acquire, copy or monitor any portion of the Site or any Content, or in any way reproduce or circumvent the navigational structure or presentation of the Site or any Content, to obtain or attempt to obtain any materials, documents or information through any means not purposely made available through the Site. Apple reserves the right to bar any such activity.
Oh no!! Now you made me do it too!! Aaaaarg! :-o
-
Good one, Kolbjørn.
I would like to state once and for all that I have SERIOUS doubts that Apple could take anyone to court for GIVING them money and USING their software. Not without SEVERLY loosing face, anyway.
Emulation doesn't mean piracy, and not upholding an agreement you only got to see AFTER you paid does not equal illegal.
The thing that COULD bother Apple is that they are loosing money from the sale of Apple hardware. But come on, it's not like anyone in their right mind would buy both an AmigaOne/Pegasos and a new Mac, because only ONE of these solutions has HALF a chance of feeling right for an old Amigan, while BOTH solutions has the option to run the latest MacOS and applications. This could change if Hyperion and/or Genesi got a deal with the devil to port their OS to that other platform.
I think Apple would actually make money if I could buy their hardware and triple-boot it with Linux, OSX and OS4. Seriously, I think that would mean extra money for Apple.
But they insist on not wanting that, right?
The important thing is to not pirate (I wouldn't install OSX on more than one machine per license, for instance).
Btw: Check out the license for the excellent electronics design package Eagle which I use at work.
http://www.cadsoftusa.com/
They have a freeware version for hobbiest, a non-profit license for advanced hobbiests. Then there's the standard version and the professional version for business and home use, with single user (can install on 3 machines, just not use them at the same time), 3 & 5 user licences and a server license for those who are running thin clients. All in all, I think these guys have come up with a GREAT licensing. At work, we buy the single user licenses so we can install them on office PC, home PC and laptop and keep working wherever in the world we may be. If everyone was as flexible as these guys, the world would be a better place.