By all means, do this, but don't complain when apple try and stop you by removing support for hardware.
I think the fact that Apple are dropping support for the Intel Atom and are sue-ing several counterfeit mac selling companies shows they do care.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is THIS illegal (Not what you are thinking)
- Thread starter Ownage
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
By all means, do this, but don't complain when apple try and stop you by removing support for hardware.
I think the fact that Apple are dropping support for the Intel Atom and are sue-ing several counterfeit mac selling companies shows they do care.
hmmmm, yes, well since the OP asked if doing something was illegal (check the first post and the title of the thread) those posters giving their opinions are actually directly addressing his question and trying to help
hmmmm, yes, well since the OP asked if doing something was illegal (check the first post and the title of the thread) those posters giving their opinions are actually directly addressing his question and trying to help
Plus Apple has a well established history of what they will and will not allow when it comes to changes to the OS.
Might not like our answer, but it is free and likely 95% on the mark, and will require an expensive lawyer and $50-100k plus and some interviews with old upgrade companies to pinpoint exactly where Apple will draw the line on OS mods.
Heck, plop down a credit card on PACER and start pulling Apple v cloners/upgrade companies on your own and reading if they don't believe us.
You only need to go over to www.groklaw.net, where you can find all the rulings against Psystar, and where you can find exactly what is legal and not legal. Especially not legal. And you will find two things that come as a big surprise to some: 1. Apple's SLA is legally binding. Installing MacOS X on any computer that is not Apple labeled is copyright infringement. 2. Apple's MacOS x is protected against installation on non-Apple computers by copy protection measures, and anyone getting around this is guilty of a DMCA violation.
Hi Buzz Bumble, I don't think it's correct for you to discredit someone for the only reason he has a different opinion from yours. I'm no "pirate scum trying to self-justify themselves" and you can't libel me, or am I the only one who is subject to the law here?
I think that if I buy something, hardware or software, I have the legal right to violate the terms of the agreement especially in the cases where the company providing such agreement is in a position of dominance and I have no power of negotiating it. I didn't say that I actually did it. I didn't violate the EULA. I'm just saying that I would feel free to do it without in any way doing something illegal.
So we have different views, I think that Apple can't legally "come knocking at your door". In no way I think it's "illegal, immoral, stupid, or selfish". As opposed to insulting some stranger on a public forum.
PS You have no right to decretate when it's time to END THE STORY. {nor to lock any stupid topic}
Well...no. Because you're talking about modifying hardware you've BOUGHT, not modifying software you've LICENSED, which are two completely different things. And the Xeons are Intel not Apple anyway.
Well, yes it is hurting Apple, at least potentially. If you install Mac OS X on a PC you already have instead of buying an Apple Mac, then Apple has lost out on at least £600 in sales. Yes you could buy one second hand, but even then Apple created it originally and the original money went to them (and they could control how many to release in the first place).
You'd do well to take your own advice, since you seem to know less about software licensing than any other poster (except the 'how do i post a message' newbie).
Sorry, totally wrong. If you live in the EU or live in the US or Canada, then EULAs have been tested in courts of law.
Apple or any other software companies retain full rights in their software as is their right under copyright law.
This should make it clearer for you..
http://www.frictionlessinsight.com/archives/2002/03/you-may-read-th.html
It doesn't really matter if it's legal or not. What it comes down to is which side has the best lawyers and how the judge interprets the laws already in place.
The short answer is "no." In no law book anywhere in California, any other state, the US Constitution, or even ordinances in my local area (Cupertino, CA) that states the purchaser of software must adhere to the publishers intentions of its use, outside of copyright and security laws.
Therefore, if I legitimately own my own copy of OS X, I will do with it as I please. Even if that means installing it on other hardware, or even reverse engineer it, as long as I don't try to make a profit off it.
(For the record, I'm not any type of lawyer, but I am studying law.)
The short answer is "no." In no law book anywhere in California, any other state, the US Constitution, or even ordinances in my local area (Cupertino, CA) that states the purchaser of software must adhere to the publishers intentions of its use, outside of copyright and security laws.
Therefore, if I legitimately own my own copy of OS X, I will do with it as I please. Even if that means installing it on other hardware, or even reverse engineer it, as long as I don't try to make a profit off it.
(For the record, I'm not any type of lawyer, but I am studying law.)
Umm have you ever read contract law?
The EULA is a contract that you have agreed. Electronic acceptance by clicking I agree is deemed to be the same as signing a contract.
So yes it is a written law. It may be a CIVIL law rather than criminal, but it's a contract that you agree to, with a get out if you don't agree to the terms (entitlement to refund if "I agree" is not clicked and software is returned uninstalled.)
You don't get it. You don't own the software. You have a license to use it.
That's obvious....
S-
So if you buy a cheap Dell computer instead of a Macintosh to save some money, and then install MacOS X on it, how is that not "trying to make a profit off it"?
And some people have the suspicion that Psystar never "tried to make a profit off it".
I'm sorry but you don't get the point of this thread: some people think it's immoral to install a software on a device of your choice, while others, like me, think that by installing osx on non Apple Hardware, you are not doing something illegal/immoral.
I think that it all comes to having or not respect for property rights. If you buy a legal copy of osx, you have done your part.
Hackers are not pirate scums, they are smart guys who don't want to follow the rules, but this doesn't mean that they don't have rules.
Hackers have made our world a better place, we always need someone who thinks different! If you reverse engineer the code of osx and figure out how to get it booting on a pc and do it in the privacy of your home without making profit out of it, there is no license of this world that can keep you from doing it. I think it's immoral to think otherwise.
If you think about it Woz would have never created the Apple I and II, if he was't a fan of hacking/reverse engineering.
But I also understand and respect different opinions. So there is no reason to flame me.
HAHAHAHA!!! You got a bee hive up your bum???
If I were to buy OSX, rip it apart and install it on my hypothetical PC, sure it would be "breaking the contract", but I would love to see Apple's proof of damages argument.
If no-one can get hurt, it's not illegal.
EDIT: Although proving that what you do to your own machine does not affect Apple in the slightest would be pretty easy, proving the same thing for OTHER people's computers would be a lot more difficult. So, I think Mr. SWIM still gets screwed. Well, at least if he tries to make a business out of it. If he sticks with friends, who's gonna know??? Plausible deniability is always good.
Your logic states that vandalism is not illegal. No one get's hurt by it after all, it's just annoying.
If it wasn't illegal, why do you think Apple are successfully suing counterfeit mac companies? Get off your high horse. You'd be breaking the law. Not that I care, just don't complain when Apple try and stop you by discontinuing OS X support for your hardware.
I have not heard of any country on this planet that has an explicit law that says "you are not allowed to install OS X on non-Apple hardware".
The worst thing that you legally do is that you violate the terms of Apple's End User License Agreement when you install OS X on non-Apple hardware. That is very far away from doing anything illegal -- at worst this is not respecting your end of a contract.
But this immediately leads to some other legal issues with Apple's EULA
1. Are the terms of Apple's EULA legal?
2. Can an EULA be legal and binding when you can only read it AFTER the purchase of the software?
3. And even if Apple gets away with it in the United States of America, what about the rest of the world that have more consumer friendly laws than the USA?
Microsoft found out in Germany and other countries that they could not bundle a software license to a specific computer -- people are free to re-sell pre-installed OEM/Systembuilder versions of Microsoft products in Germany. Microsoft's conditions were found illegal - they might make such a contract with a huge OEM, but NOT with an end-user. Now what makes anybody think that Apple's conditions would be legal?
Apple's Mac OS X product is sold for EUR 29 in a stand-alone box as a stand-alone product. If even has the label "RETAIL" on it in Germany - not upgrade, not update; it says RETAIL. And it does not say that you need a previous version of OS X in order to be eligible to purchase this box. (By the way: German courts have also ruled that you are allowed to sell the previous version of the software after you have purchased an upgrade. This is the reason why Microsoft no longer sells update/upgrade versions in Germany.)
So for EUR 29 I get an operating system that says in its hardware requirements "Intel Mac". Repeat: In the hardware requirements sections. Now that is the section that says something about technical requirements, not legal requirements. It's like saying "this set of wheels fits to an Opel Astra." Nobody could keep you from putting them on a Ford if they would fit.
Only in the EULA - which does not even accompany the OS X retail box in printed form - Apple mentions that you can only use this software on an Apple computer. Now, again, this is the point where such a condition in all likelihood is not legally binding because you only hear of that condition AFTER the purchase, that means AFTER you have concluded the sale contract with Apple. In the first three weeks of studying law at a university you already learn that something like this cannot be legal.
The worst thing that happens is that your contract with Apple is null and void and that you have to return the box to Apple for a full refund. End of story.
Still, the question remains if Apple --could-- enforce their EULA outside of the United States, and if they could be as successful against the German PearC company as they were successful against Psystar.
Apple's German Legal department hasn't moved against PearC, yet - and PearC is only selling their computers in Germany. I like to think that Apple already knows that their legal club is useless here, so they choose to ignore the little company that sells computers with an OS X Desktop Box Set.
I don't think that the question should be whether it is legal for the customer to install OS X on non-Apple hardware. The question is whether it is legal for a company to try to impose such conditions on their customers. And I think the answer has to be NO, this shall not be legal for any company.
Yes as long as you have to click "accept" to install the software and the software house offers a FULL refund should you choose to not accept the terms and conditions and return the software uninstalled.
Also in the case of Microsoft and Apple their licence agreements are fully findable via the web, so you can view them before purchasing a software licence.
Apple's licence agreements are at www.apple.com/legal
Microsoft's are at http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/useterms/
OK I will answer the other point you raise.
PearC I think will lose because they have to MODIFY the software, via a bootloader to get it to work.
Microsoft lost becuase they said you can't use this on any other PC other than the one it was sold, but from a technical point of view, you could put that disc in any PC (including an Intel Mac) that met the technical specification, without running any other software, and the computer would boot from the disc. Therefore it was an unfair term in the contract.
Apple on the other hand has different enough hardware as to mean that to get an unmodified Mac OS X disc to run on a PC you need to run additional software (boot-132, chameleon, EFI-X, etc) to get round technical differences between the platforms. You also need to modify a KEXT (Don't Steal Mac OS X.Kext is patched to become DSMOS.KEXT), which creates a derirative version. Boom, you are into a different world. That of copyright violation. The applicable law in the EU (the EU Copyright directive) is MORE restrictive than the DMCA in the US. And Germany IS a signatory to the EUCD.
EDIT: PearC sells their computers EU wide...
Uncle Steve
I don't think we would be having ANY of this discussion if Apple would release an Atom-based netbook and a small form factor headless desktop with expansion slots and a beefy processor.
-Aaron-
/entered on my Dell Mini 9 running 10.6.1
//has a Core i7-based hackintosh too
///and several actual Macs as well
I don't think we would be having ANY of this discussion if Apple would release an Atom-based netbook and a small form factor headless desktop with expansion slots and a beefy processor.
-Aaron-
/entered on my Dell Mini 9 running 10.6.1
//has a Core i7-based hackintosh too
///and several actual Macs as well
No, I get the point of this thread. The point just happens to be invalid based on contract law. You, and others, just get the fact that Apple has the legal right to restrict what is done with their software after you purchase a license to use it.
You keep missing the legal point. You do not buy a legal copy of OS X. You buy a license and, if you use the software, agree to abide by the rules Apple sets in the license.[/quote]
That's makes no sense. What licenses did Woz fail to respect when he invented the Apple I and Apple II??
S-
That's it right there.
In the U.S., even if you personally aren't the one breaking the law, if you are HELPING someone else to break the law, you can be held liable.
And by the DMCA, that help becomes an actual *CRIMINAL* act.
To quote Wikipedia, emphasis mine:
So even providing a service is sufficient. Not to mention that even if the service/technology itself is 100% legal when not applied to copyrighted products, when you use it on copyrighted material, it becomes illegal.
For example: DVD ripping software. The software "Handbrake" is, by itself, not illegal. There is nothing illegal about ripping a home movie from DVD to my computer. There is even nothing illegal about ripping a commercial movie to my computer, if that movie does not contain the CSS encryption scheme, as that is covered as "fair use". But the moment you break CSS, you are using a technology to circumvent DRM. That becomes criminal, according to the DMCA. And even if you're doing the work on behalf of someone else, you are still the one liable, because you are the one circumventing DRM.
(Note: I Am Not A Lawyer, this is all a layman's reading of things. And I'm not getting into a debate over the morality of such actions, just the raw on-the-books legality.)
Why doesn't SWIM offers to install Linux or BSD? (costumer's chosen distro)
That wouldn't be illegal and the costumer would still get an improvement over the previous operating system.
Thanks,
Joe.
That wouldn't be illegal and the costumer would still get an improvement over the previous operating system.
Thanks,
Joe.
I get your legal point but I respectfully dissent. I am saying that I am breaching a contract, which is not illegal, and I am saying that there is no legal/moral consequence in doing so.
It makes sense if you think that he thought different.
+ 1
I'm a loyal Apple customer, but as I said, it is not illegal. Breaking a EULA is not breaking a law, it's breaking an (rather unfair) contract. That is why it's a question of who has the better lawyers and how the judge feels to interpret it. If I choose to install OS X on a Dell Mini 10v, that's not breaking a law; I will not get arrested for that. Apple may choose to sue me, but it's not likely to hold up.
Besides, clicking "next" and "agree" buttons is not at all the same as signing a document; a judge can easily decide to forego an argument like that.
Besides, clicking "next" and "agree" buttons is not at all the same as signing a document; a judge can easily decide to forego an argument like that.