Cherry OS in 3 Days

Er, essentially the same people that would use Virtual PC, albeit a much more limited audience?

Anyone testing multiplatform compatibility (let's say I'm a Windows web page developer that wants to see how a page looks on Safari), people who have to run Mac-only programs and have no access to a Mac, people who want to take advantage of multiple virtual machines (I regularly use Virtual PC or VMWare when I'm using a Mac *OR* a PC for its ability to let me run multiple test copies of OSes, etc at a time, it's VERY useful for doing testing), hobbyists, multi-platform application developers, etc.

The fact is that CherryOS is vaporware (it's a non-existant product, end-of-story), however, and PearPC is nearly unusably slow (it'd be better if Apple offered a cheap $500 PC to these same people, but that'll never happen)
 
Pengu said:
I think you're missing one little thing. it clearly states in the OS X license agreement that it is illegal to install or run it on anything but an apple computer. so it would still not be legal to do what they say is possible. i can't see a lot of people using lower quality hardware, without drivers, ILLEGALLY just to save a few hundred dollars..
Click to expand...

Someone who undestands US law can perhaps clarify this, but to my undestanding simply because something is forbidden in the licence agreement doesn't make it the law. Licence agreements tend to say all sorts of crazy things, but whether they actually have any legal validity is a completely different issue. Or perhaps I'm just spoiled living in Finland :p
 
Well, obviously any license agreement or contract could be subject to law validity tests if put in court. It's like the sign at a Garage Sale "Not Response for Accidents". Just because a sign says it, doesn't mean that they aren't. It would be like me putting a bumper sticker on my car that says, "Not Responsible for Speeding" would nullify me from getting a speeding ticket. ha!

However, a license agreement is much like a contract... these are the conditions and unless a court throws out part of those conditions, then for the most part it is a binding agreement.
 
Another funny thing I see more and more lately is dump trucks have large signs on the back that say "Stay back 300 ft... Not Responsible for Damage". Well, they HOPE people won't file suit against them for rocks or other material falling out of their dump truck and breaking windshields, chipping paint, etc. However, they are responsible, but most people would think... crap, they are not responsible, and go on with life.
 
ScottW said:
Another funny thing I see more and more lately is dump trucks have large signs on the back that say "Stay back 300 ft... "
Click to expand...

lol, yeah, everyone's gonna leave the length of a football field between them and the car in front of them - even a dump truck (though it's stupid not to give a little distance)
 
celeborn said:
Someone who undestands US law can perhaps clarify this, but to my undestanding simply because something is forbidden in the licence agreement doesn't make it the law. Licence agreements tend to say all sorts of crazy things, but whether they actually have any legal validity is a completely different issue. Or perhaps I'm just spoiled living in Finland :p
Click to expand...
For good or bad, U. S. law tends to favor licensors, especially if they are large corporations. Corporations go to Congress pleading that they are losing millions to software piracy. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) was part of Congress's sop to these corporations. The bottomline is that it is a very bad idea to flaunt the terms of your EULA without a darned good reason.
 
Clicking is not the same as signing. A contract is valid because you sign it. Clicking "I agree" does not have the same legal status. Certainly it does carry some weight, but it is not as binding as a contract signed in ink.
 
Cat said:
Clicking is not the same as signing. A contract is valid because you sign it. Clicking "I agree" does not have the same legal status. Certainly it does carry some weight, but it is not as binding as a contract signed in ink.
Click to expand...

Actually, that is not fully correct. Now that digital signatures are considered as binding as hand/ink signatures... which congress passed a year or two... a click could be deemed an electronic signature. Although, the what is considered a digital signature is still up for discussion.
 
What I also don't undestand, is licence agreements that say "licence terms subject to change without notice". In essence that means I could be agreeing to anything when I click "accept"... which raises the question whether such clauses can be legal, even in the US.
 
A digital signature such as you might use when submitting your taxes electronically is something completely different from clicking "ok" in an installer. Your digital signature has been granted by the state or authorised government body after verification of your identity through conventional means. I had never to show an id to Microsoft when purchasing or installing their software ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top