Apple vs. Mac OS X Hackers

[shawnce]

LOL toxicsfreak is going to end up in the Guantanomo detention camp

...or forced back to school to polish up his English language and typing skills.

 

[ScubaDuc]

What people who think they have a right to do what they want after they have bought software... read your license agreement. You will see that "The software (including Boot Rom code)...are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Computer, Inc..."

And goes on to say: "This license allows you to install, use and run one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so."

Bolding added by me.

So you see that there is nothing you can say that still doesn't mean you are violating your License Agreement. And if you don't agree with the license you can return it for a refund.

Simple

barstard.

Being in EU I am no expert in US copyright laws but it seems that the (US) courts have struck down such a narrow interpretation whereby users "rent" software which remains property of microsuck or apple. So, if you buy a software, you are allowed to run it on whatever u like. Just check on how many OEM versions of Dull's win XP are available for sale legally in the US

 

[fahlman]

If the software is unchanged (and all tweaks are done on a sort of "compatibility layer") then there should be no legal issue as far as stealing is concerned.

Actually, installing Mac OS X on a computer other than an Apple-labeled computer violates the SLA therefore voiding the contract between the user and Apple which would mean that the user would would not have the right to use the operating system and doing so would constitute theft.

 

[atari1356]

the only honest solution to this problem is still for Apple to figure out how to utilize this market... legal action against hobbyists just makes a bigger mess. if Apple can't serve the hobbyists...

Apple can and does server hobbyists... it's called a Mac Mini.

Apple has every right to keep Mac OS X on Apple hardware, and nobody should expect OS X for free.

 

[fahlman]

Being in EU I am no expert in US copyright laws but it seems that the (US) courts have struck down such a narrow interpretation whereby users "rent" software which remains property of microsuck or apple. So, if you buy a software, you are allowed to run it on whatever u like. Just check on how many OEM versions of Dull's win XP are available for sale legally in the US

Wow, being no expert you might want to back your statement with some sort of proof. A link to an article quoting a judgment to support your claim would be sufficient, but heresay doesn't cut it.

 

[jhu]

Actually, installing Mac OS X on a computer other than an Apple-labeled computer violates the SLA therefore voiding the contract between the user and Apple which would mean that the user would would not have the right to use the operating system and doing so would constitute theft.

your statement is mostly correct except that breaking the terms of the eula does not necessarily encompass theft. you can buy mac os x, install it on a clone via xpostfacto, and still be breaking the terms of the eula. no theft is involved. an interesting point is that you can run mac os x via emulation on a 68k mac and not be in violation of the eula. another point is that an apple-labeled computer needs to be better defined.

 

[janitorC7]

Apple is known for doing this

Lets not all forget the Classic

"Were hanging here"

The classic line when your keys become disordered

 

[fahlman]

another point is that an apple-labeled computer needs to be better defined.

In your opinion. A team of lawyers reviewed and felt that the wording was just fine. I'll take their opinion over your if you don't mind.

 

[jhu]

In your opinion. A team of lawyers reviewed and felt that the wording was just fine. I'll take their opinion over your if you don't mind.

except it hasn't been tested in court. a eula is not necessarily binding either. consider this.

 

[PretendPCuser]

You have to buy two copies for that dear customer! - Oh, but don't worry, we've reduced the price of CDs from 18.99 to 16.99! Lucky you!!

wait what? if i buy Tiger i can't try and install it on my PC? next thing they'll do is say that because I buy a cd I can't use it in the car and at home

 

[asphalt-proof]

Ok, so once all the big software companies go bankrupt and the internet is totally "free", are you hackers going to make us the software we once had? I think not...because you guys are simply too lazy. You'd much rather hack something already made than to take the time to make something of your own.
My advice to all you hackers...rent a woman and see what sex is like, you'll see there's more to life than wasting your time doing such a stupid thing. "OMG ONCE I GET OS X RUNNING ON A DELL MY SITE IS GOING TO GET MAD HITZ! I'LL FINALLY BE POPULAR!". Yeah I was into "hacking"....when i was 12.

I really hate this strawman. Just because the "internet is free" doesn't automatically bankrupt the western world. People will always find ways to make money off of products/information, either by creating a new product, packaging ease of use etc. There are serious issues with current EULAs. Like how do you read them before you open the package. Once you open the package to read the EULA you have agreed to it! If I buy a brand new iMac, open the box, read the EULA and decide that I can't abide by the contract and try to return it, I have to pay a restocking fee! SO in affect I just paid $2-300 to READ the contract. Sure, if were net savvy I could find a copy online and read it but that doesn't mean that Apple hasn't changed the contract from the time I read it online and the time I opened the box. For those defending Apple the EULA defence is very poor because the consumer is at an extreme disadvantage.

One other point: Hacking is not for the lazy. Nor are all hackers ugly/shy/living in mom and dad's basement. You are just perpetrating stereotypes and it shows ignorance.

 

[fahlman]

your statement is mostly correct except that breaking the terms of the eula does not necessarily encompass theft. you can buy mac os x, install it on a clone via xpostfacto, and still be breaking the terms of the eula. no theft is involved. an interesting point is that you can run mac os x via emulation on a 68k mac and not be in violation of the eula. another point is that an apple-labeled computer needs to be better defined.

I have stated in a previous post that using XPostFacto, if it modifies an open source portion of the OS, is not a violation of the SLA. See my previous post for proof. Which by the way, is different than an opinion; something you have a lot of.

 

[asphalt-proof]

I think you bring up a good point. People putting OSX on generic PC's will not get any support from Apple. If the software is unchanged (and all tweaks are done on a sort of "compatibility layer") then there should be no legal issue as far as stealing is concerned. I'd say that OSX on any generic PC is definitely violating the license agreement, but that's not really what were talking about.

Personally, I respect Apple's business model the way it is now. If I want to run OS X (and I do, and I will) I'll buy an Apple Macintosh computer. It's the ONLY way that I'm guaranteed that my Hardware/OS/(most) software will run as intended. I also believe that this will not affect Apple's Hardware sales significantly (more than 1%). In my opinion, the people that buy Macs are either 1) Professionals, who will continue to buy Macs (they need 100% support for HW/OS/SW) and 2) People who really want to buy a Mac (either because they're fed up with MS or they like Macs).

I agree. This is such a small percentage of the computing world that its really not worth the hourly price of a lawyer.

I think that the majority of consumers (people who go out and buy a computer) will buy a Wintel box just because its what they know. There are a small fraction of people (the hackers/serious users) who will hack OSX to run on a generic PC. Neither of these groups can really be attributed to lost sales for Apple anyway. The hackers/serious users would never buy a Mac anyway, and therefore wouldn't need to buy the SW (OS X).

Again, I'm not saying what they're doing is right. I just don't think it will affect Apple too seriously. Apple, however, has the right to request that their software not be distributed illegally, as they are still a business; I just hope it doesn't get to the activation/serial numbers stage that most of the PC world is at.

(I'm resisting the temptation of installing it on my PC. I could do it, but I would be missing out on the total Mac experience: seamless integration of HW and SW).

I agree. The percentage of people that are going to do this so small it can't be worth the hourly fee of a lawyer to pursue the matter in court for Apple.

 

[pjkelnhofer]

I'm glad the project to get Mac OSX on PC's have been taken offline. Hackers I believe aren't in it to spite Microsoft, they are in it to spite the general population and to feed their narcissism.

I know the poem will not deter people from downloading it, some idiots still believe doing this isn't illegal!

The people doing it already know this is illegal. They decide to do it anyhow. I don't think the poem will slow them down anymore than messages from record companies designed to look like mp3 files stop music downloading.

I often think that, in general, the non-concrete nature of computer files (be them software, music or movies) make people think that it is okay do what they want with them.

I have a friend who downloads everything you could imagine using Bitorrent. Movies, music, software, etc. When I ask him how this is different from walking into a store and taking them off the shelf, he just stares at me blankly, but it doesn't stop him from doing it.

 

[fahlman]

except it hasn't been tested in court. a eula is not necessarily binding either. consider this.

That ruling is specifically about selling bundled EULA-covered software.

 

[bearda]

I've got to say that I think Apple is in the right here. Licensing and DMCA issues aside, 99% of the people at OSX86Project.org didn't purchase copies of Intel OS X or even hardware it was bundled with. I just don't see how anyone can maintain that they have a right to modify illegally obtained software to run on standard PCs.

If Apple were selling copies of Intel OS X, I might see things differently. Given the situation as it is, though, it seems like OSX86Project.org was little more than a den of theives. No nessicarily because they were trying to get OS X loaded on PCs, but because they obtained and distributed Intel OS X.

Andrew Beard

 

[jhu]

I have stated in a previous post that using XPostFacto, if it modifies an open source portion of the OS, is not a violation of the SLA. See my previous post for proof. Which by the way, is different than an opinion; something you have a lot of.

i have not stated any opinion as of yet. all statements have been straight from the eula. and if you would read the rest of my posts you would also see that i agree that xpostfacto modifies the open source portions of os x. however, you are still ignoring installation of os x on clones, which by the by the language of the os x eula, would be a violation.

That ruling is specifically about selling bundled EULA-covered software.

that was an example to show that not all legalese is binding and that a definitive answer can only be dealt with by a judge.

 

[fahlman]

your statement is mostly correct except that breaking the terms of the eula does not necessarily encompass theft.

From the SLA:

5. Termination. This License is effective until terminated. Your rights under this License will terminate automatically without notice from Apple if you fail to comply with any term(s) of this License. Upon the termination of this License, you shall cease all use of the Apple Software and destroy all copies, full or partial, of the Apple Software.

 

[jhu]

that still doesn't denote or imply theft.

 

[gfer]

Which is built on Open Source software!

Wrong, it only has a BSD userland (under BSD licence, which allows developers make close source derivative products) and a bunch of Open Source software (mostly applications and utilities), but Mac OS X is NOT build on OSS.

To make it more clear to you: Darwin is the Open Source part of Mac OS X. The rest (the graphic engine, for example) is not.

 

[fahlman]

that still doesn't denote or imply theft.

Having something that does not belong to you is theft (unless of course is was loaned to you.)

 

[jhu]

Having something that does not belong to you is theft (unless of course is was loaned to you.)

except the first part of the eula states:

1. General. The software (including Boot ROM code), documentation and any fonts accompanying this License whether on disk, in read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (collectively the "Apple Software") are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Computer, Inc. ("Apple") for use only under the terms of this License, and Apple reserves all rights not expressly granted to you. The rights granted herein are limited to Apple’s and its licensors’ intellectual property rights in the Apple Software and do not include any other patents or intellectual property rights. You own the media on which the Apple Software is recorded but Apple and/or Apple’s licensor(s) retain ownership of the Apple Software itself. The terms of this License will govern any software upgrades provided by Apple that replace and/or supplement the original Apple Software product, unless such upgrade is accompanied by a separate license in which case the terms of that license will govern.

so if you bought it, it's not theft.

 

[iMeowbot]

A breach of contract is not theft. It's a civil matter between the contracting parties.

 

[MeatBiProduct]

Here's the thing. Apple's hardware looks nice/is solidly built, but the innards of their systems are now no different than those "crappy peecees" that people here seem to keep harping about. I store my computer under the desk - I really could care less if it's made of aluminum or not, or looks good. If I could buy a standard tower mac without the ridiculously overpriced case, I'd be happy. For me, a computer is a tool, not a decoration.

I understand that Apple uses the hardware sales to subsidize the software development, but I'd bet that their software sales would boom if they opened up OS X to run on PCs. And I still think you'd see a lot of folks buying Mac branded hardware too, assuming it was priced competitively. People like things to just work, and Apple can still provide that. I think they'd make more money in the long run, as many of my friends really like OS X, but prefer to build their own systems.

Great post, I couldn't have said it better myself. What are you buying ? a computer to compute or a computer to make a fashion statement. I hid my G3, G4 and now the G5 under my desk, IMO the "Computer" cases look wank. If you want to see a great design look up Lian Li, those are cases worth displaying.

The truth here is that the only difference between a mac and a pc is about 1/10th of its parts (the motherboard). The rest is the same crap you can buy yourself. I can understand business's purchasing their hardware from apple so that they receive some sort of fallplan if equipment craps out. However the home user spending $3000 on a mac is getting about $1000 worth of equivilant pc equipment. Apple has never been known to be cutting edge or have powerful equipment. (besides OS X server clusters, but your using friggin 10 xserves to get 1 job done).

The truth is the O/S should be liberated from the capitalism of Apple. They are like that greedy kid in the sand pit that won't let you touch their toys and toss sand in your eyes when you ask to see them.

I don't really care though, I build all my own equipment just because when something goes wrong or if I want to change/upgrade anything I can do it as easily as getting on neweggs site. I don't have to go back to the same dealer just to get my simple upgrades like more drive space or more ram. It's like buying a car that can only be worked on where you purchased it, the only place you can purchase your parts is from the dealer, and the only person offering oil changes and tune ups is your dealer. Btw - yes i use mac's daily at work but not at home or for serious equipment (such as web servers & services / clusters etc.)

It's not that mac has a monopoly, but it's just apples greed in 2006, nothing more nothing less - shutout any competition, because the competition will best them. If their hardware sales are what pays for OS X's development then that is really pathetic.

 

[windmaomao]

Having something that does not belong to you is theft (unless of course is was loaned to you.)

Buying somthing that can be only used at specific location is torture
(unless of course is was loaned to you.)

Great post, I couldn't have said it better myself. What are you buying ? a computer to compute or a computer to make a fashion statement. I hid my G3, G4 and now the G5 under my desk, IMO the "Computer" cases look wank. If you want to see a great design look up Lian Li, those are cases worth displaying.

The truth here is that the only difference between a mac and a pc is about 1/10th of its parts (the motherboard). The rest is the same crap you can buy yourself. I can understand business's purchasing their hardware from apple so that they receive some sort of fallplan if equipment craps out. However the home user spending $3000 on a mac is getting about $1000 worth of equivilant pc equipment. Apple has never been known to be cutting edge or have powerful equipment. (besides OS X server clusters, but your using friggin 10 xserves to get 1 job done).

The truth is the O/S should be liberated from the capitalism of Apple. They are like that greedy kid in the sand pit that won't let you touch their toys and toss sand in your eyes when you ask to see them.

I don't really care though, I build all my own equipment just because when something goes wrong or if I want to change/upgrade anything I can do it as easily as getting on neweggs site. I don't have to go back to the same dealer just to get my simple upgrades like more drive space or more ram. It's like buying a car that can only be worked on where you purchased it, the only place you can purchase your parts is from the dealer, and the only person offering oil changes and tune ups is your dealer. Btw - yes i use mac's daily at work but not at home or for serious equipment (such as web servers & services / clusters etc.)

It's not that mac has a monopoly, but it's just apples greed in 2006, nothing more nothing less - shutout any competition, because the competition will best them. If their hardware sales are what pays for OS X's development then that is really pathetic.

agree. But i wonder that just apple strategy. Selling greate os bundled with overpriced nice pc; I think they should just launch a service charging to build apple pc after this intel transition, 'cause everyone knows they still use pc craps inside. All we have to pay then is the case, assembling fee and apple sticker. $200 should be fine