December 5th, 2008
Groklaw has a laugh at Psystar's "Public License"
Anyone who’s been following the Apple vs. Psystar case needs to take a trip over to Groklaw and watch Psystar’s “Public License, version 1.0” being poked fun at.
I found the bit relating to trademarks particularly entertaining:
What about trademarks? Psystar keeps those all for itself, revealing themselves as lovers of IP rights in all their forms, so long as Psystar is the beneficiary:
“10. Trademarks. This License does not grant any rights to use the trademarks or trade names “Psystar”, “Psystar Corporation”, “Open Computer”, “OpenPro”, “Open Computing”, “OpenServ” or any other trademarks, service marks, logos or trade names belonging to Psystar (collectively “Psystar Marks”) or to any trademark, service mark, logo or trade name belonging to any Contributor. You agree not to use any Psystar Marks in or as part of the name of products derived from the Original Code or to endorse or promote products derived from the Original Code other than as expressly permitted by and in strict compliance at all times with Psystar’s third party trademark usage guidelines which are posted at http://www.psystar.com/legal/guidelinesfor3rdparties.html.”
So, let me get this straight. They can sell stuff using Apple’s trademarks, and yours, but woe betide us if we use Psystar’s? Anybody note an imbalance in the universe here?
It gets better when looking at the definitions of “Modified Code.” Here again is Groklaw’s take:
Some are saying that this license is just a cut and paste of the Apple Public License. That would be damning enough, if it were true, in that Psystar is in court claiming Apple’s EULA is the spawn of the devil and all. But the two licenses are not identical. Here’s one paragraph from the Psystar license:
“2.2 Modified Code. You may modify Covered Code and use, reproduce, display, perform, internally distribute within Your organization, and Externally Deploy Your Modifications and Covered Code, for non-commercial purposes, provided that in each instance:”
And here’s the same general paragraph from Apple’s:
“2.2 Modified Code. You may modify Covered Code and use, reproduce, display, perform, internally distribute within Your organization, and Externally Deploy Your Modifications and Covered Code, for commercial or non-commercial purposes, provided that in each instance You also meet all of these conditions:”
See the difference? It appears Psystar took the Apple license and then made it *more* restrictive.
Weird.
Adrian is a technology journalist and author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology. He also runs a popular blog called The PC Doctor. See his full profile and disclosure of his industry affiliations
Want to get in touch? Got a tip? Feel free to drop me a note! I ALWAYS respect anonymity. I'm also on Twitter (@the_pc_doc)
Right to Reply: Should any industry representatives wish to comment on any posts on Hardware 2.0, I will be happy to publish their reply verbatim on this blog.
Subscribe to Hardware 2.0 via Email alerts or RSS.
