A response to the outrage over Apple's restrictive policies and desire to control the user experience. The point is that if this was really so unacceptable Apple couldn't be able to get away with it so easily. The fact that so many people buy Apple's products despite these concerns is what keeps Apple doing what it's doing. If you don't want to be "owned" by Apple, don't buy from them.
I used to be what is sometimes called a "Free Software purist". "Free" here refers to "free as in freedom" according to Richard Stallman's Free Software Philosophy. As such I was opposed to all proprietary software licensing. If a program doesn't come with a license that allows you those "four freedoms" (to run, modify and share both unmodified and modified versions of the program as you wish) then using it meant you don't care for your freedom and are choosing to be a "slave" to the developer.
I have no idea whether Psystar is right here or not, nor does that even matter to me. I just realize that if Psystar was to anyhow successfully defend against this lawsuit it would set a rather interesting precedent.
As Apple's Steve Jobs is announcing that they suddenly "want native third-party applications on the iPhone", something its users have been yearning to have ever since they started buying these phones (even if it meant hacking them), Steve justifies their prior resistance to this kind of openness by security threats. As he says, they are "trying to do two diametrically opposed things at once â€” provide an advanced and open platform to developers while at the same time protect iPhone users from viruses, malware, privacy attacks, etc."
Famous for his reverse engineering, an author of the DeCSS content de-scrambling software "DVD Jon" is playing a slightly different tune now. Rather than working against DRM as he has been known to do, he is now apparently experimenting with the idea of using DRM to his and supposedly customers advantage.