Moley's Musings
I'm concerned with aspects of freedom, choice, respect, courtesy and consideration. This is obvious from my contributions. I also believe in the value of common sense.
Thursday 22 October 2009, 12:16 AM
Is Psystar the new SCO?
The crux of the matter is that if Psystar win, the guts will apparently be knocked out of the GPL licence and Apple software will become more expensive to cover it's losses, both as a result of the consequent ability to be freely copied and redistributed without any restrictions, if I understand correctly.
This raises the question of Psystars's motives, being a relatively small company and, indeed, how they are managing to finance all this litigation, and whether, like SCO, this is really an attack on the GPL licence masquerading as a contrived dispute with Apple who, conveniently, will also be damaged.
The case appears complex (what else would you expect) and I do not profess to understand it all, neither do I understand why all software licences, e.g. Microsoft, will not be affected.
Is anyone else following this case and do they have a better understanding of what is happening? Are Psystar really a stalking horse?
Meantime, I note that although SCO is bankrupt and dear Darl has been 'eliminated', the litigation is still ongoing.
PreviousComments on this post
To further add fuel to the fire, Psystar has now created a programme called 'Rebel EFI' to enable OS X to run on most bog standard PC's as long as all the hardware is supported - in contravention of the OS X licence, of course. The programme will run free for 2 hours to establish compatibility, so it's risk free to try.
I find it hard to believe that Psystar can win in the litigation with Apple, common sense dictates that they do not have a case, however ....... Nevertheless, if they do win this case against Apple, the consequences of a decision in an American court (see my original blog) will reverberate around the world. I remain puzzled as to how Psystar can fund such litigation.
The crux of the matter is that if Psystar win, the guts will apparently be knocked out of the GPL licence and Apple software will become more expensive to cover it's losses, both as a result of the consequent ability to be freely copied and redistributed without any restrictions, if I understand correctly.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The GPL has been upheld in many countries and you have to jump through a few hoops to even try to relate it to the Apple case.
You are free to do whatever you want to GPLed software, alter it, modify it, give it out for free OR EVEN charge for it.
The only thing demanded is that changes to the code be shared.
Apple is tying in software to hardware lock-in.
They not only dictate what you can do with hardware but also software.
Copyright provides an author with the right to control copies and changes to a work, whereas the GPL license provides a user with the right to copy and change a work.
This is a copyright question.
I don't think that will hurt open source one bit--because copyright restrictions still apply, and open source licenses grant *more* rights to users than copyrights, and if you don't agree to the license, then you have only what copyright allows you to begin with--which is just the ability to use the software for your own use, not the ability to make and distribute derivative works. And I also suspect that it won't help Psystar either, because I think they're making a derivative work.
I like PJ, I think she is along with Glyn Moody, Carla Schroeder and Roy Schestowitz one of free software's most vocal and uncompromising defenders.
I think she is wrong on the dangers of this to the GPL but it doesnt mean we should avoid any red flags she might throw up.
I used to skip over this topic because its Apple and I really dont care but maybe I wont skip over it since some people think this could be a danger.
Not agreeing on something doesnt mean not paying attention to it.
