Amiga osX

[Gaidheal]

@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.

[Gaidheal]

@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 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.

[Gaidheal]

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

[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.

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"?

[Gaidheal]

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.

[Gaidheal]

@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.

[Gaidheal]

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.

[Gaidheal]

@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.