Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 00:02:21 +1000 From: Da Rock <rock_on_the_web@comcen.com.au> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Ports on Macbook Message-ID: <1236088941.1134.29.camel@laptop1.herveybayaustralia.com.au> In-Reply-To: <001601c99bfe$fb6b6e10$f2424a30$@wakefield.sch.uk> References: <630286c70902270134u18505882xbabf547190ae8747@mail.gmail.com> <20090227114529.GC91411@orion.ulstu.ru> <1235738361.6496.4.camel@lenzix.cwb.casa> <87DB90C7-3537-41A4-ABBF-C7682F0EE5F0@rgbaz.eu> <49A94AF0.7080603@bah.homeip.net> <BAY126-DS4439E519C86F5EB0F96F9CAAB0@phx.gbl> <49A965D1.7080309@bah.homeip.net> <BAY126-DS58B054CE96DADF54DA1D0CAAB0@phx.gbl> <49A98ADB.2010107@bah.homeip.net> <1236080097.99160.0.camel@laptop1.herveybayaustralia.com.au> <49AD1FFB.4010008@bah.homeip.net> <001601c99bfe$fb6b6e10$f2424a30$@wakefield.sch.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 12:52 +0000, Marc Coyles wrote: > > >>> http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/macosx.html > > >> They can write whatever they want. I'm not binded by it. > > "This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple > Software on a single *Apple-labeled* computer at a time" > > So, in theory, apply white lx tape to any PC, write "APPLE" on it > in black marker. That PC is now labelled "Apple" and you can therefore > use their software on it legally... (?) O_o > > Marci This will be my last comment on this matter as the topic is long overdrawn. Until crazy people in the US (not all- just the some who insist on stupid policies) step out of their topsy turvy virtual realities and into the real world there are going to be semantics like this. This should be a simple thing (and I believe the BSD license presents this- I'll check again to be sure): respect the authors ownership to the software as a writer, don't come whinging when it doesn't work like you think it should. MS and other whack job fools (in an effort to maximise their control and obtain as much money as they can without much effort) come up with these stupid, crazy licenses and "agreements" which in reality can't be enforced and expect people to live by them. GPL is not much different here- its only free in a purchasing sense. Licenses limit peoples use of the software; intellectual property should be honoured (and is through copyright), but limits are limits and should not be fettered on good people. (I will point out that I have done ethics studies at uni and I do understand the ramifications of my comments here) Something you can't hold in your hands shouldn't be sellable- time on the other hand should (and can) be. Look at the absolute shambles of the current situation with the plethora of licenses and the conflicting agreements between them all, the confusion for the average user and the minefield for the sysadmins. What happens when someone does click no and attempts a refund? The stores will not honour that refund and money is lost by the customer. In Australia, there is legal precedent that negates a corporation's use of size and force against a smaller client - currently this being used against banks and credit card companies, but it would apply here: the EULA's essentially state "say yes or your money will have been wasted". Not to mention that you pay money for the crappy software full of bugs and a security nightmare, then pay again for someone to come out and fix the problems you find! I personally would rather pay for the fix and skip the initial costs... RIAA and DMCA and any other acronym against the small single users need to get a life! Instead of fighting the current go with the flow- it seems that of late the tide might be finally turning with the subscription services offered: a step in the RIGHT direction. Now if only MS and others would take the hint and get a clue as to how the real world works... Thats my rant... I'm out of breath :)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1236088941.1134.29.camel>