Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Wins Permanent Injunction Against Psystar
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sorry can't read thats an app not OS component...it wouldnt let me edit
They distribute it with the OS, and the point of my hypothetical was the judge ruled that all those bits on the Mac OS X DVD comprise a "work," so the fact that it's an "app" seems irrelevant (to my crazy hypothetical).
Didn't read your post, sorry. Does OS X modify any gpl code without giving back? For example I'm pretty sure I could write an IDE that works with gcc that is proprietary.
I found that list earlier, but my spot checks of the components that I heard of did not result in any programs licensed under the GPL. Some LGPL (which allows proprietary linking), but no standard GPL. Darwin and other major components are Apple Public License.
Of course, like I said, I just checked a few prominent ones in the list. I'm just curious as to whether any components of OS X are included under the GPL.
Again, it doesn't matter if it's a "key component." The judge said the entire disk is a single work. That disk includes "key components," desktop wallpapers, and games. The whole thing, according to Judge Alsup, is a single "work."
The GPL says that if you use a GPL'd component (not a "key component") as part of your "work," your "work" is GPL.
If your question is merely idle curiosity, http://www.apple.com/opensource/ lists many key components, though I don't know that they are GPL (vs. BSD, etc.) Many of the open sourced components are listed as being part of "Mac OS X" as opposed to any particular app within the OS.
Update: if it's all BSD or LGPL, that makes the hypo less fun
Update 2: randomly checked GDB's license - it's GPL, not LGPL.
Again, it doesn't matter if it's a "key component." The judge said the entire disk is a single work. That disk includes "key components," desktop wallpapers, and games. The whole thing, according to Judge Alsup, is a single "work."
The GPL says that if you use a GPL'd component (not a "key component") as part of your "work," your "work" is GPL.
If your question is merely idle curiosity, http://www.apple.com/opensource/ lists many key components, though I don't know that they are GPL (vs. BSD, etc.) Many of the open sourced components are listed as being part of "Mac OS X" as opposed to any particular app within the OS.
Update: if it's all BSD or LGPL, that makes the hypo less fun
Update 2: randomly checked GDB's license - it's GPL, not LGPL.
Ah I see now, interesting point. This court battle just may turn around and bite apple in the ass.
Ahhh! I think that's thats where our wires are being crossed. We are in 100% agreement. Of course I see things more definitive and less gray. Simply put, if there were any applications, Psystar would have made them in the whole year that they tried to defend themselves (the judge even said that any section 117 claim would be as an asserted defense) - I even think they tried to argue Verner v Autodesk in one of their motions (I always read that the Verner case was all about first sale which excludes licensing - which makes sense - and would exclude copyright as a whole because the product was never copied by Verner - just resold - which I agree with.)
True, ownership is important. Last I looked, Apple ownes and controls OSX as an entity. Verner v Autodesk never concluded that Verner owned any Audtdesk product, merely that the disc was his to resell. It never dealt with the finer things that you need to do to make a hackintosh (like physical installation or modifying code (code that is part of a larger protection scheme). Thats why I claimed that it is un-important, the one aspect that it addresses doesn't cover copying. Just one right that copyright grants to the consumer over an individual.
1) I was trying to distinctify the two not confuse them.
2) In Verner (as you asserted) the disc was not modified in any way nor was it ever used in a copied scenario. It was just resold. Verner was in essence selling a disc that had lots of value. The copy-written code on said disc was not sold (in fact Verner never accepted any licensing to it as I recall). Thats a different assertion - he was not really dealing in bits, the bits are what was covered in the licensing which can be transferred by first sale overall.
Had Verner installed the software, accepted Autodesks license, and resold the disc, he would have been in trouble. He didn't. He essentially just sold a disc like I would be if I was selling an extra copy of OSX that I had bought - that is fine since i am just selling a valuable disc. The only way you "own" the bits would be in a vague sense that they are inherently ties to the distribution method. As Gnasher points out:
Selling an original disc that isn't modified is very different from the typical hackintosh scenario where you are modifying the software to accomplish an act that goes way beyond what the licensing scenario is for. We are assuming that everything is kosher as far as your intent - if your intent is to follow the license - than you could argue section 117. However if your intent is to not follow the license, you might as well try to install Windows and hack the activation to accept a bogus serial number to get out of the upgrade requirements.
Sorry I should have been clearer in what I said - I should have included "end user"
I believe so. Last time I read the decision, the judge points out that software is still held under licensing - it was that the licensing could not preclude first sale when the product was unused.
It has to be clear on some things - no jusge is going to allow a section 117 defense to get around say an upgrade licensing fraud.
Yes, let's think of all the people that can't afford things they want. I want a Maserati, but I can't afford it - why won't someone just come up with a way for me to get one at the price of a Kia.
I'd prefer a Rolls actually... Good point though!
Not quite. The GPL explicitly says:
This is exactly what Apple is doing with Mac OS X, when they include gdb, emacs, etc...
B
Ah, but the judge said that OS X is "a work," not "an aggregate" - that's why changing a part of it is a "derivative work."
(hey, this is just a thought experiment here...)
Update: and, after all, from the GPL FAQ: "Where's the line between two separate programs, and one program with two parts? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. "
Aggregate is just a descriptor in that case (I would argue) describing it as a combination of things. I dont think that a judge is going to really care. I think for all intents and purposes they are the same thing. My guess is that the difference is that a work can be a larger envelope that can contain an aggregate.
Well, I guess the question is do you apply the GPL provisions about "work" or the GPL provisions about "aggregate?" They're not the same thing with respect to the GPL, and we now have a court that says that Mac OS X is a "work."
I wonder if they can be both depending on what the nature of the case would be. The psystar case was about osx as a whole as a copywritten entity and not about the open source components or any one component.
And now you know what what lawschool is like. A lot of hypothetical situations with no clear answers.
The GPL is not as "viral" or onerous as its opponents make it out to be.
Mac OS X is a work with respect to Copyright and Psystar as ruled on in this case, and an aggregate with respect to the GPL. Much in the same way that "Now 32" is a compilation covered by Copyright law above and beyond the individual copyrights of each single in the compilation.
Apple needs to use the aggregate bits of the GPL to allow them to redistribute the GPL works they wish to include with OS X. They respect the GPL enough to have their own website (previously linked to) where all the sources including Apple modifications (if any) are available as required by the GPL.
However, the aggregate itself is still a separate work covered by Copyright law, and this is what the judge in this case ruled on.
B
Again, in case you're still not getting it : As was shown to you, your links proved none of that. It only proved that Steve submitted the finished work to Atari and that Atari rejected it. And it only mentions borrowed parts, not any core technologies of Atari. Again, that was the culture of the 70s and 80s.
And now I'm a zealot. In other threads I'm called a hater. Maybe, just maybe, I'm a balanced observer.
Apple sued Psystar because Psystar were breaking the EULA, not respecting the DMCA and copyright laws of the USA in regards to OS X. They won because the laws supported Apple's claims.
Finally, there's nothing nasty about preventing Mac Clones when Mac Clones almost killed Apple the last time they were around.
So much for your trolling.
OS X is as much a work as any Linux distribution. They are not all GPL'd as a whole, some having much stricter licenses (Redhat Enterprise Linux or SUSE Linux Enterprise Server), even though they are made up from some GPL'd works. People have had to strip out packages to make clones of these distributions from their sources (see White Box Linux).
Hey genius it takes time to compile a lawsuit.
Hint: German court decisions don't get published until one site decides to so. The loser normally won't publish it...
That's exactly what's the GPL is for. If you use GPL'ed work and modify it your whole program falls under the GPL. Otherwise the GPL would be pretty useless. That's why most libraries are now LGPL.
So if Apple used some components that were under the GPL then the derived work now is also under the GPL and Apple has to release its source code:
"(...)
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License. (...)
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. "
But, as it has been pointed out by others it also says:
OSX is not one program that contains GPL - the GPL components are small, separate parts of a mash of different things. Apple is not limiting the rights of the GPL code - just the code that it wrote. Thats why they provide the source code - they limit that code where it matters.
"Your honor, we cannot ignore th plain language of the GPL. it couldn't be any clearer. If a work contains GPL code, the work can only be distributed under the GPL. As the Court has correctly determined after much testimony from Apple and based on Apple's own evidence and pleadings, OS X is a work. Therefore, since it contains GPL code..."
I'm just saying that if I was Apple's lawyer, I would have been unhappy with the use of the term "work"
I'm just saying that if I was Apple's lawyer, I would have been unhappy with the use of the term "work"
You're making a big deal out of nothing. An aggregate is a work, it's not necessarily a derivative just because it includes some GPL code (not to mention not all open source licenses are compatible which would be a big mess if a distribution were a derivative work of all it's included packages).
There is plenty of other examples out there that would make such an argument get thrown out before the lawyer even finishes the sentence.
Put simply any compilation is a work, that may be composed of a series of other works that each can have their own limits on distribution.
This is nothing new in the world of Copyright.
Like an anthology of short stories by different authors. Each short story is a work, copyrighted in its own right, but the particular collection becomes a new work with its own copyright that does not trump the rights of any of the individual copyright holders. It especially does not give the compiler any additional right to distribute the individual works independent of the compilation.
I already used the music compilation comparison, but this is how a lot of songs on compilation albums (e.g. soundtracks) in iTunes end up as "Album only." The party that compiled the album got specific and limited rights to distribute a song as part of the compilation as a whole from the copyright holder of the individual track.
B
You're making a big deal out of nothing. An aggregate is a work, it's not necessarily a derivative just because it includes some GPL code (not to mention not all open source licenses are compatible which would be a big mess if a distribution were a derivative work of all it's included packages).
There is plenty of other examples out there that would make such an argument get thrown out before the lawyer even finishes the sentence.
I don't mean to make a big deal of it, and I don't think it's a winning argument. I threw it out there as a thought experiment. Unlike all of your "examples," however, here we have an adjudication that OS X is a unified "work.".
One of the first things a lawyer learns is that he is most likely to winthe case I he can make a simple argument, for example by word-matching in a contracts case.
The GPL said "work" and the court said "work." the counter argument cannot b stated as simply a my hypothetical argument to the judge, I think.
As an engineer, I know the right result is that OS X is fine. As a lawyer, I know I could get that result, but I also know that if I am not careful I could lose based on that word-matching argument.