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.
