Amiga osX

[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.

[Tomas]

also... If the software company does not want to accept the local laws, they should not make their product avaliable there.

[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.

[GAG]

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!

[MarkTime]

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

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 :-)

[Floid]

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!)

-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.

[Floid]

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.)

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.

[Tomas]

 Check out this link: 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.

[mdwh2]

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.

[Phoenix]

[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??

[Valan]

@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

[xeron]

My one remaining question is, can I buy MOL and OSX together in a bundle and hopefully save money?

MOL is free.

[Valan]

@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.

[Valan]

@Xeron

"MOL is free."

GREAT!
No Link?

Ok, I'll just do a search.

THanks
Valan

[olegil]

@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.

[Acill]

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....