Columns

The issue of Mac cloning and the licensing of Mac OS X has reared its head again, with the news that a startup called Efix claims to have developed a method of installing Mac OS X on a PC, which involves nothing more complicated than plugging a dongle into a USB port.

The first point to make about Efix is that so far it hasn't demonstrated anything, and that therefore the claims it makes are just that. Like Psystar before it, Efix has recognised that there is much publicity to be had in claiming to have installed Mac OS X on a PC and made it a commercially viable proposition. Whether either Efix or Psystar make it to market with their products is a different matter. Psystar seems to be taking orders, though none has apparently shipped and my request for a review unit was met with the response, 'unfortunately, at this time we are receiving an extensive amount of request [sic] to review our system, therefore we do not have one to send to you'.

So far, Apple has taken a rather relaxed attitude to both companies, and the cease and desist letters have remained unsent. That may be because Apple doubts the ability of either company to fulfil their pledges. It could also be because the company noted what happened in a Seattle courtroom at the end of May when a judge effectively ruled that the end-user licence agreements that accompany all software applications aren't worth the paper they're written on. In a case brought by an eBay trader, who legally bought retail copies of AutoCAD and then sold them on eBay, against its publisher Autodesk - who had complained to eBay about the trader - the judge declared

ADVERTISEMENT

that software is sold and not licensed. This means that restrictions placed on the use of software once it has been bought are not legally enforceable. In other words, while making copies and distributing them is a breach of copyright and therefore illegal, selling the original discs, manuals and serial numbers, as the plaintiff was doing, is perfectly legitimate despite the conditions contained in the licence agreement.

The ruling is certain to open a debate about the legitimacy of software licence agreements as a whole, and cause developers and publishers to rethink how they sell software. For example, if I buy a copy of an application, whose license permits me to install it on only one machine, and I install it on my office Mac and a laptop, does the publisher have the right to demand I remove it from one machine? This ruling would seem to suggest not. If software is indeed sold rather than licensed, surely I can install it on as many machines as I like? And does this mean that 'family packs' such as those sold by Apple for iLife are now redundant? And what about companies who buy several hundred licences for the same application in order to install it on every computer in the building? Need they continue to do so, or can they buy one copy and install it on multiple machines?

For Apple though, there's a bigger issue than the ability of users to legally install its applications on multiple machines - nothing less than the future of Mac OS X itself. Ever since Apple announced its intention to move over to Intel CPUs, we've known that it may be possible to run Mac OS X on a PC relatively simply. Now Psystar and Efix seem prepared to test the commercial viability of either selling PCs with Mac OS X pre-installed or shipping a one-box solution that makes it easy to install it on an existing PC. Apple's only defence is the Mac OS X end-user licence agreement, which specifically prohibits the installation of Mac OS X on non-Apple machines. So far that has been enough of a deterrent, but it is significant that Apple hasn't yet used it to stop Psystar. Could it be that it doesn't want to test it in court? That would seem possible, particularly in light of Judge Jones' ruling in Seattle.