Amiga osX

[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....

[yssing]

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

[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.

[Casper]

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.

[yssing]

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.

[olegil]

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.

[Valan]

@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

[olegil]

Using it on multiple machines is obviously not covered by "fair use".

[MarkTime]

@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.

[MarkTime]

@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.

[Casper]

@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.

[MarkTime]

@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.

[Casper]

@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.

[Philespin]

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

[Floid]

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, 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?").

[mdwh2]

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?