There are threads with thousands of posts already. Take a look at the "your last purchase" thread, does that need its own forum too?
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.
Give Psystar its own sub-forum?
- Thread starter godslabrat
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There are threads with thousands of posts already. Take a look at the "your last purchase" thread, does that need its own forum too?
theres a difference between a photo thread and a technical thread though
1000 posts out of the 6,600,000 posts on MR. I think if there is to be a dedicated forum then I would want to see a repair permissions one first.
When you look at the number of people who have posted, only 241 unique posters with 110 who have posted more than once.
17 posters who have posted 10 or more times and these account for 57% of all posts in that thread.
Hardly a massive amount of post/ers when you look at the numbers.
If there is consideration for hackintoshes/osx installed on other computers I would want to see a linux subforum as well. After all we have a windows forum yet no linux.
wow thats cool. is there a way for non-mods to use a tool like that?
I'm not a mod and I know how to use it
That link shows the posters for this thread. Just click on the number of replies (when viewing the threads in forum) to open it.
I'm not a mod and I know how to use it
That's the posters for this thread. Just click on the number of replies to open it.
haha another way for me to waste time on here so thanks??
Not looking for argument here,
Well then that goes for Apple too, they have agreed to the GPL by distributing their software for use with OS X on every install in fact its required without the GPL software included OS X will not boot. The GPL grants me the right to use their software however I choose to without restriction as long as I don't redistribute if I do redistribute then I have to give the same rights I received to those who get the distributed software. Apple saying I cannot install GPL software on any machine I choose through their EULA is a restriction of my rights to use the GPL software.
Exactly how much of OSX is covered under the GPL, anyway? 50%? 5%? None? Which part of the code base can be identified as redistributed by it? Besides, that right only exists for those portions of the software covered under the GPL, not the entire OS. The patches that Psystar made were almost certainly not under the GPL umbrella. If they were, that would have already been noted in one of the dozens of filings.
Hate to break it to ya but but all of the GPL code included on the install disk is redistributed just by the fact that Apple is distributing the disk, no way in hell none of code in OS X is not covered under the GPL it requires bash to boot that for certain is covered under the GPL. Add to that the GPL clearly states that by redistributing the software you have to give the same rights you got to the code namely to the person getting the code they get to do whatever they want with it without restriction. Since OS X requires a bash shell to boot and spawn the graphics (Aqua, Core Graphics...) you are at all times still using bash while running the desktop of OS X therefore still using GPL software directly while doing it...
Code:
macuser2525s-mac-pro:~ MacUser2525$ bash --version
GNU bash, version 3.2.17(1)-release (i386-apple-darwin9.0)
Copyright (C) 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.In case you don't know the Free Software Foundation hold the copyrights of the GNU Project which among other things wrote bash, gcc that is used to build OS X software, GPL license and sh*t loads of other stuff included in the basic OS X install.
Psystar's license.
http://psystar.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=234&Itemid=162
You seem to have a serious misunderstanding of the issue. Any GPL code that Apple uses, they've released the source for. That's the sum total of their obligation. None of their proprietary code can be redistributed in any way...just because you're using a bash shell doesn't mean that somehow any app you launch with it magically becomes GPL. Also, the kernel is under the BSD license (which means they can do whatever the heck they want with it). Sure, go ahead and redistribute the GPL code as you like, but without all the proprietary parts, you have no OS X.
--Eric
--Eric
Code:
macuser2525s-mac-pro:~ MacUser2525$ file /bin/bash
/bin/bash: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures
/bin/bash (for architecture i386): Mach-O executable i386
/bin/bash (for architecture ppc7400): Mach-O executable ppcYou see that the binary is an OS X executable when I choose to exercise my rights under the GPL to run that binary Apple has distributed therefore has to give me the same right they have to do so I can only do it under OS X. Now once OS X boots anything else that runs is spawned from the bash shell which is always in use if you kill off the bash shell that is running the desktop process the machine is screwed and you need to reboot to get running again therefore my using bash on OS X includes running the desktop it is running. As you, I or anyone else for that matter is always at all moments except for the first few seconds in the posting process when the machine starts always using GPL software by the name of bash and your right without GPL'd software like bash Apple would have no OS X.
Now if Apple wants to go ahead and sell/distribute their install disks without the desktop included they can of course do that but I bought and paid for both the Leopard Family Pack and regular retail disk I have so have paid for the Apple parts on them and I'm gonna run them damn well where I please regardless of the EULA which tries to restrict how/when/where I can run the GPL software.
Oh I read what you were writing didn't stop it from being less BS and have a clue what I am talking about. Redhat was in the same position as Apple is right now with regarding binary distribution with their RHEL the reason there can be binary compatible clones of it is the GPL. All Redhat can do about people using the same GPL licensed binaries as theirs is ensure that their trademarked terms and copyrighted material is not distributed by another company they could not restrict them from running that same binary on the clone systems due to the GPL the same as Apple cannot do it now.
So what bizarre conclusion would that be, that Redhat or anyone else could not do anything about binary distributions of GPL software it is a fact search on "Redhat vs CentOS GPL dispute". I think you the one in dream land about what can and cannot be done so whatever..
As far as Open Software IP being upheld Jacobsen v. Katzer was settled in August 08, upheld a open software IP for the creator.
And started just as ugly and confusing as Apple vs. Psystar
Google, Groklaw and Wikipedia say that is a patent dispute about a piece of software released under the Artistic License not the GPL. I take it the point you are making is this from Wikipedia.
If so I agree totally the thing that bothers me most is these people that seem to think Apple can do whatever they please because its "their operating system" well sorry for them it is not all Apple's there are other peoples code in there and those licenses have to be respected too.
That link to the Psystar's license should be interesting along with the Psystar Hosted Mac OS X Software Update server when the jury trial comes along.
Don't think Psystar is the original author of anything, just hacks. So I cannot really see the need for Psystar's open source license, yet (unless it proves they read Apple's APSL, and can cut and paste in Word.)
Haven't seen anything which makes me think they are following the open source licenses and doing what is requested.
At least Apple is crediting the original authors, linking to the creators, and providing the source they are using.
For darwin http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/
And they are respected, if you would read what I wrote the first time. That doesn't mean you can do whatever you like with Apple's code. Here's a nice link, which you also won't read, but eh, who cares about the facts when it comes to an argument, apparently....
--Eric
In other words you cannot add additional conditions such as placing restrictions on what hardware the GPL software can be installed on or how/where it is used the GPL grants the end user the rights to do anything they wish with the software as long they don't redistribute those are certainly restrictions of your use of the software contained in the aggregate of Apple's install disks as specified by the EULA containing those restrictions and I don't let facts get in the way yeah RIGHT!!! dream on.
Maybe a picture would help you understand that "OS X" is much more than just the Core OS (Darwin). The GUI and the APIs were developed by Apple and are not Open Source, etc.
From: Architecture of Mac OS X
Could we please keep this thread on topic, which is about whether we should have a Psystar/Hackintosh forum?
Detailed posts about the legal case, the ins and out of licenses, technical discussions and so forth should really go in the News Thread or the MacBytes thread.
Any further posts along this line will get moved to one of those two threads with any corresponding replies. Thanks.
Detailed posts about the legal case, the ins and out of licenses, technical discussions and so forth should really go in the News Thread or the MacBytes thread.
Any further posts along this line will get moved to one of those two threads with any corresponding replies. Thanks.
The way I see it, MR is about Apple, Inc. not [insert your name here] Inc. The reason why there is a Windows forum is because Apple now makes software of Windows. Last time I checked Apple doesn't make software for Linux. So if down the road Apple decides to do away with the EULA and freely allow anyone to put Mac OS on any box, then sure, create a forum for it. But until then it is selfish and shady at best and not at all Apple. Plus if MR allows one forum about something non-apple, then what's stopping MR from adding every conceivable topic out there?
What do you mean? I guess that means most of the digital audio and photography fora should be erased. What about the Music Discussion forum, and the "Community discussion" fora?
I think the problem with what you're suggesting is that very few of us concentrate solely on Apple hard- and software.
Bootcamp allows users to install windows on their macs and it is the general reason behind this subforum after all it is called "Windows on the Mac" rather than Apple software on windows.
It is very possible to install Linux on a Mac using bootcamp.
A Psystar computer is a hackintosh, and yes, it is that cut-and-dry. Posts pertaining to it should go in the Hackintosh thread.