On Oct 8, 2007, at 10:15 AM, Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers wrote:
Yeah. Only the claims Apple makes here don't mean anything at all,
because they don't become effective under German jurisdiction. This
matter is covered by ยงยง 305 ff. BGB (German civil law).
People say the same thing about click-through and shrinkwrap
agreements in the US.
Many, many people view them as just as questionable, or even legally
meaningless. (Or so they tell themselves; they may be right.)
Now, if you're claiming that German law doesn't allow this
prohibition, you can also make that argument in various ways in many
other jurisdictions.
I know only about the German laws covering this matter. Other
jurisdictions may or may not see things the same way, but I don't know
about that. That's why I wrote "at least".
I'm simply telling that you many people believe as firmly as you do
that Apple's claims are legally meaningless in their own jurisdictions.
Hobbyists and hackers all over the world have Mac OS X running on
non-Apple hardware. That doesn't mean that it still isn't prohibited,
It certainly isn't prohibited here, because Apple's claims don't have
any legal background. It's basically wishful (Dan would say "wooly")
thinking.
Again, people say that Apple's claims don't have any legal background
in the United States as well.
and no one is going to make a business out of supporting it.
Apple would have a hard time to try and enforce this in Germany.
...and so they say in the US, as well, except no company has dared to
make a business out of allowing Mac OS X/Mac OS X Server to run on
non-Apple hardware (except on some street corners of various Asian
nations).
On the virtualization front, no reputable company is going to make a
business or product out of something that may be prohibited by
Apple's own license agreement. That's already how one US and one
Russian virtualization company have interpreted it, and that's how
others will interpret it as well.
I was specifically talking about German jurisdiction, where this claim
is still wrong.
Others argue that this claim is just as wrong in the United States.
On this topic, all law aside, I would say that the company that
invests billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of manhours of
R&D into a product has should at least a marginal level of standing
to say how it's used if its price is predicated on assumptions like
its use with another product the same company sells. And where and
insofar as various legal frameworks allow, even if they're
questionable, or as some would assert, have "no background", that
such a company would attempt to enforce its wishes is unsurprising.
Also, as I said, no reputable company is going to make a business or
product out of something that may be prohibited by Apple's own
license agreement. Even in Germany. Even if it were true that it is
clear cut as you say that Apple's claims are meaningless (as many
assert with just as much certainty in many other jurisdictions), no
one is going to make an enterprise class, usable virtualization
product for JUST the German market. Therefore, we will be in the same
position: because of Apple's license agreement and various possible
levels of validity and enforceability in many nations, and only
because of that, we will not have any virtualization of Mac OS X/Mac
OS X Server anywhere, even on Apple hardware, anytime soon.
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Macos-x-server mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/macos-x-server/email@hidden
This email sent to email@hidden
