Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!pasteur!cory.Berkeley.EDU!morgan From: morgan@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Crunchy Frog) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc Subject: Re: Thoughts on System 7.0 Message-ID: <13562@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> Date: 12 May 91 18:10:08 GMT References: <1991May11.162531.1676@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <1991May11.190150.20400@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU Reply-To: morgan@cory.Berkeley.EDU Lines: 29 In article <1991May11.190150.20400@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > In the license agreement with the system software it >specifically says that the OS can't be run on an emulator. So >even so it still isn't legal, that is, if you believe in >shrink-wrap licensing. > > -- Ethan > >GEORGE BUSH MURDER ASSASSINATE PENTAGON CAPITOL WHITE HOUSE >Greetings to the loyal Americans working at the NSA! Enjoy. Now this IS interesting. What is the legal definition of an emulator? Would a Mac clone (running the New Tech (?) ROMs) be considered an emulator? It sure isn't a Macintosh. If the definition of a mac emulator is something that enables you to run Mac software on a different computer we come up with the interesting questions of what a 'different computer' is. While I have a problem with people who copy the Mac ROMs illegally, I would have no qualms whatsoever in using a (legally bought) copy of System 7.0 anywhere I wanted. Any lawyers out there who are willing to comment on the exact legal definition (or Apple's perception thereof) of an emulator? Alan Morgan BTW - I think Apple is shooting themselves in the foot with this one. They will sell more copies of the system software and won't rationally be hurting their Mac sales (I don't intend to buy a Mac, I just want compatibility).