Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Linking to "patches" on the front page?

*LTD* said:
You may modify or replace only these Open-Sourced Components; provided that: (i) the resultant modified Apple Software is used, in place of the unmodified Apple Software, on a single Apple- branded computer; and...
Click to expand...

Apple cannot add those restrictions for GPL parts. It is quite wrong for Apple to imply that derivative works have to replace original code on particular machines.

GPL

4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
parties remain in full compliance.

Regardless, for all open sourced parts, the restrictions are meaningless, as I already have a license to them under the original open source license terms.
 
ChrisA said:
It's not piracy. A patch like this only overwrites data that is already on your disk. We assume someone bought Mac OS X. This modifies the copy they own by writing over top of it. It is not a modified copy, which would be a copyright violation.
Click to expand...

Contrary to Apple's EULA. Anything that enables the user to run OS X on unauthorized hardware is a violation of Apple's software license. That's the whole point. It violates licensing terms. In earlier posts I applied this to the Macrumors article and how it relates to forum rules.

Veri said:
Regardless, for all open sourced parts, the restrictions are meaningless, as I already have a license to them under the original open source license terms.
Click to expand...

What you do with them re OS X and Apple's software license pertaining to it, however, is most certainly not meaningless.

And FWIW, the EULA specifically states that the retail version can only be used on Macintosh computers. Since the EULA has been upheld, that statement now has the force of law.

Veri said:
Apple cannot add those restrictions for GPL parts. It is quite wrong for Apple to imply that derivative works have to replace original code on particular machines.
Click to expand...

They did (not sure how you're reading it, though.) It's in the EULA. The EULA has been upheld in court. It has the force of law.
 
*LTD* said:
What you do with them re OS X and Apple's software license pertaining to it, however, is most certainly not meaningless.
Click to expand...

Indeed: specifically, if Apple tried to restrict my modification or re-distribution of any of the GPL-licensed code it used then it would lose the right to usedistribute (sorry) that code. Apple may license me the GPL works it has built on under the GPL and, where it does not own the entire software, only the GPL.

The EULA has been upheld in court.
Click to expand...
Some of it, in a particular situation, in a particular jurisdiction. No "override the GPL" clause has been upheld.
 
What happens if I sell you a box of corn flake. And written on the box there is a sign that reads: "By opening this box you agree to the term on the contract inside adn as they may be modified in the furture by the seller of this box"

Then inside the contract reads: "you must eat these corn flakes only with a platic spoon and when you finish you must from that day forward only ware blue clothing."

Yes. Very silly but you did open the box so you will have to tell me why you do not have to use a plastic spoon and ware blue. and YES i agree thet you would not have to do those things BUT WHY.

Now that you've explained that, why does that same argument not apply to the DVD you just bought. Copyright is different, I agree you can not make a copy and sell the DVD. We are not talking about that. We are talking about putting the DVD in a toaster oven or maybe some old PC you have. So be very careful about how you explain about not using the plastic spoon because that argument will certainly have bearing on using the DVD in a PC.

++++

Here is my take on the above: The contract in the corn flake box is completely invalid because contracts are only binding if BOTH parties agree. opening a box can not signal agreement because you cant even know what you agree to and there is no way to "un-open" the box and signal disagreement.

*LTD* said:
Contrary to Apple's EULA. Anything that enables the user to run OS X on unauthorized hardware is a violation of Apple's software license...
Click to expand...

A licenses is a contract. Many people will argue that the EULA is not a valid and binding contract. The basic thing about contracts is that both people have to agree to the terms. You can't make them one sided. At the very least there must be a way to decline.

See my post above about corn flake box. You can't just put a contract in a box and force whoever buys it to be bond by it's terms. Not unless you give him a way out.

If Apple were to offer a refund of the price to those who did not like the EULA then it would be different. Or if the Apple store required you to read and sign a contract BEFORE they sold you a DVD then it would be different.



GPL is different. It is not a license to use. It is a contract allowing redistribution and they give you a way out. In fact they say "accepting this license is optional", They make it very clear that you can use the software all you like without agreement of the GPL terms. You don't have to agree to the GPL but if you don't then you are bond ONLY by the copyright law. The Apple EULA does not allow you to not agree.
 
... ... ...


ChrisA said:
What happens if I sell you a box of corn flake. And written on the box there is a sign that reads: "By opening this box you agree to the term on the contract inside adn as they may be modified in the furture by the seller of this box"

Alright, so you open it. Hopefully some kind of refund policy is in place with the retailer.

Then inside the contract reads: "you must eat these corn flakes only with a platic spoon and when you finish you must from that day forward only ware blue clothing."

Yes. Very silly but you did open the box so you will have to tell me why you do not have to use a plastic spoon and ware blue.

You *do* have to use a plastic spoon and wear blue. In the absence of an agree/disagree option, what you'd need to do if you disagree is close the box and if you want, return it to the retailer. These stipulations would be in the EULA.

and YES i agree thet you would not have to do those things BUT WHY.

You *would* have to do those things. If you want to argue it, you'll need to subject the EULA to the court's analysis. If you're comparing it to Apple's EULA, the court upheld that, so in that case the comparison between your cereal example and Apple is inappropriate.

Now that you've explained that, why does that same argument not apply to the DVD you just bought. Copyright is different, I agree you can not make a copy and sell the DVD. We are not talking about that. We are talking about putting the DVD in a toaster oven or maybe some old PC you have. So be very careful about how you explain about not using the plastic spoon because that argument will certainly have bearing on using the DVD in a PC.

You lost me here.

++++

Here is my take on the above: The contract in the corn flake box is completely invalid because contracts are only binding if BOTH parties agree.

Nothwithstading the subjection of that particular "contract" to legal analysis, you're correct.

opening a box can not signal agreement because you cant even know what you agree to and there is no way to "un-open" the box and signal disagreement.

Disagreement means you close the box and not eat the cornflakes. For example, "clickwrap" agreements have an agree/disagree option. The EULA states that if you disagree, don't use the software.

The box itself should have something that reads:

"Please read the enclosed license before using the software. By using the software, you agree to be bound by the tems of this license."

What does the Snow Leopard box say?
Click to expand...
 
*LTD* said:
This "breaking of the rules" doesn't matter one bit? What's your opinion on that? I'm dying to know.

Would it matter whether I broke the rule about forum conduct? How about I call you all kinds of obscenities and find interesting ways to threaten you online, via these forums? Would you like that? Think I could get away with it without being reported? Would you like to see me get away with it constantly, with no action taken by the mods?

I think you see what I'm getting at . . .
Click to expand...
I believe there are enough checks for the staff and administration.

You can debate the EULA and open source all you want. The only aspects that I find interesting on this subject are the technical ones.

What I don't see is how policing the staff is necessary or even appropriate for this article. Spamming the rules isn't doing much for the situation either.
 
Eidorian said:
I believe there are enough checks for the staff and administration.

You can debate the EULA and open source all you want. The only aspects that I find interesting on this subject are the technical ones.

What I don't see is how policing the staff is necessary or even appropriate for this article. Spamming the rules isn't doing much for the situation either.
Click to expand...

Just pointing out a rather glaring discrepancy.

Policing the staff isn't appropriate when they have violated the very rules they claim to enforce? What??

Quoting the rules when the rules are the subject of discussion is entirely appropriate, if not explicilty necessary.

As for the EULA, yes, the technical aspects are interesting. Not sure what other aspect there are to it, other than ones of princple. Is that what you mean?
 
Thanks to LTD, I have decided to pick up a netbook and Hackintosh it. Now I just need to decide which one... Anyone have a recommendation? Atom is fine, given I can run 10.6.2 on it.

I want drop that new Fedora build on it too.
 
LTD, why are you so up in arms over this? It looks ridiculous. You do realize Apple is just another money hungry corporation right? They are not benevolent, and they certainly do not care as much about you, as you do about them. Is that clear to you?
 
TennisandMusic said:
LTD, why are you so up in arms over this? It looks ridiculous. You do realize Apple is just another money hungry corporation right? They are not benevolent, and they certainly do not care as much about you, as you do about them. Is that clear to you?
Click to expand...

It's not about Apple. It's not about their sales. it's not about the integrity of OS X.
 
The admins/owners of macrumors broke their own rules.

Baawaaaaaah.

hackintoshes. hobbyists break the rules all the time thats part of it being a hobby and not just a user.
 
*LTD* said:
Bolded the key parts.

This is exactly what I'm saying.
Click to expand...

ive noticed a lot of ridiculous stories or whatever this site calls em lately, many repeating another story a few days earlier

they generate a lot of traffic, and a lot of clicks, and a lot of the same responses.....

....in the end its more clicks
 
bruinsrme said:
The admins/owners of macrumors broke their own rules.

Baawaaaaaah.

hackintoshes. hobbyists break the rules all the time thats part of it being a hobby and not just a user.
Click to expand...

Then can I break them too? How about I start cussing everyone I dont like out and threaten people?

See where this is going?
 
flopticalcube said:
Dell mini 10v, apparently. Only real drawback is that the 1GB of RAM is soldered on.
Click to expand...

Hmm two for the 10v. 1GB is a bit tight. I suppose it would just be a toy anyway. Hell my Air only has 2GB, wouldn't want the netbook to best it... :rolleyes::rolleyes:

*LTD* said:
Then can I break them too? How about I start cussing everyone I dont like out and threaten people?

See where this is going?
Click to expand...

I can see where it is going, but this isn't a slippery slope. As the admins/owners of this site they can do whatever they want. This doesn't mean that you can. The slope ends with the admins.

If you want to cuss and threaten, make your own forum. Oh, and make rules that say no one else can do it and if they do, ban them.

Your inane tirade suggesting that a grave injustice has occurred because they broke the rules is rather tiring. It isn't likely they broke the law or performed an unethical act. They are simply reporting on something that brings many visitors here. Something that has been acknowledged by this thread: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/499678/

You have made your point, and guess what? No one cares. You haven't even made the case that they have broken the rules. Why? Because they made the rules; nowhere is it stated that they also agreed to them or have to agree to them. You however, did agree to them.
 
Apple //e said:
ive noticed a lot of ridiculous stories or whatever this site calls em lately, many repeating another story a few days earlier

they generate a lot of traffic, and a lot of clicks, and a lot of the same responses.....

....in the end its more clicks
Click to expand...

Bravo. Someone sees the truth.

In the end . . . it's about the hits. Sad but true.

Members play by the rules. Owners and staff are free to break them since it is (with certain limits re hired staff) THEIR site. For hits? Well, I suppose that's as good a cause as any.

It doesn't set much of an example, but it generates for the site.
 
*LTD* said:
Then can I break them too? How about I start cussing everyone I dont like out and threaten people?

See where this is going?
Click to expand...

You are just a guest here, you have to abide by the rules.

The site owner and their employees can do what they feel is right for the site.

If you don't like it, you don't have to stay.
 
bruinsrme said:
The admins/owners of macrumors broke their own rules.

Baawaaaaaah.

hackintoshes. hobbyists break the rules all the time thats part of it being a hobby and not just a user.
Click to expand...

They're the owners, they can do what they want, if someone wants recourse then the best way to show it is by not coming to the site, since they make their money (well a large chunk of it) from advertising revenue.

In this case I think they were just posting interesting/relevant news that other Mac news sites were posting, and particularly something that would draw traffic/attention, they're a business, people defend Apple up to the hill when they make business decisions, I'd say MacRumors deserves the same. They are an Apple News site, they need to post Apple news to get traffic and pay the bills. This is an article that obviously does that very well. (especially because of the controversy with it)
 
OllyW said:
You are just a guest here, you have to abide by the rules.

The site owner and their employees can do what they feel is right for the site.

If you don't like it, you don't have to stay.
Click to expand...

At the end of the day, this is the reality. But the problem is . . .

This by default validates discussion about the subject, which induces members to then go ahead and violate the same rule.
 
*LTD* said:
Then can I break them too? How about I start cussing everyone I dont like out and threaten people?

See where this is going?
Click to expand...

its not your playground, you are a user so you and I have to play by their rules.

Open your own playground then you can bend the rules if you want.

Companies I have worked for set certain limits on business expenses on their employees. I am not that naive to think the CEO is held to the same compact car rental restriction I am even though it is in the Employee Handbook signed by him.

My son isn't allow to have certain foods in the home theater. But he knows my wife and I eat those same foods in the HT.

There are rules and privleges
 
*LTD* said:
Bravo. Someone sees the truth.

In the end . . . it's about the hits. Sad but true.

Members play by the rules. Owners and staff are free to break them since it is (with certain limits re hired staff) THEIR site. For hits? Well, I suppose that's as good a cause as any.

It doesn't set much of an example, but it generates for the site.
Click to expand...


yes, capitalism does have its disadvantages.

the fact that companies are out for them$elve$ is the main reason why you would never see me up in arms defending any money making entity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back