Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple needs to keep looking like good guys, and suing the crap out of some guy who writes bootloaders in his basement on weekends isnt going to help them at all.

Yes so tens of thousand of people "illegaly" running OSX software and most of them pirated copies is not a problem for Apple, ok.... I don't think that is Apple's opinion. The more popular OSX becomes, the more it's going to happen.

Can I just say that you are completely missing the point? It doesn't matter whether the code is open source or not, or whether MacOS X is modified or not. The fact is that MacOS X will not run on a computer unless something is used that gets around Apple's DRM preventing MacOS X from running on non-Apple computers.

That is your opinion, since you are not modifying the code of OSX I don't see what you are circumventing, the data on a Snow Leopard installation is not encrypted in any form. Your are merely using open source software to allow use of the software. The only thing you are not respecting is the EULA.
Again just think about all the iPhone jailbreaking sites and software, nothing has happened yet.

this is totally bull**** to me.
It's the same as US EULA, Italian EULA, Germany EULA and so on ...
Your is the typical attempt to justify something that is clearly illegal but you feel safe just because you know that Apple is not going to spend time and money to sue you.

Pearc is something like an amateur's site, without a real shop, and Apple probably already know all about their business.

http://www.clubic.com/article-303304-3-reboursement-microsoft-windows-achat-pc.html a very serious article that explains the issue for all computers and states that the Apple situation is not legally clear and it would require clarification.

From the Apple OSX CLUF posted on that website "POUR UN LOGICIEL APPLE INCLUS DANS UNE ACQUISITION DE MATERIEL, VEUILLEZ RESTITUER L'INTEGRALITE DU PAQUET LOGICIEL/MATERIEL AFIN D'OBTENIR SON REMBOURSEMENT"

Apple clearly state that you can be refunded for the costs of the software included with the hardware if you don't want to keep it, obviously they do not give details (probably following their lawyers information, if you are not sure you better be in a gray zone, leaving it to different interpretation in case you have to go to court).

I am sure Apple do not want to test the European courts and find out if they try to enforce their EULA, they probably know there is a good chance that they will loose. Again this is not the USA system, corrupt by lobbying and big money (at least in the computer industry lol).

Every Apple EULA has the refund clause. It is an essential part, because people without internet access cannot read the EULA before they install the product.

PearC states on their website that IN THEIR OPINION the Apple EULA is illegal under German Law. Whether that is true or not, bypassing technical measures IS illegal throughout the EU.

Apple are, I'm sure, now formulating their case against PearC, using their experience in the Psystar case to do this.

Yes because the court decisions in the US have any validity in European courts at all... Let's see what happens. Remember in Europe you can buy EFIX in many "regular" computer shops, so again I doubt this would be easily available if it was illegal at least in Europe. Consumer protection laws are very strong in Europe, I am sure Apple don't want to test them.
 
The ...

... EULA in Germany regarding any computer software is actually illegal, if one thing applies: You can´t read it before you buy the package. If that is the case, the EULA is void and it falls back to basic legal premisses. The same applies to illegal wordings int he EULA itself - if they break general commercial law, they are void and nullified, plain simple. If you can´t read it, you need not to follow.

So: If you buy OSX and can´t read the EULA, you can do with it whatever you want - in term sof installing it. If your toaster runs it, feel free to proceed.
 
... EULA in Germany regarding any computer software is actually illegal, if one thing applies: You can´t read it before you buy the package. If that is the case, the EULA is void and it falls back to basic legal premisses. The same applies to illegal wordings int he EULA itself - if they break general commercial law, they are void and nullified, plain simple. If you can´t read it, you need not to follow.

So: If you buy OSX and can´t read the EULA, you can do with it whatever you want - in term sof installing it. If your toaster runs it, feel free to proceed.

Only thing is, you need internet access to download the bootloader.

Oh look at this site while you're on the net..

www.apple.com/legal

What's this... It's a site with the elusive EULA. Looks like it is fully valid then because you CAN read it before you buy!
 
Anyway to sum up for the OP.

Technically yes it can be done. However the legality of it is disputed outside the US (inside the US, Psystar has covered it - it's illegal), and as you can see is a matter of debate.
 
Only thing is, you need internet access to download the bootloader.

Oh look at this site while you're on the net..

www.apple.com/legal

What's this... It's a site with the elusive EULA. Looks like it is fully valid then because you CAN read it before you buy!

I thought I made my point clear: You need to read it on the product, not on some website or anywhere else. If you buy it in a store, grab a package and it´s not written on the outside, you are free to go - it doesn´t matter, if you read it afterwards, no matter where.

I feel so much hysteric sympathy for Apple´s business practices - what´s the point: As you bought it, you can do whatever you please to do with it in private. If you mind building a hackintosh, you may proceed. Apple can´t and won´t legally challenge any private hackintosh builder ever - because they can´t.

PS

In strict terms - this was mentionned already - you need a Apple branded computer, so any official Apple sticker will support you going legal on the EULA:
 
I thought I made my point clear: You need to read it on the product, not on some website or anywhere else. If you buy it in a store, grab a package and it´s not written on the outside, you are free to go - it doesn´t matter, if you read it afterwards, no matter where.

I feel so much hysteric sympathy for Apple´s business practices - what´s the point: As you bought it, you can do whatever you please to do with it in private. If you mind building a hackintosh, you may proceed. Apple can´t and won´t legally challenge any private hackintosh builder ever - because they can´t.

PS

In strict terms - this was mentionned already - you need a Apple branded computer, so any official Apple sticker will support you going legal on the EULA:

I'm not sure that will qualify as Apple branded :p

I think by Apple branded the court would refer to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Apple_products

E.g. I have DIY'd a MacPro case to fit my hackintosh - I doubt that would be considered apple branded.

On the flip side I personally don't give a toss about their EULA (I do care about pirating though as that is intellectual theft which is why I bought my OSX DVD); in my opinion it's much worse than M$ putting IE in their OS and I guess they know this and this is why they are not going after the hackintosh community.
 
Anyway to sum up for the OP.

Technically yes it can be done. However the legality of it is disputed outside the US (inside the US, Psystar has covered it - it's illegal), and as you can see is a matter of debate.

To add a little to this, even if its not legal nobody is going to stop you, nor will anyone who can stop you even try. As long as you arent selling anything the world wont notice if you have 10.6 on your pc.
 
yep, well put, while you can run OSx on a Windows based machine, it's not legal to do so, and alot of process in which to do so, not to mention I have heard it runs a little shotty.
They run just as well as the real deal. Apples core 2 and nvidia graphics cards aren't unique in any way. Also the legality of doing it yourself is still questionable of whether its legal because EULA still don't have an official legal status. All the psystar case said was that you cold sell computers with it installed.
 
For those in the EU, we have the EU Copyright Directive which has the same provisions in it as the DMCA.

My native country (Denmark) was one of the first to implement the Infosoc directive into law. That law explicitly states that it is not illegal to circumvent effective technological measures with regards to computer programs.

In other words, to the best of my knowledge, a hackintosh is entirely legal in Denmark as long as you buy the OS.
 
wrong.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001L0029:EN:HTML said:
CHAPTER III

PROTECTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES AND RIGHTS-MANAGEMENT INFORMATION

Article 6

Obligations as to technological measures

1. Member States shall provide adequate legal protection against the circumvention of any effective technological measures, which the person concerned carries out in the knowledge, or with reasonable grounds to know, that he or she is pursuing that objective.

2. Member States shall provide adequate legal protection against the manufacture, import, distribution, sale, rental, advertisement for sale or rental, or possession for commercial purposes of devices, products or components or the provision of services which:

(a) are promoted, advertised or marketed for the purpose of circumvention of, or

(b) have only a limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent, or

(c) are primarily designed, produced, adapted or performed for the purpose of enabling or facilitating the circumvention of,

any effective technological measures.

3. For the purposes of this Directive, the expression "technological measures" means any technology, device or component that, in the normal course of its operation, is designed to prevent or restrict acts, in respect of works or other subject-matter, which are not authorised by the rightholder of any copyright or any right related to copyright as provided for by law or the sui generis right provided for in Chapter III of Directive 96/9/EC. Technological measures shall be deemed "effective" where the use of a protected work or other subject-matter is controlled by the rightholders through application of an access control or protection process, such as encryption, scrambling or other transformation of the work or other subject-matter or a copy control mechanism, which achieves the protection objective.

4. Notwithstanding the legal protection provided for in paragraph 1, in the absence of voluntary measures taken by rightholders, including agreements between rightholders and other parties concerned, Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that rightholders make available to the beneficiary of an exception or limitation provided for in national law in accordance with Article 5(2)(a), (2)(c), (2)(d), (2)(e), (3)(a), (3)(b) or (3)(e) the means of benefiting from that exception or limitation, to the extent necessary to benefit from that exception or limitation and where that beneficiary has legal access to the protected work or subject-matter concerned.

A Member State may also take such measures in respect of a beneficiary of an exception or limitation provided for in accordance with Article 5(2)(b), unless reproduction for private use has already been made possible by rightholders to the extent necessary to benefit from the exception or limitation concerned and in accordance with the provisions of Article 5(2)(b) and (5), without preventing rightholders from adopting adequate measures regarding the number of reproductions in accordance with these provisions.

The technological measures applied voluntarily by rightholders, including those applied in implementation of voluntary agreements, and technological measures applied in implementation of the measures taken by Member States, shall enjoy the legal protection provided for in paragraph 1.

The provisions of the first and second subparagraphs shall not apply to works or other subject-matter made available to the public on agreed contractual terms in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.

When this Article is applied in the context of Directives 92/100/EEC and 96/9/EC, this paragraph shall apply mutatis mutandis.

Article 7

Obligations concerning rights-management information

1. Member States shall provide for adequate legal protection against any person knowingly performing without authority any of the following acts:

(a) the removal or alteration of any electronic rights-management information;

(b) the distribution, importation for distribution, broadcasting, communication or making available to the public of works or other subject-matter protected under this Directive or under Chapter III of Directive 96/9/EC from which electronic rights-management information has been removed or altered without authority,

if such person knows, or has reasonable grounds to know, that by so doing he is inducing, enabling, facilitating or concealing an infringement of any copyright or any rights related to copyright as provided by law, or of the sui generis right provided for in Chapter III of Directive 96/9/EC.

2. For the purposes of this Directive, the expression "rights-management information" means any information provided by rightholders which identifies the work or other subject-matter referred to in this Directive or covered by the sui generis right provided for in Chapter III of Directive 96/9/EC, the author or any other rightholder, or information about the terms and conditions of use of the work or other subject-matter, and any numbers or codes that represent such information.

The first subparagraph shall apply when any of these items of information is associated with a copy of, or appears in connection with the communication to the public of, a work or other subjectmatter referred to in this Directive or covered by the sui generis right provided for in Chapter III of Directive 96/9/EC.

No mention in there that it doesn't apply to computer software! That would override national law
 
wrong.

No mention in there that it doesn't apply to computer software! That would override national law

AFAIK the member states are expected to implement the Infosoc directive nationally. I'm not sure what happens if someone disagrees with the implementation but I feel that I'm responsible as a citizen for knowing the law in my country. I do not feel responsible or think I can be made responsible for various subtle legal issues concerning the relationship between european and national law.

Also, I doubt you know what you're talking about :)
 
It makes no difference whether you've got "an authentic copy of OSX Leopard" or not ...

you are NOT allowed to install any version of the Mac OS
on non-Apple hardware

It's very simple and spelled out in the Mac OS license agreement. Breaking that agreement basically does make you a pirate. It's the exact reason the morons at Psystar are in trouble.

the reason they got in trouble was because they were selling the systems. there is a difference.
 
This. All 3 of the hacks in my house run perfectly. Never a hiccup.
I just built a 920 Core i7 Hackintosh and installed retail Snow Leopard from a thumb drive with a boot patch. But the only way I was able to install it was to boot in SAFE Mode. Each time I turn it on, I have to boot in SAFE Mode.

How can I make it boot regularly so I can get everything set up properly? I have an ati Radeon 4850 GPU 1GB.
 
I wish i could help you more, but i dont know much about the iX cpus and OSX.

What you can do to help a lot is boot with the "-v" flag (if you have chameleon as your bootloader just pick your osx hdd, press down to open the menu, then select Verbose). Let it boot until it hangs and take a pic of your screen with a digital camera or something.
 
mac osx on pc

yes it is possible to run mac osx on a pc, i personally prefer to because its hella cheaper and performs better then any mac out there, mac are pretty and all but they are over priced garbage, hackintosh works great on a pc and i use it on mine to run pro tools 10 cause it is more stable then pc with it, but that is the only reason i even use mac osx on my pc
 
yes it is possible to run mac osx on a pc, i personally prefer to because its hella cheaper and performs better then any mac out there, mac are pretty and all but they are over priced garbage, hackintosh works great on a pc and i use it on mine to run pro tools 10 cause it is more stable then pc with it, but that is the only reason i even use mac osx on my pc

Strong first post. Resurrect a two year old thread to insult the majority of the forum and brag about stealing OS X to save money. Way to bring it out of the gate! Good show! :D
 
Yes, you just need to select the right hardware for compatibility. There are a lot of folks running a Hackintosh. Is it legal? No. Apple appear to be doing nothing about it either.
 
Apple is a magical company. Only they can make a significant number of their customers vehemently defend the legality and enforceability of an EULA on a forum whilst simultaneously price gauging said customers on hardware for years.

Edit: oh god... a necro post :(. I feel so used.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.