[clug] Off topic: OS/X USB boot device for 'normal' PC'S

Arjen Lentz arjen at lentz.com.au
Wed Jun 25 05:03:32 GMT 2008

Hi Daniel, all,

On 25/06/2008, at 2:02 PM, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> Arjen Lentz <arjen at lentz.com.au> writes:
>> On 25/06/2008, at 12:08 PM, Neill Cox wrote:
>>> The license actually says "Apple-labeled computer". I think a  
>>> lawyer would
>>> interpret that as a computer labeled by Apple, not some random   
>>> piece of
>>> hardware with an Apple sticker.
>> A lawyer may well intepret it that way, but that's irrelevant.
>> A license is a contract, in this case between Apple Computer and an  
>> end-user.
> Your views on the law are touchingly naïve, but rather dangerous to  
> both
> yourself and anyone influenced by them.

I've been active enough in this realm (software licensing) to not be  
naive, nor would anyone who knows me a bit think so.
I do like to play devil's advocate with this kind of stuff though, as  
it brings out the underlying actual issues with software licensing.

In regards to this specific case, I don't think it's as clear as some  
people here reckon it is - whether we here identified the weak spots  
correctly or not, I have serious reservations on whether someone  
running OS X on non-Apple hardware could be successfully proscecuted.

There is also the continuing case of a US company (http://www.psystar.com/ 
) offering their own hardware, and a customised installer for Leopard.  
They're US based, have not been sued, and are still operating. Of  
course, just as Apple can choose to sue somebody, that can choose not  
to; however, Apple has a history of vigorously and quite pedantically  
pursue anything they can in legal matters, so Apple not suing Psystar  
so far is.... curious.

Arjen Lentz, Founder @ Open Query
http://openquery.com.au/   (ph. +61-7-3103 0809)
Training for MySQL in  

More information about the linux mailing list