peharri said:
I respectfully disagree that anything above that's true is relevent as far as this sub-discussion goes. The situation we're talking about is your ability to use the content you've bought. EULAs so far are a gray area, but nobody, so far, has ever suggested, outside of paranoid computer circles, that you're bound by EULAs you disagree with, or that if you're able to install software without agreeing to an EULA that would otherwise be required, that you're bound by it.
The fact is that you're bound by them until a court says you aren't. Since that hasn't happened, you're legally liable for the terms they state. If you don't agree with the EULA, you can either do as they specify and not install it, or install it and hope that your cause for disagreement never causes legal trouble for you. It's like speeding. Do it, don't do it, but if you get caught, don't try to pretend you're above the law, even if it is a stupid law.
So if by "nobody..." you mean "the rule of law," then yes, I agree with you.
But it's also not accurate to say that the EULA/contract violation is the worst barrier. The DMCA, which criminalizes most of the acts involved in hacking OS X onto a PC is a serious problem, making copyright violation a far more serious game.
Apple retains certain rights as a copyright holder. Similarly, as someone with a legal copy of Mac OS X, while Apple is not obliged to make it easy for you to do it, there are certain things you can legally do, which includes technologically moving copies around and actually running the software. There is nothing in copyright law that allows a copyright holder to force someone to obey the provisions of a contract in order to access content they've already bought.
You don't get to decide that. If all you had to do to install OS X on a Dell was pop the disc in and agree to the license, then yes, it would simply be a contract violation. But because you have to break the software and modify it in blatantly illegal ways to get it to run on that Dell, that is both copyright infringement and a crime. Even if you actually paid for the OS disc.
The only theoretical restriction I can think of that Apple could use would be to require users agree to the EULA before they buy the software. That's going to be very difficult to enforce, in practice it means the end of buying Mac OS X through retail outlets.
That's not necessary in terms of the legal nature of PC installation. The box itself specifies that you can only install it on an Apple Macintosh computer, so there aren't any surprises waiting for you on the other side. If you buy the retail copy of Leopard, you're breaking the law by installing it on a PC, even under the current terms. I suspect that the license terms for Leopard will be even more strongly worded to make this abundantly clear.
As far as the rest of your comment goes, you appear to be responding as if I'm saying it's already legal. Of course it isn't, which is why I was refering to the possibility of it being legal, via these means, after Leopard is released (which will be the first Intel OS X available in boxed-retail form.) Also your comment about Windows upgrades, while interesting, doesn't actually contradict anything. Windows is also shipped in a form that means users agree to an EULA when they run the default installer.
I'm responding as if you're saying the FSD gives you any rights to running an OS X Leopard retail copy on a PC, or that the use of a non-Apple installer would make doing so legal, or that the EULA isn't binding if you pay for the disc. None of that is true.
Edit: The Windows comment was in reference to your First-Sale defense, saying that you're not bound to the terms and can use the software you paid for however you want, even if you disagree with the EULA, and it's never worse than a contract violation. If you have a contract that says "don't steal the painting" and you steal the painting, you've both violated contract AND committed a crime. It's not one or the other.
