Linking to "patches" on the front page? [Archive]

ChazUK

Nov 20, 2009, 09:11 AM

This could have simply been reported without any reference at all to "hackintoshes" or "create their own netbook Macs."

As it stands, it's now a discussion about piracy.

http://guides.macrumors.com/Help:Forum_Rules

Warez/Serials/Keys. Do not post software serial numbers or keys or refer people to specific websites, software, or techniques whose purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods, distribute cracks, or obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation. Do not ask for or give such help.

So telling people that support has been re-enabled for a hack whose "purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods" and pointing them to the website where they can be instructed on how to deploy this "workaround" is what?
Hit the report post button and see what happens! http://images.macrumors.com/vb/images/buttons/report.gif

*LTD*

Nov 20, 2009, 09:19 AM

Hit the report post button and see what happens! http://images.macrumors.com/vb/images/buttons/report.gif

Not much else you can do.

blizaine

Nov 20, 2009, 09:20 AM

someone call the frick'n wambulance.

jeeeez...

ChazUK

Nov 20, 2009, 09:22 AM

Not much else you can do.

Would be interesting to see what would happen but you're right. :)

HLdan

Nov 20, 2009, 10:29 AM

So . . . we're going to discuss piracy and warez now?

Thank you! This is the most ridiculous header to put on front page news. Gimme a break, are we now accepting piracy and hacking of software as "acceptable"? What's next, serial keys posted on MR's front page news? Why don't these hackintosh people let this go, Apple's OS wasn't made for their computer of choice so move on and stick with Windows.

MH01

Nov 20, 2009, 10:37 AM

Thank you! This is the most ridiculous header to put on front page news. Gimme a break, are we now accepting piracy and hacking of software as "acceptable"? What's next, serial keys posted on MR's front page news? Why don't these hackintosh people let this go, Apple's OS wasn't made for their computer of choice so move on and stick with Windows.

So how does freedom of speech come into all this? Maybe newspapers should stop reporting on crimes and murders? I mean how dare they report on how a crime was committed, is that not like telling you how to do it. There is a difference between reporting news and carrying out the crime.

*LTD*

Nov 20, 2009, 10:39 AM

So how does freedom of speech come into all this? Maybe newspapers should stop reporting on crimes and murders? I mean how dare they report on how a crime was committed, is that not like telling you how to do it. There is a difference between reporting news and carrying out the crime.

The MR article does much more than simply post news about the subject. I'll repost:

This could have simply been reported without any reference at all to "hackintoshes" or "create their own netbook Macs."

As it stands, it's now a discussion about piracy.

http://guides.macrumors.com/Help:Forum_Rules

Warez/Serials/Keys. Do not post software serial numbers or keys or refer people to specific websites, software, or techniques whose purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods, distribute cracks, or obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation. Do not ask for or give such help.

So telling people that support has been re-enabled for a hack whose "purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods" and pointing them to the website where they can be instructed on how to deploy this "workaround" is what?

The "workaround" link in the article goes directly to insanelymac.com.

Povilas

Nov 20, 2009, 10:41 AM

MH01

Nov 20, 2009, 10:52 AM

The MR article does much more than simply post news about subject. I'll repost:

This could have simply been reported without any reference at all to "hackintoshes" or "create their own netbook Macs."

As it stands, it's now a discussion about piracy.

http://guides.macrumors.com/Help:Forum_Rules

Warez/Serials/Keys. Do not post software serial numbers or keys or refer people to specific websites, software, or techniques whose purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods, distribute cracks, or obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation. Do not ask for or give such help.

So telling people that support has been re-enabled for a hack whose "purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods" and pointing them to the website where they can be instructed on how to deploy this "workaround" is what?

The link goes directly to insanelymac.com

I call it information and news. No one is forcing commit the act. I do not even have an atom processor, I opened the link and read it. People who want to learn how to build a hackintosh are not going to be coming to macrumours. They will go to these sites directly.

I am sure a number of you will get this link removed soon, I really think its an non event, and just news.

One thing that everyone is overlooking is that this is not piracy, you go out, but a copy of OS X and install it.

Furrybeagle

Nov 20, 2009, 10:52 AM

This could have simply been reported without any reference at all to "hackintoshes" or "create their own netbook Macs."

As it stands, it's now a discussion about piracy.

http://guides.macrumors.com/Help:Forum_Rules

Warez/Serials/Keys. Do not post software serial numbers or keys or refer people to specific websites, software, or techniques whose purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods, distribute cracks, or obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation. Do not ask for or give such help.

So telling people that support has been re-enabled for a hack whose "purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods" and pointing them to the website where they can be instructed on how to deploy this "workaround" is what?

No, the purpose of the hack is not to “break or bypass software licensing methods”. The purpose of the hack is to create a kernel that can work on an Intel Atom processor. Or are people not allowed to modify their kernel now, too? The fact that no Apple branded computer uses an Atom is besides the point. This is merely kernel modification, and kernel modification is completely legal.

But really, you’re just being pedantic.

Andronicus

Nov 20, 2009, 10:52 AM

The MR article does much more than simply post news about the subject. I'll repost:

This could have simply been reported without any reference at all to "hackintoshes" or "create their own netbook Macs."

As it stands, it's now a discussion about piracy.

http://guides.macrumors.com/Help:Forum_Rules

Warez/Serials/Keys. Do not post software serial numbers or keys or refer people to specific websites, software, or techniques whose purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods, distribute cracks, or obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation. Do not ask for or give such help.

So telling people that support has been re-enabled for a hack whose "purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods" and pointing them to the website where they can be instructed on how to deploy this "workaround" is what?

The "workaround" link in the article goes directly to insanelymac.com.

Who cares?!? Why don't you report the bot that posted it? Obviously the mods and arn don't care and I'm sure they are pretty well of the forum rules....:rolleyes: too many people here trying to "police" a site that they only visit.

TennisandMusic

Nov 20, 2009, 10:53 AM

So . . . we're going to discuss piracy and warez now?

Do you even know what piracy and warez are?

*LTD*

Nov 20, 2009, 10:56 AM

.. . .. ..

No, the purpose of the hack is not to “break or bypass software licensing methods”.

Most certainly is. It is in direct violation of Apple's SLA.

". . . obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation."

Which means, you are using OS X in such a way that it violates its license. And MR is pointing you to the site showing you how to do it, which is expressly forbidden in MR's forum rules.

Here is the section in full:

"Warez/Serials/Keys. Do not post software serial numbers or keys or refer people to specific websites, software, or techniques whose purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods, distribute cracks, or obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation. Do not ask for or give such help."

The purpose of the hack is to create a kernel that can work on an Intel Atom processor. Or are people not allowed to modify their kernel now, too?

See above.

The fact that no Apple branded computer uses an Atom is besides the point. This is merely kernel modification, and kernel modification is completely legal.

Nope.

But really, you’re just being pedantic.

Do you even know what piracy and warez are?

See above, and see the relevant section in MR's forum rules.

Povilas

Nov 20, 2009, 10:58 AM

I call it information and news. No one is forcing commit the act. I do not even have an atom processor, I opened the link and read it. People who want to learn how to build a hackintosh are not going to be coming to macrumours. They will go to these sites directly.

I am sure a number of you will get this link removed soon, I really think its an non event, and just news.

One thing that everyone is overlooking is that this is not piracy, you go out, but a copy of OS X and install it.

Right :D. Every single Hacintosh owner has actually bought a legal retail version of OS X? No one is forcing? So how is this different from providing google link where first link is k'ed app download? No one is forcing a lot of things, but that's not the point.

Furrybeagle

Nov 20, 2009, 11:03 AM

.. . .. ..

See above, and see the relevant section in MR's forum rules.

This arguably does the same thing: http://eshop.macsales.com/OSXCenter/XPostFacto/

Is that “piracy” and “warez” too?

By your logic, discussing VCRs is against forum rules since I can use one to tape movies off TV.

MH01

Nov 20, 2009, 11:06 AM

Right :D. Every single Hacintosh owner has actually bought a legal retail version of OS X? No one is forcing? So how is this different from providing google link where first link is k'ed app download? No one is forcing a lot of things, but that's not the point.

About as likely as every single mac user having purchased their copy of SL they are running. Do not confuse piracy with hacking.

Geez let me think really really hard about this one, what is the difference between clicking through to a forum and reading about a hack, while not owning an Atom processor and having no intention of running a hackintosh and clicking on a link that downloads an illegal copy of software that you did not pay for???? Care to have a think about it?

*LTD*

Nov 20, 2009, 11:07 AM

This arguably does the same thing: http://eshop.macsales.com/OSXCenter/XPostFacto/

Is that “piracy” and “warez” too?

By your logic, discussing VCRs is against forum rules since I can use one to tape movies off TV.

Don't dodge the issue with unrelated analogies. "Argubaly" and VCRs don't count in any way, shape, or form.

We're talking about software here and specifically, the software license agreement, and how MR's article violates its own forum rules, which it clearly does.

Again:

". . . obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation."

Which means, you are using OS X in such a way that it violates its license. And MR is pointing you to the site showing you how to do it, which is expressly forbidden in MR's forum rules.

Here is the section in full:

"Warez/Serials/Keys. Do not post software serial numbers or keys or refer people to specific websites, software, or techniques whose purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods, distribute cracks, or obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation. Do not ask for or give such help."

jciapara

Nov 20, 2009, 11:10 AM

Thank you! This is the most ridiculous header to put on front page news. Gimme a break, are we now accepting piracy and hacking of software as "acceptable"? What's next, serial keys posted on MR's front page news? Why don't these hackintosh people let this go, Apple's OS wasn't made for their computer of choice so move on and stick with Windows.

Jeez! You give yourself a break. You act like you own Apple and this really affects you. Personally I wouldn't hackintosh a PC to use OS X, I prefer to run it in a Mac. But to each his own.

cumanzor

Nov 20, 2009, 11:11 AM

Don't dodge the issue with unrelated analogies.

We're talking about software here and specifically, the software license agreement, and how MR's article violates its own forum rules, which it clearly does.

Again:

". . . obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation."

Which means, you are using OS X in such a way that it violates its license. And MR is pointing you to the site showing you how to do it, which is expressly forbidden in MR's forum rules.

Here is the section in full:

"Warez/Serials/Keys. Do not post software serial numbers or keys or refer people to specific websites, software, or techniques whose purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods, distribute cracks, or obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation. Do not ask for or give such help."

Ok LTD, how exactly does this affect you? Do you think that a handful of hackintosh users are going to bring Apple sales down in any way? They won't. Just let this go, this is nothing more than news on a topic many people are interested in.

Bafflefish

Nov 20, 2009, 11:12 AM

By your logic, discussing VCRs is against forum rules since I can use one to tape movies off TV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.

*LTD*

Nov 20, 2009, 11:14 AM

Ok LTD, how exactly does this affect you? Do you think that a handful of hackintosh users are going to bring Apple sales down in any way? They won't. Just let this go, this is nothing more than news on a topic many people are interested in.

Affecting me or not affecting me isn't the point. Nor am I concerned about Apple's sales. I'm concerned about the integrity of MR as it relates to its own rules.

BigJimmyC

Nov 20, 2009, 11:14 AM

But really, you’re just being a pedantic troll.

+1. LTD, it's time to get over this. The site isn't endorsing hackintoshes, it's merely discussing them. Did you complain when macrumors posted information about PsyStar? Because by telling us that they existed, it provided the opportunity for us to go buy one of their products, and violate the EULA. This site is dedicated to reporting on apple-related news, and this is in fact apple-related news. Don't shoot the messenger.

I'm aware that you keep referencing a bunch of rules as to why they shouldn't post this, but why do you care so much? You sound like a bureaucrat who wants rules to be followed without question, and without regard to their original intent or efficacy. Nobody visits macrumors to learn how to make hackintoshes. If you don't like what they post on this site, go to another site and stop complaining here.

MH01

Nov 20, 2009, 11:15 AM

Don't dodge the issue with unrelated analogies. "Argubaly" and VCRs don't count in any way, shape, or form.

We're talking about software here and specifically, the software license agreement, and how MR's article violates its own forum rules, which it clearly does.

Again:

". . . obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation."

Which means, you are using OS X in such a way that it violates its license. And MR is pointing you to the site showing you how to do it, which is expressly forbidden in MR's forum rules.

Here is the section in full:

"Warez/Serials/Keys. Do not post software serial numbers or keys or refer people to specific websites, software, or techniques whose purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods, distribute cracks, or obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation. Do not ask for or give such help."

I like the way your are hiding behind the licensing, the MR rules are in place to stop piracy. The techniques you describe about are to stop people getting free/pirated software may be via keys or cracks.

I wonder how many more times your going to repost em..... at least you have not mentioned record Apple sales in a recession yet... yet..

OllyW

Nov 20, 2009, 11:16 AM

Affecting me or not affecting me isn't the point. Nor am I concerned about Apple's sales. I'm concerned about the integrity of MR as it relates to its own rules.

But this hack is only modifying a line of code in the open source OS X kernel. How does it break MR rules?

*LTD*

Nov 20, 2009, 11:17 AM

I like the way your are hiding behind the licensing, the MR rules are in place to stop piracy. The techniques you describe about are to stop people getting free/pirated software may be via keys or cracks.

I wonder how many more time your going to repost em..... at least you have not mentioned record Apple sales in a recession yet... yet..

You're not reading correctly.

"Warez/Serials/Keys. Do not post software serial numbers or keys or refer people to specific websites, software, or techniques whose purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods, distribute cracks, or obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation. Do not ask for or give such help."

HLdan

Nov 20, 2009, 11:17 AM

Winni

Nov 20, 2009, 11:18 AM

So . . . we're going to discuss piracy and warez now?

No. I installed a legally obtained and completely unpatched copy of OS X Snow Leopard on my Dell XPS M1530. And I live in Germany, European Union, where Apple's policy of forcing the customer to use OS X only on Apple hardware is as illegal as Microsoft's OEM policy was until the German Supreme Court ordered them to change their license policies. Apple will get the same treatment should they try and sue somebody for installing OS X on non-Apple hardware.

So, again: No. We're not talking about warez and piracy here. We're talking about Apple's business practices which are illegal in certain parts of the world.

*LTD*

Nov 20, 2009, 11:19 AM

But this hack is only modifying a line of code in the open source OS X kernel. How does it break MR rules?

It violates Apple's software license, and MR has posted a link to a site that aids the user in doing this or otherwise facilitates it.

Povilas

Nov 20, 2009, 11:19 AM

About as likely as every single mac user having purchased their copy of SL they are running. Do not confuse piracy with hacking.

At least they bought the hardware ;)

Geez let me think really really hard about this one, what is the difference between clicking through to a forum and reading about a hack, while not owning an Atom processor and having no intention of running a hackintosh and clicking on a link that downloads an illegal copy of software that you did not pay for???? Care to have a think about it?

Bottom line is that such links shouldn't be published on sites like MacRumors as in Mac. Again did they pay for OS X? A lot of people could be reading this and clicking that link and 5 minutes after that downloading iDeneb or any other hacked OS X version. If someone want hacintosh there are plenty ways and sites on that topic, so there is no need to enforce it on such sites. Care to have a think about that?

Bafflefish

Nov 20, 2009, 11:19 AM

*LTD*

Nov 20, 2009, 11:22 AM

No. I installed a legally obtained and completely unpatched copy of OS X Snow Leopard on my Dell XPS M1530. And I live in Germany, European Union, where Apple's policy of forcing the customer to use OS X only on Apple hardware is as illegal as Microsoft's OEM policy was (as the German Supreme Court ruled).

So, again: No. We're not talking about warez and piracy here. We're talking about Apple's business practices which are illegal in certain parts of the world.

It's still in violation of MR's rules. We're not talking about the actual legality of Apple's software license, nor about laws in Germany.

We're talking about MR's specific rules.

To wit:

Warez/Serials/Keys. Do not post software serial numbers or keys or refer people to specific websites, software, or techniques whose purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods, distribute cracks, or obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation. Do not ask for or give such help.

Povilas

Nov 20, 2009, 11:23 AM

But this hack is only modifying a line of code in the open source OS X kernel. How does it break MR rules?

Cracking application is usually the same. Maybe MacRumors should make a serias about cracking techniques?

Furrybeagle

Nov 20, 2009, 11:24 AM

Don't dodge the issue with unrelated analogies. "Argubaly" and VCRs don't count in any way, shape, or form.

We're talking about software here and specifically, the software license agreement, and how MR's article violates its own forum rules, which it clearly does.

Again:

". . . obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation."

Which means, you are using OS X in such a way that it violates its license. And MR is pointing you to the site showing you how to do it, which is expressly forbidden in MR's forum rules.

Here is the section in full:

"Warez/Serials/Keys. Do not post software serial numbers or keys or refer people to specific websites, software, or techniques whose purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods, distribute cracks, or obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation. Do not ask for or give such help."

First, don’t be a hypocrite. VCRs are far more relevant to this discussion than you comparing a Hackintosh to a $40,000 Ferrari (your analogy disregards the division of software and hardware, but that’s really besides the point).

According to you, if the means can be used for illegal reasons, then the ends must be illegal as well. There is nothing illegal about the patch itself. Just because the patch can be used to break the SLA doesn’t mean that it breaks the SLA. I could theoretically apply the patch to a kernel running on Apple branded hardware. Would I get anything out of it? No. But it is certainly legal.

This is the same as the idea that even though a VCR can be used for copyright infringement doesn’t mean that use of a VCR is illegal.

*LTD*

Nov 20, 2009, 11:25 AM

First, don’t be a hypocrite. VCRs are far more relevant to this discussion than you comparing a Hackintosh to a $40,000 Ferrari (your analogy disregards the division of software and hardware, but that’s really besides the point).

According to you, if the means can be used for illegal reasons, then the ends must be illegal as well. There is nothing illegal about the patch itself. Just because the patch can be used to break the SLA doesn’t mean that it breaks the SLA. I could theoretically apply the patch to a kernel running on Apple branded hardware. Would I get anything out of it? No. But it is certainly legal.

This is the same as the idea that even though a VCR can be used for copyright infringement doesn’t mean that use of a VCR is illegal.

Once again:

It's still in violation of MR's rules.

We're talking about MR's specific rules.

To wit:

Warez/Serials/Keys. Do not post software serial numbers or keys or refer people to specific websites, software, or techniques whose purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods, distribute cracks, or obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation. Do not ask for or give such help.

jciapara

Nov 20, 2009, 11:26 AM

It's still in violation of MR's rules. We're not talking about the actual legality of Apple's software license, nor about laws in Germany.

We're talking about MR's specific rules.

To wit:

Warez/Serials/Keys. Do not post software serial numbers or keys or refer people to specific websites, software, or techniques whose purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods, distribute cracks, or obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation. Do not ask for or give such help.

Sorry officer, I won't do it again!

MH01

Nov 20, 2009, 11:26 AM

Let's see, what is "news"? It's information right? Well, your analogy is quite flawed. Reporting crimes helps keep the community safe, it's not promoting to do the wrong thing. Well the front page news "informs" us on MR. This news in question is informing the Hackintosh community not to worry, a hack has been found to help you do the wrong thing. :p

Well that really depends on if your the good guy or the criminal eh? If I am the former, listening to the news can give me alot of new ideas....

You could also read it another way? From the Apple community "Horrific news just in, those B@stard in the hackintosh community have just found a way to run our glorious SL illegally , and after the break, how they did it!"

You're not reading correctly.

"Warez/Serials/Keys. Do not post software serial numbers or keys or refer people to specific websites, software, or techniques whose purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods, distribute cracks, or obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation. Do not ask for or give such help."

Are you just going to copy and paste that all night long? Makes for a really boring debate..

*LTD*

Nov 20, 2009, 11:29 AM

Well that really depends on if your the good guy or the criminal eh? If I am the former, listening to the news can give me alot of new ideas....

You could also read it another way? From the Apple community "Horrific news just in, those B@stard in the hackintosh community have just found a way to run our glorious SL illegally , and after the break, how they did it!"

So what?

If it's contrary to MR's explicit rules then my personal motivations for bringing attention to it are irrelevant.

It is what it is.

Are you just going to copy and paste that all night long? Makes for a really boring debate..

Nothing to debate, really.

I guess I'll post it as many times as it takes someone to understand it. It's written in clear, basic English.

Bafflefish

Nov 20, 2009, 11:30 AM

It violates Apple's software license, and MR has posted a link to a site that aids the user in doing this or otherwise facilitates it.
I may be wrong here (and someone please correct me if I am), but aren't the open source segments of OS X covered by the GPL? Thus, Apple can restrict its own modifications, but it can't actually prevent the GPL-covered portions from being modified by the end-user.

Now I guess the portion of OS X that includes the table for CPU identification may be different, but it'd be interesting to see just how different it is from any type of table in FreeBSD/etc that does CPU identification. If it's nothing more than Apple simply changing the CPUIDs to only be those CPUs it wishes to support, well, I'm not sure that would hold up in court ;D

Furrybeagle

Nov 20, 2009, 11:30 AM

aokiqiao

Nov 20, 2009, 11:31 AM

Wow, some of you need to get a life and not patrol what gets posted on a site you don't even own.

If this piece of info seems to steam your beans so much just hit that "Negative" link and move on with your pathetic life and let the discussion be for the people it caters to.

macsmurf

Nov 20, 2009, 11:32 AM

Warez/Serials/Keys. Do not post software serial numbers or keys or refer people to specific websites, software, or techniques whose purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods, distribute cracks, or obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation. Do not ask for or give such help.

That section only refers to warez, serials, or keys. You're bending the forum rules to suit your own purposes. Isn't that immoral?

It's like people feel entitled to read the forum rules anyway they want. No one is forcing you to use MR. If you don't want to, go find another forum.

*LTD*

Nov 20, 2009, 11:37 AM

That section only refers to warez, serials, or keys. You're bending the forum rules to suit your own purposes. Isn't that immoral?

It's like people feel entitled to read the forum rules anyway they want. No one is forcing you to use MR. If you don't want to, go find another forum.

No. Read it again.

It's under a certain heading, yes, but then we have this:

Do not post software serial numbers or keys

We're ok here. This hasn't been done.

*or* refer people to specific websites, software, or techniques whose purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods, distribute cracks, or obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation. Do not ask for or give such help.

Not ok here. Notice the *Or*s. Anything followed by *Or* is bad. If MR is guilty of violating only ONE thing after one of the *Or*s, MR is in violation of its own rules. The really important part is: "Or refer people to specific websites, (and/or) software . . . whose purpose is to break software licensing methods."

Running OS X on unauthorized hardware is a violation of Apple's OS X software license. The link posted in the MR article directs to to a website with information that shows you how to do just that.

MH01

Nov 20, 2009, 11:38 AM

Bottom line is that such links shouldn't be published on sites like MacRumors as in Mac. Again did they pay for OS X? A lot of people could be reading this and clicking that link and 5 minutes after that downloading iDeneb or any other hacked OS X version. If someone want hacintosh there are plenty ways and sites on that topic, so there is no need to enforce it on such sites. Care to have a think about that?

Yeah had a think about it, and you know what, no where in this post does it tell you where to obtain an illegal copy of OS X, SO as much as you try to convince me that people who run hackintoshes have illegal copies of OS X, its not going to work.

I run non standard firmware for my MB and GPU - Custom hacked for better performance, on my PC gaming rig, so am i therefore running an illegal copy of Windows 7? please.....

22Hertz

Nov 20, 2009, 11:39 AM

Settle down kids.
Its just information.

Anyone who is capable of getting a hackintosh up and running is capable of using a search engine to find all the info needed to build one.

macsmurf

Nov 20, 2009, 11:39 AM

No. Read it again.

It's under a certain heading, yes, but then we have this:

Do not post software serial numbers or keys

We're ok here. This hasn't been done.

*or* refer people to specific websites, software, or techniques whose purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods, distribute cracks, or obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation. Do not ask for or give such help.

Not ok here. Notice the *Or*s. Anything followed by *Or* is bad. If MR is guilty of violating only ONE thing after one of the *Or*s, MR is in violation of its own rules.

So you're saying I can just read any agreement anyway I want? Duly noted :)

thejadedmonkey

Nov 20, 2009, 11:40 AM

So . . . we're going to discuss piracy and warez now?

Sure! It's competition with Apple, and that's what this site covers.

gnasher729

Nov 20, 2009, 11:40 AM

I may be wrong here (and someone please correct me if I am), but aren't the open source segments of OS X covered by the GPL? Thus, Apple can restrict its own modifications, but it can't actually prevent the GPL-covered portions from being modified by the end-user.

You are part right / part wrong. First, there are no components built into the OS that would force Apple to play by the GPL rules (CUPS is under GPL but Apple owns the copyrights; there may be items that are dual licensed), and very few are under GPL. There are plenty under BSD license. You can take the BSD parts, modify them, and use them under Windows, or Linux, or whatever (if your Windows or Linux license allows it, nothing to do with Apple), but Apple's license doesn't allow you to combine the Apple-owned portions of MacOS X with changed BSD components.

MH01

Nov 20, 2009, 11:42 AM

No. Read it again.

It's under a certain heading, yes, but then we have this:

Do not post software serial numbers or keys

We're ok here. This hasn't been done.

*or* refer people to specific websites, software, or techniques whose purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods, distribute cracks, or obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation. Do not ask for or give such help.

Not ok here. Notice the *Or*s. Anything followed by *Or* is bad. If MR is guilty of violating only ONE thing after one of the *Or*s, MR is in violation of its own rules.

They also have guidelines about Spam, so stop coping and pasting the same response everytime!

Eidorian

Nov 20, 2009, 11:45 AM

They also have guidelines about Spam, so stop coping and pasting the same response everytime!I was about to give the same advice to *LTD*. Report the MacRurmors bot for whatever benefit it might be and please stop spamming the MacRumors rules. We heard the first time.

The article is probably directly from arn so I don't see much of a problem with it if it gets past that authority here.

Povilas

Nov 20, 2009, 11:47 AM

Yeah had a think about it, and you know what, no where in this post does it tell you where to obtain an illegal copy of OS X,

No it doesn't tell, but it hooks you up to further analyze and after that downloading hacked OS X is not a problem (P2P, UseNet).

SO as much as you try to convince me that people who run hackintoshes have illegal copies of OS X, its not going to work.

Right :D. Ignorance is A Bliss. So bittorrent is ony used to share/download linux? :D

Bafflefish

Nov 20, 2009, 11:47 AM

You are part right / part wrong. First, there are no components built into the OS that would force Apple to play by the GPL rules (CUPS is under GPL but Apple owns the copyrights; there may be items that are dual licensed), and very few are under GPL. There are plenty under BSD license. You can take the BSD parts, modify them, and use them under Windows, or Linux, or whatever (if your Windows or Linux license allows it, nothing to do with Apple), but Apple's license doesn't allow you to combine the Apple-owned portions of MacOS X with changed BSD components.
Ah, ok. See, it's that part though regarding Apple's license not allowing you to utilize OS X with BSD components that makes me curious just whether it would hold up in court.

It's one thing to try and modify OS X to install on non-Apple hardware that you wish to then turn around and sell (such as Pystar).

It's another thing though for Apple to try to prevent users from modifying the open-source (if the CPUID table in OS X is itself open source) components of OS X for private use in a non-commercial environment. I don't know whether the courts would uphold their license agreement in that situation (if it could be proved it was purely for home, non-commercial use), especially since OS X has so much open-source code present within it.

Edit - I should say, given my (albeit limited) understanding of the GPL, aren't any open source components that Apple modifies, still subject to the GPL? I thought the only full restrictions Apple could enforce would be on code that Apple themselves have added that did not previously exist within the software framework they are using.

*LTD*

Nov 20, 2009, 11:47 AM

Sure! It's competition with Apple, and that's what this site covers.

Software licensing violations and IP violations are not competition. They are legal offenses.

Psystar was NOT competition for Apple. They were a rogue entity operating beyond the pale of legality.

The article is probably directly from arn so I don't see much of a problem with it if it gets past that authority here.

Well if you read MR's rules and you read the article, and then you deduce that the mods think it's ok (on top of all that), then that's rather disturbing (not about you, but about the mods/owners of the site.)

The only real issue is MR posting a direct link to the workaround. Remove the link and MR has a much stronger case for being in the clear according to its own rules.

a.gomez

Nov 20, 2009, 11:50 AM

well I for one do not get a check from Apple to police their stuff, and if you bought a netbook, a REAL copy of OSX, and want to play around with them - go crazy just like teateam

gohanmzt

Nov 20, 2009, 11:50 AM

*or* refer people to specific websites, software, or techniques whose purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods, distribute cracks, or obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation. Do not ask for or give such help.

Not ok here. Notice the *Or*s. Anything followed by *Or* is bad. If MR is guilty of violating only ONE thing after one of the *Or*s, MR is in violation of its own rules. The really important part is: "Or refer people to specific websites, (and/or) software . . . whose purpose is to break software licensing methods."

Running OS X on unauthorized hardware is a violation of Apple's OS X software license. The link posted in the MR article directs to to a website with information that shows you how to do just that.

LTD IS right people!. He's not saying that hackintoshing is illegal (and frankly I don't care enough to voice my opinion about it), he's merely pointing out a discrepancy in MR rules. The article could be rewritten leaving out the parts that violate the MR terms and still provide the same information.

Peace

P.S. And I'm not defending LTD, he's perfectly capable of doing that Himself, I just got a little tired of seeing the same information repeated over several pages. I thought that my browser was playing games on me.

cjmillsnun

Nov 20, 2009, 11:51 AM

Bafflefish

Nov 20, 2009, 11:51 AM

No it doesn't tell, but it hooks you up to further analyze and after that downloading hacked OS X is not a problem (P2P, UseNet).
That's ridiculous reasoning though, as most search engines would qualify themselves (how easy is it for Google to "hook you up" to a hackintosh site?)

Right :D. Ignorance is A Bliss. So bittorrent is ony used to share/download linux? :D
Because actual Apple hardware owners never pirate OS X? Please...

OllyW

Nov 20, 2009, 11:54 AM

I was about to give the same advice to *LTD*. Report the MacRurmors bot for whatever benefit it might be and please stop spamming the MacRumors rules. We heard the first time.

The article is probably directly from arn so I don't see much of a problem with it if it gets past that authority here.

The article is by Eric Slivka or WildCowboy as he is known in the forums.

He's a member of the MacRumors staff (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=626698) and also an administrator so I'm sure he's fully aware of the rules.

*LTD*

Nov 20, 2009, 11:54 AM

LTD IS right people!. He's not saying that hackintoshing is illegal (and frankly I don't care enough to voice my opinion about it), he's merely pointing out a discrepancy in MR rules. The article could be rewritten leaving out the parts that violate the MR terms and still provide the same information.

Peace

Bolded the key parts.

This is exactly what I'm saying.

MH01

Nov 20, 2009, 11:55 AM

No it doesn't tell, but it hooks you up to further analyze and after that downloading hacked OS X is not a problem (P2P, UseNet).

Right :D. Ignorance is A Bliss. So bittorrent is ony used to share/download linux? :D

geez.. This has nothing to do with Bit torrent. How about you actually read the article. No where does it tell you about torrents or how to get illegal software. And if your a fricken goodie too shoes you can run a torrent without committing a crime, torrent itself is not illegal, it all depends on what you share.

pdjudd

Nov 20, 2009, 11:58 AM

Because actual Apple hardware owners never pirate OS X? Please...

And I am beting that you can prove that applies to all of us and can provide the identities of these people right? I mean, you wouldn’t accuse people without proof right? In other words, without context I might as well say the exact same thing and replace the words “pirate OSX” with “murder people”. I am sure their are mac owners out there that have murdered people. Doesn’t mean anything though since I don’t have any proof.

And to echo other posters, buying the retail OSX doesn’t give you permission to hack it and create derivative works. It doesn’t matter how you get OSX, legally you cannot hack it to create a derivative work per the copyright laws.

Povilas

Nov 20, 2009, 11:58 AM

That's ridiculous reasoning though, as most search engines would qualify themselves (how easy is it for Google to "hook you up" to a hackintosh site?)

That's the point and that's why there is no need to publish such links in the article.

Because actual Apple hardware owners never pirate OS X? Please...

Actual owners buy actual Apple hardware as well ;) See the difference?

Bafflefish

Nov 20, 2009, 12:03 PM

geez.. This has nothing to do with Bit torrent. How about you actually read the article. No where does it tell you about torrents or how to get illegal software. And if your a fricken goodie too shoes you can run a torrent without committing a crime, torrent itself is not illegal, it all depends on what you share.
I don't know how long that'll last though, to be honest. Within the last few years the courts have been moving more towards the approach that if something can potentially violate copyright, then it's essentially illegal (I wonder then they'll ban guns finally, lol :P )

Bafflefish

Nov 20, 2009, 12:07 PM

Actual owners buy actual Apple hardware as well ;) See the difference?
With one licensed version of OS X (and then future updates that fall under that licensed version).

Someone who bought a Mac with 10.4 or 10.5 isn't allowed to just take someone's copy of 10.6 and install it.

Eidorian

Nov 20, 2009, 12:08 PM

The article is by Eric Slivka or WildCowboy as he is known in the forums.

He's a member of the MacRumors staff (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=626698) and also an administrator so I'm sure he's fully aware of the rules.Thanks for the correction. I'm usually only keeping track of the forum side of the articles and not the front page one. The author is stated over there.

ChazUK

Nov 20, 2009, 12:10 PM

Insanelymac forum rules: http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/index.php?act=boardrules
No posting of direct or indirect links to warez or pirated pieces of software, this includes cracks, serials and torrents.

No posting of OS X files. Open source (like Darwin) drivers and kexts are allowed (and encouraged!), but OS X files are not due to copyright.

Now, if anyone really has a beef with them and if this modified kernel is breaking their own forum rules why not:

A. Report the illegal kernel files to Apple (they could then invoke a DMCA and get it taken down) and
B. Report the original post on the insanelymac forums.

If it is in violation of their own rules they must deal with it.

Povilas

Nov 20, 2009, 12:10 PM

With one licensed version of OS X (and then future updates that fall under that licensed version).

Someone who bought a Mac with 10.4 or 10.5 isn't allowed to just take someone's copy of 10.6 and install it.

No and it's of course bad, but they buy hardware <-> Apple sell hardware. How installing hacked OS X on a netbook benefits Apple?

cjmillsnun

Nov 20, 2009, 12:14 PM

No. I installed a legally obtained and completely unpatched copy of OS X Snow Leopard on my Dell XPS M1530. And I live in Germany, European Union, where Apple's policy of forcing the customer to use OS X only on Apple hardware is as illegal as Microsoft's OEM policy was until the German Supreme Court ordered them to change their license policies. Apple will get the same treatment should they try and sue somebody for installing OS X on non-Apple hardware.

So, again: No. We're not talking about warez and piracy here. We're talking about Apple's business practices which are illegal in certain parts of the world.

Umm actually you are wrong.

In the EU we have something called the EU Copyright Directive, that all member states have agreed to. It is MORE restrictive than the DMCA and endorses EULAs.

MS got hammered because they were charging licence fees for PCs made by OEMs that didn't come with Windows. That is anticompetitive and illegal.

Apple own OS X and have the right to say it should only be run on their computers.

HLdan

Nov 20, 2009, 12:17 PM

That's ridiculous reasoning though, as most search engines would qualify themselves (how easy is it for Google to "hook you up" to a hackintosh site?)

Because actual Apple hardware owners never pirate OS X? Please...

Even if many genuine Apple Macintosh owners are pirating OS X, it's still being installed on genuine Apple hardware, and I don't think Apple would be nearly as steamed about that has oppose to what hackintosh users are doing. :p

OllyW

Nov 20, 2009, 12:19 PM

Insanelymac forum rules: http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/index.php?act=boardrules

Now, if anyone really has a beef with them and if this modified kernel is breaking their own forum rules why not:

A. Report the illegal kernel files to Apple (they could then invoke a DMCA and get it taken down) and
B. Report the original post on the insanelymac forums.

If it is in violation of their own rules they must deal with it.

The kernel is open source, so it's allowed (and encouraged).

Bafflefish

Nov 20, 2009, 12:20 PM

And I am beting that you can prove that applies to all of us and can provide the identities of these people right? I mean, you wouldn’t accuse people without proof right?
Did I accuse *every* Mac owner of pirating OS X? No, I didn't. Thanks for trying to attribute additional commentary to what I stated.

I have no problem saying that I honestly do believe that the majority of those who are running 10.6 *and* who have a Mac that wasn't originally running 10.6, purchased their copy legally and installed it as such.

But be realistic. Piracy occurs, even amongst those who purchased Apple hardware and wish to upgrade to the latest, greatest version. I've seen it happen amongst several of my friends.

In other words, without context I might as well say the exact same thing and replace the words “pirate OSX” with “murder people”. I am sure their are mac owners out there that have murdered people. Doesn’t mean anything though since I don’t have any proof.
Do you honestly believe OS X piracy only occurs amongst the hackintosh crowd? If you do, I have a bridge to sell you in the middle of the Atlantic ocean :D

More seriously, I've seen it happen amongst friends of mine. And while it is hard to quickly find statistics on OS X piracy, you can find copies of it on BitTorrent, UseNet, etc. I'm sure you'll brush that off as only the hackintosh community being involved.

It's much easier to track Windows piracy because Microsoft issues CD keys for Windows, and over time they accumulate a list of known pirated CD keys, which helps to identify just what % of copies attempting to activate or check for updates are pirated. Even then, that % is lower than what it really is, as quite a few pirated copies of Windows don't attempt to authenticate or update.

And to echo other posters, buying the retail OSX doesn’t give you permission to hack it and create derivative works. It doesn’t matter how you get OSX, legally you cannot hack it to create a derivative work per the copyright laws.
My earlier posts regarded questions I had over the GPL and OS X, which Gnasher responded to politely with a good response (which I tend responded to with another question as well as just some thoughts I had on it). I'm waiting for his response (and others who are more knowledgeable about the GPL) to see just what the final consensus is.

If you have some more info about the GPL, please, by all means present it. :) If all you're going to do is senselessly attack and add nothing to the conversation, please don't respond. Thanks :)

Bafflefish

Nov 20, 2009, 12:22 PM

Even if many genuine Apple Macintosh owners are pirating OS X, it's still being installed on genuine Apple hardware, and I don't think Apple would be nearly as steamed about that has oppose to what hackintosh users are doing. :p
Oh, I have no doubt Apple isn't happy about the loss of hardware revenue for those running hackintoshes.

At the same time though, I'd be very surprised if they weren't pissed over piracy of any kind. Remember, they expect hardware purchasers to pay for OS X upgrades, especially given how cheaply they offer it :P

No and it's of course bad, but they buy hardware <-> Apple sell hardware. How installing hacked OS X on a netbook benefits Apple?
Oh, I do think that Apple doesn't like seeing OS X installed on such "low quality hardware", lol. I just find it absurd that people around here seem to bemoan and complain about the "piracy" they see occurring amongst the hackintosh crowd and yet, seem to not care much if Apple hardware owners pirate OS X, since they've purchased legitimate Apple hardware.

Last time I checked, piracy is piracy :P

ChazUK

Nov 20, 2009, 12:26 PM

The kernel is open source, so it's allowed (and encouraged).

I wasn't too sure if it was so thanks for that OllyW.

*LTD*

Nov 20, 2009, 12:27 PM

Umm actually you are wrong.

In the EU we have something called the EU Copyright Directive, that all member states have agreed to. It is MORE restrictive than the DMCA and endorses EULAs.

MS got hammered because they were charging licence fees for PCs made by OEMs that didn't come with Windows. That is anticompetitive and illegal.

Apple own OS X and have the right to say it should only be run on their computers.

Thanks for the clarification. I was wondering what this whole Germany situation was about.

macUser2007

Nov 20, 2009, 12:29 PM

This could have simply been reported without any reference at all to "hackintoshes" or "create their own netbook Macs."

As it stands, it's now a discussion about piracy....

Gees, get a life man....

I wonder what kind of religious mind votes negative on a such news. If they bought the software, it's not piracy.

Just like it would not be piracy, if you mod a legally obtained OS 10.6 to work on PowerPC.

*LTD*

Nov 20, 2009, 12:30 PM

The kernel is open source, so it's allowed (and encouraged).

But OS X is subject Apple's software license. Using an open source kernel to circumvent Apple's software license is still a violation of said software license.

If you bought OS X and you clicked your agreement with the EULA, and you're doing this, you're in violation. If you're downloading a modified copy of OS X via torrents, and you're doing this, you're in violation. You're hacking OS X to run on unauthorized Apple hardware, and in this case, MR is helping you do it by pointing you to the website that shows you how.

Gees, get a life man....

I wonder what kind of religious mind votes negative on a such news. If they bought the software, it's not piracy.

Just like it would not be piracy, if you mod a legally obtained OS 10.6 to work on PowerPC.

It's not piracy. But it is facilitating the circumvention of Apple's software license agreement. That's the sticking point here. Apple's EULA was recently upheld in court. In fact, it followed a long string of EULAs being upheld in court. Hackintosh users are in violation of Apple's software license. It's that simple. The reason Apple doesn't go after them is because it would be realistically unworkable. For now. Nothing preventing them from going after one or two individuals, however, in order to prove their point. This can happen at any time, subjective PR issues aside.

MR ignores the rules in this area, then what's next? I guarantee if I started to spout off obscenities at you and call you all kinds of names the mods would be on me like flies on ish. Or maybe not?

observer

Nov 20, 2009, 12:33 PM

You can take the BSD parts, modify them, and use them under Windows, or Linux, or whatever (if your Windows or Linux license allows it, nothing to do with Apple), but Apple's license doesn't allow you to combine the Apple-owned portions of MacOS X with changed BSD components.

This Atom hack feels more and more like copyright violation. What gets distributed? Is it a full patched copy of OSX, or a small patching routine? Since the OSX being patched doesn't run, what machine is the patching being done on?

Up to now, I've thought of hackintoshing as an interesting technical exercise, modifying your machine to make it capable of loading OSX. But I think this crosses a line. This is a lot more like forging a license key to run a copy of Windows.

If you care.

Bafflefish

Nov 20, 2009, 12:36 PM

But OS X is subject Apple's software license. Using an open source kernel to circumvent Apple's software license is still a violation of said software license.

If you bought OS X and you clicked your agreement with the EULA, and you're doing this, you're in violation. If you're downloading a modified copy of OS X via torrents, and you're doing this, you're in violation.
That's what I'm curious about. What, if any, obligations does Apple have towards the GPL in regards to the open source code they have utilized? (I guess, more clearly, can Apple's license agreement simply disregard any obligations to the GPL, if those obligations even exist?)

If the process that checks for CPU compatibility is purely of Apple's origin, than obviously it's Apple's right to do with as they please. But if it's code derived from open source software, wouldn't it potentially be legal to modify it?

Povilas

Nov 20, 2009, 12:37 PM

Oh, I do think that Apple doesn't like seeing OS X installed on such "low quality hardware", lol. I just find it absurd that people around here seem to bemoan and complain about the "piracy" they see occurring amongst the hackintosh crowd and yet, seem to not care much if Apple hardware owners pirate OS X, since they've purchased legitimate Apple hardware.

Last time I checked, piracy is piracy :P

Yes, piracy is piracy, but one way Apple sells hardware and hardware is their goal and other way they sell nothing because 99.99 of hacintoshes run hacked OS X from p2p or other sources.

I'm not arguing that part of Mac users do the same.

ChazUK

Nov 20, 2009, 12:38 PM

Yes, piracy is piracy, but one way Apple sells hardware and hardware is their goal and other way they sell nothing because 99.99 of hacintoshes run hacked OS X from p2p or other sources.

I'm not arguing that part of Mac users do the same.

Got any evidence to back that up?

*LTD*

Nov 20, 2009, 12:47 PM

That's what I'm curious about. What, if any, obligations does Apple have towards the GPL in regards to the open source code they have utilized? (I guess, more clearly, can Apple's license agreement simply disregard any obligations to the GPL, if those obligations even exist?)

If the process that checks for CPU compatibility is purely of Apple's origin, than obviously it's Apple's right to do with as they please. But if it's code derived from open source software, wouldn't it potentially be legal to modify it?

if you have a copy of OS X, and you've made it run on unauthorized hardware, regardless of the means, you're in violation of the license agreement, open source kernel or not. I highly doubt you can compile OS X from scratch and customize it for unauthorized hardware. At some point you're going to run into code or functions that are critical to the system and which are proprietary.

But yes, I'm curious as well to see Apple obligations re GPL. I know that you can play around with Darwin to your heart's content, for example (if I'm not mistaken.)

CQd44

Nov 20, 2009, 01:09 PM

I'm gonna complain to my local news stations whenever they report on drugs or gun trafficking because that might encourage me to go buy drugs and guns AND it might tell me their names so i can look for them when they get out of prison!

Veri

Nov 20, 2009, 01:10 PM

*LTD*, you thoroughly entertaining thing: In the '70s Steve Jobs was earning the money necessary to later start up Apple proper by selling blue boxes, devices for illegally obtaining long distance telephone service.

Although it's an issue between the telecomms company, SJ, and maybe the police, which has been settled pages/decades ago, shouldn't you be weighing in on it, calling for SJ to be sent to jail for his illegal part in illegally obtaining pirated service and involving himself in the promotion and sale of those illegal devices which are against the EULA for 'phone service?

Also, this post is not sold to you, only licensed, and by reading to this paragraph you agree to give me a peck on the cheek. If you do not give me a peck on the cheek you lose all rights to this post, and must hunt down and wipe any copies in your browser cache or in un-zeroed free space on your hard drive. Also, the remaining magnetic domain pattern on your drive will be considered a creative derivative work. Respect my rights as a content creator! I didn't even ask you to pay a fee before getting a chance to read the terms - how cool is that?

*LTD*

Nov 20, 2009, 01:32 PM

.. ... .

*LTD*, you thoroughly entertaining thing: In the '70s Steve Jobs was earning the money necessary to later start up Apple proper by selling blue boxes, devices for illegally obtaining long distance telephone service.

Ok.

Although it's an issue between the telecomms company, SJ, and maybe the police, which has been settled pages/decades ago, shouldn't you be weighing in on it, calling for SJ to be sent to jail for his illegal part in illegally obtaining pirated service and involving himself in the promotion and sale of those illegal devices which are against the EULA for 'phone service?

Has nothing to do with Macrumors' articlet and the relevant section of the forum rules. But I assume you're joking. ;)

Also, this post is not sold to you, only licensed, and by reading to this paragraph you agree to give me a peck on the cheek. If you do not give me a peck on the cheek you lose all rights to this post, and must hunt down and wipe any copies in your browser cache or in un-zeroed free space on your hard drive. Also, the remaining magnetic domain pattern on your drive will be considered a creative derivative work. Respect my rights as a content creator! I didn't even ask you to pay a fee before getting a chance to read the terms - how cool is that?

Where's my Agree/Disagree option as required? :p

Cougarcat

Nov 20, 2009, 01:32 PM

Veri, hilarious post!

I would like to point out that both MacNN and MacWorld are covering this story, complete with links. Hell, MacWorld even links to the guy's Russian blog!

TennisandMusic

Nov 20, 2009, 01:33 PM

I may be wrong here (and someone please correct me if I am), but aren't the open source segments of OS X covered by the GPL? Thus, Apple can restrict its own modifications, but it can't actually prevent the GPL-covered portions from being modified by the end-user.

Now I guess the portion of OS X that includes the table for CPU identification may be different, but it'd be interesting to see just how different it is from any type of table in FreeBSD/etc that does CPU identification. If it's nothing more than Apple simply changing the CPUIDs to only be those CPUs it wishes to support, well, I'm not sure that would hold up in court ;D

Yeah, the EULA in general might not hold up in court either, which is what LTD has his panties in a bunch over. MR's rules seem much more geared towards actual piracy, not buying Snow Leopard and using it how you wish. Apple's EULA is pretty sketchy in that regard, and I think it's hilarious how furious he is over people who use OSX in any way they choose (after buying it).

OllyW

Nov 20, 2009, 01:47 PM

Veri, hilarious post!

I would like to point out that both MacNN and MacWorld are covering this story, complete with links. Hell, MacWorld even links to the guy's Russian blog!

So have 9 to 5 Mac and AppleInsider links to the MacWorld story which links to the hack. The entire Apple community is rotten to the core :D

*LTD*

Nov 20, 2009, 01:47 PM

Veri, hilarious post!

I would like to point out that both MacNN and MacWorld are covering this story, complete with links. Hell, MacWorld even links to the guy's Russian blog!

Depends on their forum rules.

Not sure whether the following applies just to new posts or forums, or whether there is a difference.

http://www.macworld.com/info/tos.html

You may participate in any forums or messaging threads offered through the Service, but you agree not to post any material the content of which (i) is defamatory, libelous, obscene, indecent, abusive, threatening to others, or in violation of any law; or (ii) infringes the copyright, trademark right, or other intellectual property right of any third party. You will be solely responsible for all content that you post on the Service.

http://www.macworld.com/article/143977/2009/11/atom_hack.html

Macworld has posted link(s) to here:

http://teateam.blogspot.com/2009/11/mac-os-x-1062.html

Not sure if posting links = "post any material the content of which." Unlike Macworld, Macrumors is very specific and clear in this area.

Macworld might very well be in violation of their TOS, provided the TOS applies to news articles.

So have 9 to 5 Mac and AppleInsider links to the MacWorld story which links to the hack. The entire Apple community is rotten to the core :D

Seems article hits sometimes take precedence over the rules. Too bad, really. Not only does it suggest hypocrisy, it also sends a fairly negative message to everyone else. Of course, these things often go unnoticed until someone at some point gets curious.

MorphingDragon

Nov 20, 2009, 01:50 PM

Veri

Nov 20, 2009, 01:54 PM

As far as I know Apple doesn't use GPL software

http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1062/

OllyW

Nov 20, 2009, 01:55 PM

As far as I know Apple doesn't use GPL software. They have FreeBSD code which is under the BSD license. Plus theres Apache which is the Apache License.

Have a look here (http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1062/), there are quite a few instances of GPL listed.

MorphingDragon

Nov 20, 2009, 01:58 PM

Have a look here (http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1062/), there are quite a few instances of GPL listed.

Theres a lot of Apple Software Licenses!

OllyW

Nov 20, 2009, 02:01 PM

Theres a lot of Apache Licenses!

APSL (http://www.opensource.apple.com/license/apsl/) is nothing to do with Apache. ;)

*LTD*

Nov 20, 2009, 02:02 PM

Re: Open Source.

http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/

H. Certain components of the Apple Software, and third party open source programs included with the Apple Software, have been or may be made available by Apple on its Open Source web site (http://www.opensource.apple.com/) (collectively the "Open-Sourced Components"). You may modify or replace only these Open-Sourced Components; provided that: (i) the resultant modified Apple Software is used, in place of the unmodified Apple Software, on a single Apple- branded computer; and (ii) you otherwise comply with the terms of this License and any applicable licensing terms governing use of the Open-Sourced Components. Apple is not obligated to provide any updates, maintenance, warranty, technical or other support, or services for the resultant modified Apple Software.

I. You may not and you agree not to, or to enable others to, copy (except as expressly permitted by this License), decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, attempt to derive the source code of, decrypt, modify, or create derivative works of the Apple Software or any services provided by the Apple Software, or any part thereof (except as and only to the extent any foregoing restriction is prohibited by applicable law or to the extent as may be permitted by licensing terms governing use of Open-Sourced Components). You agree to use the Apple Software and the Services (as defined in Section 5 below) in compliance with all applicable laws, including local laws of the country or region in which you reside or in which you download or use the Apple Software and Services.

Beric

Nov 20, 2009, 02:03 PM

OllyW

Nov 20, 2009, 02:06 PM

Theres a lot of Apple Software Licenses!

Nice edit. :rolleyes:

MorphingDragon

Nov 20, 2009, 02:06 PM

APSL (http://www.opensource.apple.com/license/apsl/) is nothing to do with Apache. ;)

Psh I assumed that. APSL is used for Apache as well. :/

Read Edit.

*LTD*

Nov 20, 2009, 02:12 PM

LTD, do you want to be a lawyer? Or are you just trolling?

Clearly, this "breaking of the rules" doesn't matter a bit, or admins would have taken the link down hours ago.

If you want to complain about "the rules" further, go to the suggestions forum. As it is, you're just embarrassing yourself and spamming up this thread.

This "breaking of the rules" doesn't matter one bit? What's your opinion on that? I'm dying to know.

Would it matter whether I broke the rule about forum conduct? How about I call you all kinds of obscenities and find interesting ways to threaten you online, via these forums? Would you like that? Think I could get away with it without being reported? Would you like to see me get away with it constantly, with no action taken by the mods?

I think you see what I'm getting at . . .

And by the way, we're discussing Open Source now. I've advised mods of the issue with the article, and would be interested in their answer. But if anyone has further questions about the article and how it relates to the rules, I think we should all be free to answer them. Seems like an interesting and relevant topic, especially in light of recent information, starting at about . . . oh, post #10.

ChrisA

Nov 20, 2009, 02:31 PM

So . . . we're going to discuss piracy and warez now?

It's not piracy. A patch like this only overwrites data that is already on your disk. We assume someone bought Mac OS X. This modifies the copy they own by writing over top of it. It is not a modified copy, which would be a copyright violation.

Veri

Nov 20, 2009, 02:32 PM

You may modify or replace only these Open-Sourced Components; provided that: (i) the resultant modified Apple Software is used, in place of the unmodified Apple Software, on a single Apple- branded computer; and...

Apple cannot add those restrictions for GPL parts. It is quite wrong for Apple to imply that derivative works have to replace original code on particular machines.

GPL

4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
parties remain in full compliance.

Regardless, for all open sourced parts, the restrictions are meaningless, as I already have a license to them under the original open source license terms.

*LTD*

Nov 20, 2009, 02:35 PM

It's not piracy. A patch like this only overwrites data that is already on your disk. We assume someone bought Mac OS X. This modifies the copy they own by writing over top of it. It is not a modified copy, which would be a copyright violation.

Contrary to Apple's EULA. Anything that enables the user to run OS X on unauthorized hardware is a violation of Apple's software license. That's the whole point. It violates licensing terms. In earlier posts I applied this to the Macrumors article and how it relates to forum rules.

Regardless, for all open sourced parts, the restrictions are meaningless, as I already have a license to them under the original open source license terms.

What you do with them re OS X and Apple's software license pertaining to it, however, is most certainly not meaningless.

And FWIW, the EULA specifically states that the retail version can only be used on Macintosh computers. Since the EULA has been upheld, that statement now has the force of law.

Apple cannot add those restrictions for GPL parts. It is quite wrong for Apple to imply that derivative works have to replace original code on particular machines.

They did (not sure how you're reading it, though.) It's in the EULA. The EULA has been upheld in court. It has the force of law.

Veri

Nov 20, 2009, 02:48 PM

What you do with them re OS X and Apple's software license pertaining to it, however, is most certainly not meaningless.

Indeed: specifically, if Apple tried to restrict my modification or re-distribution of any of the GPL-licensed code it used then it would lose the right to usedistribute (sorry) that code. Apple may license me the GPL works it has built on under the GPL and, where it does not own the entire software, only the GPL.

The EULA has been upheld in court.
Some of it, in a particular situation, in a particular jurisdiction. No "override the GPL" clause has been upheld.

ChrisA

Nov 20, 2009, 02:48 PM

What happens if I sell you a box of corn flake. And written on the box there is a sign that reads: "By opening this box you agree to the term on the contract inside adn as they may be modified in the furture by the seller of this box"

Then inside the contract reads: "you must eat these corn flakes only with a platic spoon and when you finish you must from that day forward only ware blue clothing."

Yes. Very silly but you did open the box so you will have to tell me why you do not have to use a plastic spoon and ware blue. and YES i agree thet you would not have to do those things BUT WHY.

Now that you've explained that, why does that same argument not apply to the DVD you just bought. Copyright is different, I agree you can not make a copy and sell the DVD. We are not talking about that. We are talking about putting the DVD in a toaster oven or maybe some old PC you have. So be very careful about how you explain about not using the plastic spoon because that argument will certainly have bearing on using the DVD in a PC.

++++

Here is my take on the above: The contract in the corn flake box is completely invalid because contracts are only binding if BOTH parties agree. opening a box can not signal agreement because you cant even know what you agree to and there is no way to "un-open" the box and signal disagreement.

Contrary to Apple's EULA. Anything that enables the user to run OS X on unauthorized hardware is a violation of Apple's software license...

A licenses is a contract. Many people will argue that the EULA is not a valid and binding contract. The basic thing about contracts is that both people have to agree to the terms. You can't make them one sided. At the very least there must be a way to decline.

See my post above about corn flake box. You can't just put a contract in a box and force whoever buys it to be bond by it's terms. Not unless you give him a way out.

If Apple were to offer a refund of the price to those who did not like the EULA then it would be different. Or if the Apple store required you to read and sign a contract BEFORE they sold you a DVD then it would be different.

GPL is different. It is not a license to use. It is a contract allowing redistribution and they give you a way out. In fact they say "accepting this license is optional", They make it very clear that you can use the software all you like without agreement of the GPL terms. You don't have to agree to the GPL but if you don't then you are bond ONLY by the copyright law. The Apple EULA does not allow you to not agree.

*LTD*

Nov 20, 2009, 03:02 PM

... ... ...

What happens if I sell you a box of corn flake. And written on the box there is a sign that reads: "By opening this box you agree to the term on the contract inside adn as they may be modified in the furture by the seller of this box"

Alright, so you open it. Hopefully some kind of refund policy is in place with the retailer.

Then inside the contract reads: "you must eat these corn flakes only with a platic spoon and when you finish you must from that day forward only ware blue clothing."

Yes. Very silly but you did open the box so you will have to tell me why you do not have to use a plastic spoon and ware blue.

You *do* have to use a plastic spoon and wear blue. In the absence of an agree/disagree option, what you'd need to do if you disagree is close the box and if you want, return it to the retailer. These stipulations would be in the EULA.

and YES i agree thet you would not have to do those things BUT WHY.

You *would* have to do those things. If you want to argue it, you'll need to subject the EULA to the court's analysis. If you're comparing it to Apple's EULA, the court upheld that, so in that case the comparison between your cereal example and Apple is inappropriate.

Now that you've explained that, why does that same argument not apply to the DVD you just bought. Copyright is different, I agree you can not make a copy and sell the DVD. We are not talking about that. We are talking about putting the DVD in a toaster oven or maybe some old PC you have. So be very careful about how you explain about not using the plastic spoon because that argument will certainly have bearing on using the DVD in a PC.

You lost me here.

++++

Here is my take on the above: The contract in the corn flake box is completely invalid because contracts are only binding if BOTH parties agree.

Nothwithstading the subjection of that particular "contract" to legal analysis, you're correct.

opening a box can not signal agreement because you cant even know what you agree to and there is no way to "un-open" the box and signal disagreement.

Disagreement means you close the box and not eat the cornflakes. For example, "clickwrap" agreements have an agree/disagree option. The EULA states that if you disagree, don't use the software.

The box itself should have something that reads:

"Please read the enclosed license before using the software. By using the software, you agree to be bound by the tems of this license."

What does the Snow Leopard box say?

Eidorian

Nov 20, 2009, 03:04 PM

This "breaking of the rules" doesn't matter one bit? What's your opinion on that? I'm dying to know.

Would it matter whether I broke the rule about forum conduct? How about I call you all kinds of obscenities and find interesting ways to threaten you online, via these forums? Would you like that? Think I could get away with it without being reported? Would you like to see me get away with it constantly, with no action taken by the mods?

I think you see what I'm getting at . . .I believe there are enough checks for the staff and administration.

You can debate the EULA and open source all you want. The only aspects that I find interesting on this subject are the technical ones.

What I don't see is how policing the staff is necessary or even appropriate for this article. Spamming the rules isn't doing much for the situation either.

*LTD*

Nov 20, 2009, 03:09 PM

I believe there are enough checks for the staff and administration.

You can debate the EULA and open source all you want. The only aspects that I find interesting on this subject are the technical ones.

What I don't see is how policing the staff is necessary or even appropriate for this article. Spamming the rules isn't doing much for the situation either.

Just pointing out a rather glaring discrepancy.

Policing the staff isn't appropriate when they have violated the very rules they claim to enforce? What??

Quoting the rules when the rules are the subject of discussion is entirely appropriate, if not explicilty necessary.

As for the EULA, yes, the technical aspects are interesting. Not sure what other aspect there are to it, other than ones of princple. Is that what you mean?

calderone

Nov 20, 2009, 03:14 PM

TennisandMusic

Nov 20, 2009, 03:14 PM

LTD, why are you so up in arms over this? It looks ridiculous. You do realize Apple is just another money hungry corporation right? They are not benevolent, and they certainly do not care as much about you, as you do about them. Is that clear to you?

*LTD*

Nov 20, 2009, 03:17 PM

bruinsrme

Nov 20, 2009, 03:20 PM

The admins/owners of macrumors broke their own rules.

Baawaaaaaah.

hackintoshes. hobbyists break the rules all the time thats part of it being a hobby and not just a user.

OllyW

Nov 20, 2009, 03:21 PM

Thanks to LTD, I have decided to pick up a netbook and Hackintosh it. Now I just need to decide which one... Anyone have a recommendation? Atom is fine, given I can run 10.6.2 on it.

I want drop that new Fedora build on it too.

I've heard the Dell Mini 10V (http://gizmodo.com/5389166/how-to-hackintosh-a-dell-mini-10v-into-the-ultimate-snow-leopard-netbook) is a safe bet.

Apple //e

Nov 20, 2009, 03:21 PM

Bolded the key parts.

This is exactly what I'm saying.

ive noticed a lot of ridiculous stories or whatever this site calls em lately, many repeating another story a few days earlier

they generate a lot of traffic, and a lot of clicks, and a lot of the same responses.....

....in the end its more clicks

flopticalcube

Nov 20, 2009, 03:22 PM

Thanks to LTD, I have decided to pick up a netbook and Hackintosh it. Now I just need to decide which one... Anyone have a recommendation? Atom is fine, given I can run 10.6.2 on it.

I want drop that new Fedora build on it too.
Dell mini 10v, apparently. Only real drawback is that the 1GB of RAM is soldered on.

*LTD*

Nov 20, 2009, 03:22 PM

The admins/owners of macrumors broke their own rules.

Baawaaaaaah.

hackintoshes. hobbyists break the rules all the time thats part of it being a hobby and not just a user.

Then can I break them too? How about I start cussing everyone I dont like out and threaten people?

See where this is going?

calderone

Nov 20, 2009, 03:23 PM

Dell mini 10v, apparently. Only real drawback is that the 1GB of RAM is soldered on.

Hmm two for the 10v. 1GB is a bit tight. I suppose it would just be a toy anyway. Hell my Air only has 2GB, wouldn't want the netbook to best it... :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Then can I break them too? How about I start cussing everyone I dont like out and threaten people?

See where this is going?

I can see where it is going, but this isn't a slippery slope. As the admins/owners of this site they can do whatever they want. This doesn't mean that you can. The slope ends with the admins.

If you want to cuss and threaten, make your own forum. Oh, and make rules that say no one else can do it and if they do, ban them.

Your inane tirade suggesting that a grave injustice has occurred because they broke the rules is rather tiring. It isn't likely they broke the law or performed an unethical act. They are simply reporting on something that brings many visitors here. Something that has been acknowledged by this thread: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=499678&page=101

You have made your point, and guess what? No one cares. You haven't even made the case that they have broken the rules. Why? Because they made the rules; nowhere is it stated that they also agreed to them or have to agree to them. You however, did agree to them.

OllyW

Nov 20, 2009, 03:24 PM

Dell mini 10v, apparently. Only real drawback is that the 1GB of RAM is soldered on.

No it isn't. It isn't easy though (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXOZDNVRkZo).

*LTD*

Nov 20, 2009, 03:25 PM

ive noticed a lot of ridiculous stories or whatever this site calls em lately, many repeating another story a few days earlier

they generate a lot of traffic, and a lot of clicks, and a lot of the same responses.....

....in the end its more clicks

Bravo. Someone sees the truth.

In the end . . . it's about the hits. Sad but true.

Members play by the rules. Owners and staff are free to break them since it is (with certain limits re hired staff) THEIR site. For hits? Well, I suppose that's as good a cause as any.

It doesn't set much of an example, but it generates for the site.

flopticalcube

Nov 20, 2009, 03:26 PM

Interesting. I had been told it was not upgradable. Not much more difficult than my 1008ha.

OllyW

Nov 20, 2009, 03:29 PM

Then can I break them too? How about I start cussing everyone I dont like out and threaten people?

See where this is going?

You are just a guest here, you have to abide by the rules.

The site owner and their employees can do what they feel is right for the site.

If you don't like it, you don't have to stay.

arkmannj

Nov 20, 2009, 03:30 PM

The admins/owners of macrumors broke their own rules.

Baawaaaaaah.

hackintoshes. hobbyists break the rules all the time thats part of it being a hobby and not just a user.

They're the owners, they can do what they want, if someone wants recourse then the best way to show it is by not coming to the site, since they make their money (well a large chunk of it) from advertising revenue.

In this case I think they were just posting interesting/relevant news that other Mac news sites were posting, and particularly something that would draw traffic/attention, they're a business, people defend Apple up to the hill when they make business decisions, I'd say MacRumors deserves the same. They are an Apple News site, they need to post Apple news to get traffic and pay the bills. This is an article that obviously does that very well. (especially because of the controversy with it)

*LTD*

Nov 20, 2009, 03:33 PM

You are just a guest here, you have to abide by the rules.

The site owner and their employees can do what they feel is right for the site.

If you don't like it, you don't have to stay.

At the end of the day, this is the reality. But the problem is . . .

This by default validates discussion about the subject, which induces members to then go ahead and violate the same rule.

bruinsrme

Nov 20, 2009, 03:34 PM

Then can I break them too? How about I start cussing everyone I dont like out and threaten people?

See where this is going?

its not your playground, you are a user so you and I have to play by their rules.

Open your own playground then you can bend the rules if you want.

Companies I have worked for set certain limits on business expenses on their employees. I am not that naive to think the CEO is held to the same compact car rental restriction I am even though it is in the Employee Handbook signed by him.

My son isn't allow to have certain foods in the home theater. But he knows my wife and I eat those same foods in the HT.

There are rules and privleges

calderone

Nov 20, 2009, 03:35 PM

No it isn't. It isn't easy though (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXOZDNVRkZo).

That isn't bad at all. I might consider the 10v.

At the end of the day, this is the reality. But the problem is . . .

This by default validates discussion about the subject, which induces members to then go ahead and violate the same rule.

The discussions has already been validated.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=499678&page=101

Apple //e

Nov 20, 2009, 03:40 PM

Bravo. Someone sees the truth.

In the end . . . it's about the hits. Sad but true.

Members play by the rules. Owners and staff are free to break them since it is (with certain limits re hired staff) THEIR site. For hits? Well, I suppose that's as good a cause as any.

It doesn't set much of an example, but it generates for the site.

yes, capitalism does have its disadvantages.

the fact that companies are out for them$elve$ is the main reason why you would never see me up in arms defending any money making entity.

*LTD*

Nov 20, 2009, 03:42 PM

That isn't bad at all. I might consider the 10v.

The discussions has already been validated.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=499678&page=101

Alright. Then section 10 of the Forum Rules is worthless.

There is no point in having it at all when under certain circumstances we end up violating it under the justification of topic popularity. What is the point to the rule in the first place? We should then be allowed to post links to insanelymac and do other things to facilitate license/copyright violations all the time, regardless of the news item. The horse is already out of the barn.

More broadly, and more importantly, it's a question of integrity.

calderone

Nov 20, 2009, 03:45 PM

Alright. Then section 10 of the Forum Rules is worthless.

There is no point in having it at all when under certain circumstances we end up violating it under the justification of topic popularity. What is the point to the rule in the first place? We should then be allowed to post links to insanelymac and do other things to facilitate license/copyright violations all the time, regardless of the news item. The horse is already out of the barn.

Tell you what. Email the site owner and ask them about it. The horse may be out of the barn, but you have beaten it beyond recognition.

Mattie Num Nums

Nov 20, 2009, 03:46 PM

At the end of the day, this is the reality. But the problem is . . .

This by default validates discussion about the subject, which induces members to then go ahead and violate the same rule.

Kind of sounds like a moral issue right? Kind of like all of the issues you defend Apple for right? Interesting...

*LTD*

Nov 20, 2009, 03:47 PM

Tell you what. Email the site owner and ask them about it.

I did, earlier today. I'm interested in seeing what the response will be, and how that response will be disseminated publicly, for everyone to see, in the Forum Rules section or another accessible place on Macrumors.

arkmannj

Nov 20, 2009, 03:54 PM

Jimmany -Cricket < sigh > can we get off the morality or not stuff ? if the site owners and admins have been notified that some find this article objectionable, then that's-that. If they find the topic inappropriate then it'll be shut down, if not, then lets have the topic at hand talked about. As said, not everyone is wanting this topic to be a peg-legged, eye-patch wearing pirate, some of us just like hearing about technology stuff going on, and like to have fun with their hobbies, learn more, have a good time trying stuff out, etc...

Mattie Num Nums

Nov 20, 2009, 03:58 PM

I did, earlier today. I'm interested in seeing what the response will be, and how that response will be disseminated publicly, for everyone to see, in the Forum Rules section or another accessible place on Macrumors.

They told him to take off his "offensive" avatar so hes mad.

dukebound85

Nov 20, 2009, 03:58 PM

This could have simply been reported without any reference at all to "hackintoshes" or "create their own netbook Macs."

As it stands, it's now a discussion about piracy.

http://guides.macrumors.com/Help:Forum_Rules

Warez/Serials/Keys. Do not post software serial numbers or keys or refer people to specific websites, software, or techniques whose purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods, distribute cracks, or obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation. Do not ask for or give such help.

So telling people that support has been re-enabled for a hack whose "purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods" and pointing them to the website where they can be instructed on how to deploy this "workaround" is what?

Arn has stated that you can talk about hackintoshes as long as one doesnt not link to pirated materials...

*LTD*

Nov 20, 2009, 04:01 PM

They told him to take off his "offensive" avatar so hes mad.

Actually, that was done in my own. I figured if I'm going to complain, I might as well put myself in a position above reproach. It's only right.

AidenShaw

Nov 20, 2009, 04:02 PM

Members play by the rules. Owners and staff are free to break them since it is (with certain limits re hired staff) THEIR site.

Alright. Then section 10 of the Forum Rules is worthless.

Some members play by the rules - but others seem to be able to harass, insult and name-call without being warned or given a timeout.

Anyway, IMHO this is a legitimate news story about how the community is responding to a move by Apple that many regard as petty and unbecoming. Anyone with a hack-netbook already knew this, so arguments that this story is aiding and abetting software terrorism are stretched.

This Apple action also can affect the honest, EULA-abiding Apple users. For example, one of our Dell PW390 systems with a QX6700 blew its CPU. It's out of warranty, so a quick look at Newegg showed that the QX6700 is EOL and commercial shops aren't selling them.

Intel's website shows the Q8400, Q9400 and Q9550 as compatible replacements. But, if I tried to replace the CPU on an Apple, any strict CPUID checks could cause me a bag of hurt. (Of course, most Apples have soldered CPUs, so I'd need a new Apple ($$cha-ching$$) if my CPU blew.)

The real news story here is that Apple seems to be losing its lustre - its greedy, control-freak approach is illustrated by actions like blocking the Atom. It's news.

Apple //e

Nov 20, 2009, 04:02 PM

this site used to be more tech and a loooot less of this arguing over vocabulary.
of all the things to discuss regarding atoms and osx, first a eula and then site rules?

mac users were never the most tech minded but seriously, this is absurd

dukebound85

Nov 20, 2009, 04:06 PM

Arn's stance

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4958453&postcount=6

and

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=6498521&postcount=8

Thats the final word

you can move on now

Summary

It is ok to talk about hackintoshing as long as one does not link or give instructions pertaining to the piracy of osx

Macrumors does not enforce EULAs

*LTD*

Nov 20, 2009, 04:07 PM

Arn has stated that you can talk about hackintoshes as long as one doesnt not link to pirated materials...

Accoding to Forum Rules, this would be fine.

But we can't do this:

Do not . . . refer people to specific techniques whose purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods, or obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation. Do not ask for or give such help.

So we can't discuss any techniques, can't post code to that effect, can't post ways in which to accomplish it. I hope this was also made clear.

Arn's stance:

These issues have been revisited lately, and the decision has been to not police EULA violations specifically.

Contradicts:

Do not . . . refer people to specific techniques whose purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods, or obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation. Do not ask for or give such help.

Arn's "other stance":

- we don't make it a point to police EULAs, but other forum members frequently object to common EULA violations surrounding Apple
- we do not permit illegal ("against the law") discussion for obvious reasons

At best, unclear. They don't make it a point to "police EULAs", yet they object to specific discussion of EULA violations. So do they object to them or not? Does it cover me saying "I violated Apple's EULA" or me saying "Here's how you violate Apple's EULA" (rather, here's how you install OS X on an Atom-based netbook.)

dukebound85

Nov 20, 2009, 04:11 PM

CQd44

Nov 20, 2009, 04:12 PM

I'm waiting for more forum rule spam.

mike dunx

Nov 20, 2009, 04:13 PM

Eidorian

Nov 20, 2009, 04:15 PM

Some members play by the rules - but others seem to be able to harass, insult and name-call without being warned or given a timeout.

Anyway, IMHO this is a legitimate news story about how the community is responding to a move by Apple that many regard as petty and unbecoming. Anyone with a hack-netbook already knew this, so arguments that this story is aiding and abetting software terrorism are stretched.

This Apple action also can affect the honest, EULA-abiding Apple users. For example, one of our Dell PW390 systems with a QX6700 blew its CPU. It's out of warranty, so a quick look at Newegg showed that the QX6700 is EOL and commercial shops aren't selling them.

Intel's website shows the Q8400, Q9400 and Q9550 as compatible replacements. But, if I tried to replace the CPU on an Apple, any strict CPUID checks could cause me a bag of hurt. (Of course, most Apples have soldered CPUs, so I'd need a new Apple ($$cha-ching$$) if my CPU blew.)

The real news story here is that Apple seems to be losing its lustre - its greedy, control-freak approach is illustrated by actions like blocking the Atom. It's news.Did the BIOS have the correct microcode to allow the newer 45nm Yorkfield quad core?

A QX6700 was a bit much but it is the original Core 2 Quad and has a sexy unlocked multiplier.

dukebound85

Nov 20, 2009, 04:25 PM

Accoding to Forum Rules, this would be fine.

But we can't do this:

Do not . . . refer people to specific techniques whose purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods, or obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation. Do not ask for or give such help.

So we can't discuss any techniques, can't post code to that effect, can't post ways in which to accomplish it. I hope this was also made clear.

Arn's stance:

These issues have been revisited lately, and the decision has been to not police EULA violations specifically.

Contradicts:

Do not . . . refer people to specific techniques whose purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods, or obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation. Do not ask for or give such help.

Arn's "other stance":

- we don't make it a point to police EULAs, but other forum members frequently object to common EULA violations surrounding Apple
- we do not permit illegal ("against the law") discussion for obvious reasons

At best, unclear. They don't make it a point to "police EULAs", yet they object to specific discussion of EULA violations. So do they object to them or not? Does it cover me saying "I violated Apple's EULA" or me saying "Here's how you violate Apple's EULA" (rather, here's how you install OS X on an Atom-based netbook.)

Any issue concerning EULAs, Arn doesnt care and won't enforce them

That much is what he made clear in his posts

Regardless, his stance allows these type of threads as long as no help in regards to piracy is going on. Seeing how making a hackintosh involves only breaking EULAs and no piracy (as you can use a retail osx disk), then it's fine to talk about

Can we move past this as the owner of this site has already expressed his views on this matter multiple times on this specific issue?

*LTD*

Nov 20, 2009, 04:26 PM

... .. ...

Read the threads in which arns posts are in to get proper context

The Forum Rules provide the proper context.

One of them (created by me a while back) addressed the specific issue about talking about hackintoshes

An issue that is (wrongly) regarded by the mods as an exception to the Forum Rules. Not my site, so they can do what they like. Still wrong, though.

Arn's stance is what matters as its his site

Again, this has to be balanced with a clear reading of the Forum Rules, which should be clear in the first place.

My undertsnding is we cant link to pirated material or tell how to pirate it if one goes that route though really, now you can simply use a trtail disk to make a hackintosh at which point its only a EULA violation.

"Only" an EULA violation??

When it comes to EULA's it is ok to talk about as MR does not enforce them (being EULA violations)....hence all of the hackintosh and jailbreaking threads

Except that EULA violations fall under:

"Do not post . . . or refer people techniques whose purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods . . . or obtain or use commercial software or media *in violation of its license* and/or for copyright violation. Do not ask for or give such help."

"violation of its license." Here, "license" includes just that! A software license, which includes an EULA."

Arn's stance on this issue superseeds forums rules if there are conflicts as the issue was specifically addressed

Arn's stance on this issue isn't simply unclear, it completely contradicts his own rules.

Bottom line: If Arn's stance is different from the published Forum Rules, then "Arn's Stance" needs to be included in the Forum Rules.

dukebound85

Nov 20, 2009, 04:34 PM

lol im just trying to give you the stance of the owner of this site and his thoughts about hackintosh discussion which really should absolve any questions about it

whether or not it seems contradictory to the rules or not is not my concern though i admit its in a grey area depending on how you interpret it

however, since Arn specifically went out of his way to address this very issue, then that is the answer regarding this issue plain and simple regardless if it may contradict the rules he made

consider it an exception if you think it does contradict

*LTD*

Nov 20, 2009, 04:40 PM

lol im just trying to give you the stance of the owner of this site and his thoughts about hackintosh discussion which really should absolve any questions about it

It doesn't absolve questions about it, I'm afraid. Quite the contrary.

whether or not it seems contradictory or not is not my concern though i admit its in a grey area

The Forum Rules make it pretty black-and-white, actually. I'm assuming we can't discuss EULA violations (methods, techniques) unless they are Apple EULA violations. That's interesting.

however, since Arn specifically went out of his way to address this very issue, then that is the answer regarding this issue plain and simple

Except I don't know what his answer is. It isn't clear at all. Unless he's making Apple EULA violation discussions (methods, techniques) the specific exception to his own rules. Which makes no sense.

But . . . I do appreciate you taking the time to try to explain the issue. Thank you.

drakino

Nov 20, 2009, 04:43 PM

But, if I tried to replace the CPU on an Apple, any strict CPUID checks could cause me a bag of hurt. (Of course, most Apples have soldered CPUs, so I'd need a new Apple ($$cha-ching$$) if my CPU blew.)

The real news story here is that Apple seems to be losing its lustre - its greedy, control-freak approach is illustrated by actions like blocking the Atom. It's news.

If you did replace the CPU on a Mac (and this is possible on any of their desktop machines) it would still work fine. Any CPU compatible with the chipset in the Mac is going to remain in the supported list of processors in the kernel. Want proof? Read my earlier post about how they "blocked" the Atom by fixing a bad logic check.

This is a case of Apple optimizing their software for their hardware, and not some control-freak issue.

AidenShaw

Nov 20, 2009, 04:50 PM

Did the BIOS have the correct microcode to allow the newer 45nm Yorkfield quad core?

Yes, the new CPU had the capability bitmask that the BIOS required. "Meets requirements" was the check, not "was exactly this CPU every sold on this motherboard".

I also bought a half-dozen Merom T7600 CPUs on eBay, and upgraded Yonah systems from Dell and Lenovo so that they could run 64-bit software. No problems. (Of course, Dell and Lenovo have socketed CPUs, not soldered.)

I also enjoyed replacing the 130watt QX6700 with a 95watt part!

Get off your dang high horses, I'd be willing to bet the majority of people here have either violated an EULA or outright pirated something before.

Apple has probably lost far more money on people who rationalize "why should I buy the family pack, when it doesn't check how many systems I install?" than on Hack-netbooks.

Any CPU compatible with the chipset in the Mac is going to remain in the supported list of processors in the kernel. Want proof? Read my earlier post about how they "blocked" the Atom by fixing a bad logic check.

This is a case of Apple optimizing their software for their hardware, and not some control-freak issue.

No, this is Apple control-freak crap.

The original test (CPU at or above a certain level) is the necessary test. The control-freak change (CPU in set {a,b,c...z}) only serves to block Hackintoshs - and legitimate users wishing to upgrade or replace CPUs with newer models.

The "any CPU compatible with the chipset in the Mac" is the root of Apple's control-freak problem. The Atom is compatible with supported Apple chipsets and CPUs. Apple had to go out of their way to intentionally break support.

If you checked the links, it points out the absurdity of the Apple action. The patched kernel changes the entry for "Core Solo" to match the CPUID of the Atom - so that the "unsupported CPU" panic is avoided.

Once the system boots, however, both logical CPUs are visible and usable - so OSX was able to recognize the dual logical CPU and enable SMP even though the CPUID was for a single logical CPU system. LOL.

Eidorian

Nov 20, 2009, 04:52 PM

Yes, the new CPU had the capability bitmask that the BIOS required. "Meets requirements" was the check, not "was exactly this CPU every sold on this motherboard".Did you have to update the BIOS at all? I remember quite a few teething issues with Yorkfield.

I also bought a half-dozen Merom T7600 CPUs on eBay, and upgraded Yonah systems from Dell and Lenovo so that they could run 64-bit software. No problems. (Of course, Dell and Lenovo have socketed CPUs, not soldered.)The service manuals are very easy to get ahold of too.

AidenShaw

Nov 20, 2009, 05:07 PM

Did you have to update the BIOS at all? I remember quite a few teething issues with Yorkfield.

The current (at the time) BIOS supported Meroms, since the models introduced with Yonah were upgraded to Merom in mid-model updates. (The PW390 BIOS worked too.)

Of course, a Merom-aware BIOS would be necessary to boot 64-bit.

Since other PC vendors regularly update their BIOS versions, it's not a big deal.

The service manuals are very easy to get ahold of too.

Dell's step-by-step illustrated service manuals are superb - as long as you have a second system that works to go through the manual. Lenovo is very close as well.

Mattie Num Nums

Nov 20, 2009, 05:13 PM

Accoding to Forum Rules, this would be fine.

But we can't do this:

Do not . . . refer people to specific techniques whose purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods, or obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation. Do not ask for or give such help.

So we can't discuss any techniques, can't post code to that effect, can't post ways in which to accomplish it. I hope this was also made clear.

Arn's stance:

These issues have been revisited lately, and the decision has been to not police EULA violations specifically.

Contradicts:

Do not . . . refer people to specific techniques whose purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods, or obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation. Do not ask for or give such help.

Arn's "other stance":

- we don't make it a point to police EULAs, but other forum members frequently object to common EULA violations surrounding Apple
- we do not permit illegal ("against the law") discussion for obvious reasons

At best, unclear. They don't make it a point to "police EULAs", yet they object to specific discussion of EULA violations. So do they object to them or not? Does it cover me saying "I violated Apple's EULA" or me saying "Here's how you violate Apple's EULA" (rather, here's how you install OS X on an Atom-based netbook.)

Go somewhere else than. Discussion is one thing, linking is another.

localoid

Nov 20, 2009, 05:14 PM

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/17/20552578_13ce752e4e.jpg

http://forums.macrumors.com/image.php?u=277390&dateline=1258732349

MH01

Nov 20, 2009, 05:15 PM

Bravo. Someone sees the truth.

In the end . . . it's about the hits. Sad but true.

Members play by the rules. Owners and staff are free to break them since it is (with certain limits re hired staff) THEIR site. For hits? Well, I suppose that's as good a cause as any.

It doesn't set much of an example, but it generates for the site.

Bravo, and do you see the irony that your generating all the hits on this story and keeping it going with constant spam of the the forum rules. If you stopped going on and on about the same point it would be dead by now.

*LTD*

Nov 20, 2009, 05:27 PM

Go somewhere else than. Discussion is one thing, linking is another.

No it's not, unless you're discussing it in very broad, general terms.

"Do not . . . refer people to specific techniques . . ."

conradwt

Nov 20, 2009, 05:34 PM

drakino

Nov 20, 2009, 06:09 PM

The original test (CPU at or above a certain level) is the necessary test. The control-freak change (CPU in set {a,b,c...z}) only serves to block Hackintoshs - and legitimate users wishing to upgrade or replace CPUs with newer models.

The "any CPU compatible with the chipset in the Mac" is the root of Apple's control-freak problem. The Atom is compatible with supported Apple chipsets and CPUs. Apple had to go out of their way to intentionally break support.

If this was a control freak change, Apple would have made it in some part of the OS that isn't open source, like the checks they did in Rosetta and such that blew up on hackintosh machines. Instead, they made it in the open source kernel. You can't hide stuff like this in the open, so I stand by my statement that this was fixing a flawed logic check.

Intel ships a number of various CPUs with varying capabilities. Assuming "anything newer then 13 is better" is a bad check.

I suppose I should have worded my other part of the statement to "any cpu you can physically plug into a Mac, and is compatible with the chipset". The Atom is not pin compatible with any CPU Apple ships or supports.

This won't block legitimate consumers. Apple users have been upgrading CPUs for a long time, going back to the PowerPC days, and the PowerPC side of the kernel has similar checks as well.

Everyone loves a conspiracy I guess...

zacman

Nov 20, 2009, 06:13 PM

In the EU we have something called the EU Copyright Directive, that all member states have agreed to. It is MORE restrictive than the DMCA and endorses EULAs.

That's nonsense. EULAs don't apply to boxed software in Germany. That's been for almost a decade now.

And I don't even speak about http://pearc.de/ and which company failed in getting a preliminary injunction...

kernkraft

Nov 20, 2009, 06:50 PM

Once again:

It's still in violation of MR's rules.

We're talking about MR's specific rules.

To wit:

Warez/Serials/Keys. Do not post software serial numbers or keys or refer people to specific websites, software, or techniques whose purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods, distribute cracks, or obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation. Do not ask for or give such help.

Then section 10 of the Forum Rules is worthless.
[/B]

Let me quote Macrumors' INSTANTLY BANNABLE OFFENSES:

"Spam and overposting. Not just being a prolific poster, but posting the same exact post many times, posting multiple pointless posts in the same thread, making numerous posts with no real content, or posting for the purpose of gaining a higher post count. This will get you banned"

I believe, some of your 40 (!) posts out of the 200 in this thread would qualify. You made your point, there is nothing that cannot be summarized in a few posts. This is a forum for the public, it should not be hijacked by anyone's ego.

Mac OS users have made a conscious technology choice and are therefore typically better informed than their peers. -- Paul Thurrott, winsupersite.com, December 06, 2004

Ironically, those 'better-informed' Mac users cannot install Snow Leopard on their hardware not just from 2004 but from even a year later. It turned out, that Apple forgot to warn them that soon, it was going to start selling PCs with Mac OS X installed and at one point, their OS would not support former hardware.

About the Ferrari analogy - yes, you can purchase a Ferrari engine and you can purchase any major part from Ferrari; and you can put them in several other cars that you like, as long as you are crazy, tasteless and rich enough. It is a mad idea, but it is not impossible. However, there are significantly more reasons to install OS X on a non-Apple hardware. Also, you cannot mix the Hackintosh phenomenon with piracy. Pirates don't pay for the software. Many Hackintosh users do and would be willing. It's only Apple, that does not support its software if it is installed on third party hardware. I wonder what would have happened if MS had the same attitude about Boot Camp.

Now, if you excuse me, I have WORK to do. Also, I have a LIFE. And I'm talking about the real stuff, not iWork and iLife.

AidenShaw

Nov 20, 2009, 06:53 PM

If this was a control freak change, Apple would have made it in some part of the OS that isn't open source...

Wait for 10.6.3.... ;)

Eidorian

Nov 20, 2009, 07:03 PM

The current (at the time) BIOS supported Meroms, since the models introduced with Yonah were upgraded to Merom in mid-model updates. (The PW390 BIOS worked too.)

Of course, a Merom-aware BIOS would be necessary to boot 64-bit.

Since other PC vendors regularly update their BIOS versions, it's not a big deal.Dell is pretty good with their BIOS updates. The older AMD systems could be upgraded to Phenom processors even though they didn't ship until the later versions of the same model. The same can be said of their current AMD systems. The base Sempron and Athlon II models are getting BIOS updates for their later revisions that imbue the older purchases with new CPU support as well.

Merom was a relatively simple drop in to Yonah. Yorkfield from Kentsfield raised a ton of issues and a delay in release as well.

Dell's step-by-step illustrated service manuals are superb - as long as you have a second system that works to go through the manual. Lenovo is very close as well.I miss the old Apple Service Manuals site before the newer late PowerPC and Intel ones were taken down. I was lucky to save a few but Apple seems to want to limit those to certified technicians and the training material.

ChazUK

Nov 20, 2009, 07:05 PM

Ironically, those 'better-informed' Mac users cannot install Snow Leopard on their hardware not just from 2004 but from even a year later. It turned out, that Apple forgot to warn them that soon, it was going to start selling PCs with Mac OS X installed and at one point, their OS would not support former hardware.

There is another irony about that quote. Whilst quoting rules and regulations, LTD's signature is in breach of Penton Media's terms of use. (Penton media own winsupersite)

http://www.penton.com/TermsofUse/tabid/71/Default.aspx

2.2 You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, display, or in any way exploit any of the content, in whole or in part, except as otherwise expressly permitted in this Agreement.

I assume that because his signature is a dig at Microsoft that he'll feel less passionately about this breach of rules.

SilentPanda

Nov 20, 2009, 07:46 PM

Feel free to continue this forum feedback in this thread. I personally have no opinion on the matter. Generally, it's best to start these kind of threads in this forum as to not deviate the original thread off topic or to contact the mod team and wait for a response. Discussions can take time as we all aren't on at the same time so it can sometimes be a few days.

If you think your post (or large parts of your post) and subsequent posts should be moved back to the original thread, feel free to send me a PM or report the post.

*LTD*

Nov 20, 2009, 07:52 PM

There is another irony about that quote. Whilst quoting rules and regulations, LTD's signature is in breach of Penton Media's terms of use. (Penton media own winsupersite)

http://www.penton.com/TermsofUse/tabid/71/Default.aspx

I assume that because his signature is a dig at Microsoft that he'll feel less passionately about this breach of rules.

Sorry to burst your bubble. There is no irony.

Copyright laws make a distinction between quotations that may be considered 'fair dealing' and those that may not, and it is only the latter for which permission need be requested.

Guess which area my sig falls under.

And Paul Thurrott's blog here (http://www.internet-nexus.com/2004_12_05_archive.htm#110234010699210918) does not fall under Penton Media. Search for the quotation (or any part of it) on Winsupersite, and you won't find it.

Which means, ultimately, that I can do this:

-----------------------------

"YAY! I've recently had a hard drive die on me. My 320GB Western digital hard drive started clicking the other day so I pulled all the data off of it (just in case) and thought I'd leave it until the thing completely went.

Tonight was the night that the magic happened. :) "

(Charles Clout, http://chazrants.blogspot.com/)

-------------------------------

ChazUK

Nov 20, 2009, 08:27 PM

Sorry to burst your bubble. There is no irony.

Copyright laws make a distinction between quotations that may be considered 'fair dealing' and those that may not, and it is only the latter for which permission need be requested.

Guess which area my sig falls under.

And Paul Thurrott's blog here (http://www.internet-nexus.com/2004_12_05_archive.htm#110234010699210918) does not fall under Penton Media. Search for the quotation (or any part of it) on Winsupersite, and you won't find it.

Which means, ultimately, that I can do this:

-----------------------------

"YAY! I've recently had a hard drive die on me. My 320GB Western digital hard drive started clicking the other day so I pulled all the data off of it (just in case) and thought I'd leave it until the thing completely went.

Tonight was the night that the magic happened. :) "

(Charles Clout, http://chazrants.blogspot.com/)

-------------------------------
Oh well. I guess i fail as much as my hard drive :(

(thankfully I lost no data in the hard drive failure)

*LTD*

Nov 20, 2009, 08:34 PM

Oh well. I guess i fail as much as my hard drive :(

(thankfully I lost no data in the hard drivr failure)

No worries. Sorry to hear about your drive. :(

rjohnstone

Nov 20, 2009, 11:37 PM

Apple does not own the rights to the mach_kernel.

The "hack" is to a piece of software that Apple has no authority or ownership of.

The mach_kernel is open source and can be modified and distributed by anyone provided they include the copyright and permission notice in the file.
* Mach Operating System
* Copyright (c) 1991,1990,1989 Carnegie Mellon University
* All Rights Reserved.
*
* Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute this software and its
* documentation is hereby granted, provided that both the copyright
* notice and this permission notice appear in all copies of the
* software, derivative works or modified versions, and any portions
* thereof, and that both notices appear in supporting documentation.

Apple wrongfully attempts to cover all of the open source components of OS X under their APSL.

Granted, modifying this file does allow one to violate the OS X license, but I wonder how well Apple's license would hold up if it were tested in court given this conflict of terms.

There seems to be conflict in the two licensing terms when one considers that OS X is really an extension of Mach OS (BSD).

Just some observations.

KnightWRX

Nov 21, 2009, 04:07 PM

There seems to be conflict in the two licensing terms when one considers that OS X is really an extension of Mach OS (BSD).

Mach isn't an OS. It's a kernel. Apple's Darwin kernel is a derivative work of Mach and not Mach itself. The BSD license permits redistributing code under another license, as long as the copyright notices are intact.

As such, Apple has done nothing wrong in their use of the BSD licensed portions of the Mach kernel.

On top of that, the issue is that the Darwin kernel may be open source, but Mac OS X isn't. There's more to OS X than just the kernel, and the license covers the use of the entire operating system. This license does not grant you any rights to install OS X on an Atom based computer not sold by Apple.

If you want that right, you are free to gather up all the open source portions of OS X and build your own distribution. It will lack important components like Quartz (to mention the biggest one), but it will be OS X without any of the restrictions imposed on the real OS X.

dmmcintyre3

Nov 21, 2009, 04:14 PM

*LTD*

Nov 21, 2009, 04:35 PM

KnightWRX

Nov 21, 2009, 08:14 PM

Since when is it illegal to modify and distribute open source software like the Mac OS X kernel? The source code can be dowanloaded straight from APPLE:eek::eek::eek: (http://opensource.apple.com/source/xnu/xnu-1486.2.11/) But I am surprised they did not come up with a modified boot loader that reported it as a core 2 duo/solo that was used in a real mac so they could not block it.

And yes, my hackintosh's leopard install is straight from a Leopard family pack disk that I own and has only 1 other install in use on it which is my PowerBook.

It's not against the license to distribute the open source portions of OS X (from binaries you built yourself, using the source code Apple proviided). However, it is against Apple's EULA to install your legitimately acquired copy of Leopard unto hardware that isn't sold or made by Apple. You're then in breach of Apple's license agreement. On top of that, by modifying Apple's distribution (which is not under the ASPL), you have created a derivative work which isn't officially licensed. You are now doing something very illegal.

You have to remember that Apple is the copyright owner of all portions of OS X and as such, can license their binary distribution under closed terms without violating the BSD license (even Microsoft uses BSD licensed code without opening their own source code or giving you distribution rights). This means you can't tamper with or distribute their binaries, or else, you're guilty of copyright infringement.

The code is opensource, OS X is not.

arn

Nov 22, 2009, 12:33 AM

DMann

Nov 22, 2009, 05:01 AM

Some members play by the rules - but others seem to be able to harass, insult and name-call without being warned or given a timeout.

It is interesting to notice how those who whine the most about name calling happen to be among the greatest offenders:

I'd expect to see Jonathan Ive and Jeff Han featured under "innovation", and Steve Jobs under "egomaniacal bastards".

Apparently, 'the rules' do not apply to him.

It's not against the license to distribute the open source portions of OS X (from binaries you built yourself, using the source code Apple proviided). However, it is against Apple's EULA to install your legitimately acquired copy of Leopard unto hardware that isn't sold or made by Apple. You're then in breach of Apple's license agreement. On top of that, by modifying Apple's distribution (which is not under the ASPL), you have created a derivative work which isn't officially licensed. You are now doing something very illegal.

You have to remember that Apple is the copyright owner of all portions of OS X and as such, can license their binary distribution under closed terms without violating the BSD license (even Microsoft uses BSD licensed code without opening their own source code or giving you distribution rights). This means you can't tamper with or distribute their binaries, or else, you're guilty of copyright infringement.

The code is opensource, OS X is not.

I completely agree - you cannot separate the open source portions of OS X from the proprietary components of the OS itself.

*LTD*

Nov 22, 2009, 06:50 AM

Lots of talk...

ok, I'll make it simple. Forum rules are outdated. We don't police EULAs.

For longer explanation:

Forum Rules regarding license agreements was written in December 2005: http://guides.macrumors.com/index.php?title=Help:Forum_Rules&oldid=7342

The updated position on it was here (2008):
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4958453&postcount=6

We don't police EULAs. We do try to stamp out things that are illegal (against the law).

People want to talk about Hackintoshes? Sure, I guess that's ok... expect it spawns hundreds with posts like this with arguments and gets shut down.

We linked it off the front page because it was newsworthy.

arn

The owners of MacRumors reserve the right to:

remove, edit, move, or close any discussion or message for any reason.
close memberships that are detrimental to the forum community.
make changes to the forum rules without notice.

Fair enough. You've made the change. I didn't read anywhere under the FAQ/Rules, however, that the rules I'm reading are "outdated." Why not publish your updated position in the Rules/FAQ section where it *should* be? Why bury it somewhere else?

There was a good reason you included Section 3 (regarding license agreements/copyright and violations) under "Things not to do." Some of those reasons were legal; some of them were in the interest of due diligence and acknowledgement of third party IP rights. You seem to have thrown all that out now (or created exceptions) because you've figured out that discussion of EULA violations (and linking to sites contrary to Section 3) generates hits, and members seem to like discussing thr subject. But you're using the term "newsworthy." Which is fine, since it's your site. I'd simply like to call a spade a spade.

So in this light, you needed to throw out your entire EULA rule (even though it's still there) because you're going to end up violating Section 3 of your own rules anyway. But why is it not published formally in the FAQ/Rules section (why hide it from public view)? As it is YOUR site, you have a right to violate your own rules, even though Section 3 was put in place for a logical reason. Naturally, when no one should violate them, yet the site admins go ahead and do it anyway on a regular basis, it sort of negates the point of having the rule. So you've thrown that out. I understand this. Except the rule still exists in the FAQ/Rules section, for some reason.

But by doing so, and linking to insanelymac in the original MR article, you're getting very close to a DMCA violation. There have been 3 court cases in the US where sites were forced to take down links leading to infringing material on external sites. The sites were found guilty of "contributory infringement" for simply linking. (http://www.webtvwire.com/linking-to-infringing-content-is-probably-illegal-in-the-us/) Another area involves linking to software or devices which are designed to circumvent DRM devices, or links from websites whose sole purpose is to circumvent copyright protection by linking to copyrighted material. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act#Linking_to_infringing_content)

Section 3 of the Rules/FAQ covers this exactly. But you've decided to ingore some or all of it.

Although unclear the law leans in favor of the content owner, so if what you did was ever formally called into question, your position might not be very strong. A large number of cases never reach the courts where sites are served with takedown notices because the risk ignoring them (as they may otherwise face liability) is too great. (http://www.webtvwire.com/linking-to-infringing-content-is-probably-illegal-in-the-us/)

In any case, Macrumors and its owners have taken this risk because the overall payoff for the site in terms of hits and popularity seems to be too great. Nothing I can do about that.

My concern is that you haven't formally published your new position in the appropriate section in light of the fact that the current rule in Section 3 of "Things not do" is "outdated." What else in the FAQ/Rules is outdated? Making changes to the rules without notice is fine, but if members are going to read the FAQ/Rules section and take them seriously, then it might benefit them to make clear your ACTUAL position on Section 3 under "Things Not to Do."

Would you please publish your position as of 2008 to the FAQ/Rules section where it is easily accessible and visible to everyone?

localoid

Nov 22, 2009, 02:15 PM

...

But by doing so, and linking to insanelymac in the original MR article, you're getting very close to a DMCA violation. There have been 3 court cases in the US where sites were forced to take down links leading to infringing material on external sites. The sites were found guilty of "contributory infringement" for simply linking. ...

And when you copy someone else's words verbatim, without any attempt to credit the original author/source, it's plagiarism.

The bolded sentences in the above quote were taken (word for word) from the article Linking to infringing content is probably illegal in the US (http://www.webtvwire.com/linking-to-infringing-content-is-probably-illegal-in-the-us/).

Moving along to your next sentence...

Another area involves linking to software or devices which are designed to circumvent DRM devices, or links from websites whose sole purpose is to circumvent copyright protection by linking to copyrighted material.

And these words of yours (above) are a word for word quote from the Wikipedia article on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act#Linking_to_infringing_content).

Tsk-tsk...

*LTD*

Nov 22, 2009, 03:15 PM

And when you copy someone else's words verbatim, without any attempt to credit the original author/source, it's plagiarism.

The bolded sentences in the above quote were taken (word for word) from the article Linking to infringing content is probably illegal in the US (http://www.webtvwire.com/linking-to-infringing-content-is-probably-illegal-in-the-us/).

Moving along to your next sentence...

And these words of yours (above) are a word for word quote from the Wikipedia article on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act#Linking_to_infringing_content).

Tsk-tsk...

Keep trying.

Wikipedia is public domain, and usage of Wikipedia material falls under under "fair dealing." I don't need to credit anything or anyone in this case, although it's still cutomary to do it as a courtesy. I'm not bound to do so, however.

Don't attempt to deflect the issue.

arn

Nov 22, 2009, 03:24 PM

Fair enough. You've made the change. I didn't read anywhere under the FAQ/Rules, however, that the rules I'm reading are "outdated." Why not publish your updated position in the Rules/FAQ section where it *should* be?

We'll get to it. Like I said, it's outdated.

You seem to have thrown all that out now (or created exceptions) because you've figured out that discussion of EULA violations (and linking to sites contrary to Section 3) generates hits

You've really been here long enough to know that this site is probably the most conservative around with regard to sensationalized headlines and link-baiting. We're not about just generating hits, and really have never been considering the fact that we're a "rumor" site.

arn

*LTD*

Nov 22, 2009, 03:27 PM

We'll get to it. Like I said, it's outdated.

You've really been here long enough to know that this site is probably the most conservative around with regard to sensationalized headlines and link-baiting. We're not about just generating hits, and really have never been considering the fact that we're a "rumor" site.

arn

Thanks for the reply, Arn.

I'll drop it.

Wild-Bill

Nov 22, 2009, 03:31 PM

Thanks for the reply, Arn.

I'll drop it.

A wise decision.

P.S. Thank you, LTD. You've inspired me to finally go ahead and build that Hackintosh HTPC I've been thinking about. :D

*LTD*

Nov 22, 2009, 03:35 PM

A wise decision.

P.S. Thank you, LTD. You've inspired me to finally go ahead and build that Hackintosh HTPC I've been thinking about. :D

Hey, go nuts. Just be careful not to run a business behind it. ;)

Wild-Bill

Nov 22, 2009, 03:38 PM

Hey, go nuts. Just be careful not to run a business behind it. ;)

Don't worry. I won't. But I will drive without a seatbelt on the way to Microcenter for the parts, and will change lanes without signaling, just to get that extra danger factor. :p

GGJstudios

Nov 22, 2009, 03:46 PM

Don't worry. I won't. But I will drive without a seatbelt on the way to Microcenter for the parts, and will change lanes without signaling, just to get that extra danger factor. :p

They don't call him "Wild-Bill" for nothing! :D
Edit: He probably tears the tags off his mattresses, too!

*LTD*

Nov 22, 2009, 04:11 PM

They don't call him "Wild-Bill" for nothing! :D
Edit: He probably tears the tags off his mattresses, too!

If he wants to mod his mattress, then yes!

localoid

Nov 22, 2009, 04:24 PM

Keep trying.

Wikipedia is public domain, and usage of Wikipedia material falls under under "fair dealing." I don't need to credit anything or anyone in this case, although it's still cutomary to do it as a courtesy. I'm not bound to do so, however.

Don't attempt to deflect the issue.

I'm surprised to find you're unaware of Wikipedia's Terms of Use.

No. Wikipedia isn't "public domain". See the Wikipedia's Terms of Use (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use) page, which states: "Wikimedia projects are required to grant broad permissions to the general public to re-distribute and re-use their contributions freely, as long as the use is attributed and the same freedom to re-use and re-distribute applies to any derivative works."

And to go further -- the web page -- http://www.webtvwire.com/linking-to-infringing-content-is-probably-illegal-in-the-us/ -- is not Wikipedia.

That page was your source in the first example I gave in my previous posting in regards to the your word-for-word quotes that you didn't cite.

And then there's the matter of your avatar, which is an unauthorized derivative work based on a screen grab from the movie E.T. It seems you have a "do as I say, not as I do" attitude in regards to intellectual property (other than Apple's).