Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Legal Mac OS X on PC

I'm surprised apple didn't modify the EULA to clarify what an apple labeled computer is for Leopard. As, right now, if one emulates hardware and is running a vanilla kernel and doesn't modify the software in anyway, the apple label is the only ambiguity in the EULA, if you've bought a copy of leopard.

Also, if you have a family pack, according to the EULA, it seems you can install it on an infinity of non-apple labeled computers :

B. Family Pack. If you have purchased a Mac OS X Family Pack, this License allows you to install and use one (1) copy of the Apple Software on up to a maximum of five (5) Apple-labeled computers at a time as long as those computers are located in the same household and used by persons who occupy that same household.

It doesn't specify that you can't install it on non-apple labeled computer, the only limit is on apple-labeled computers. (the single-user specifies that you can't install it on non-apple software). Also weird, you can't have two partitions with os x installed on them in the same apple-labeled computer.

Also, it seems that it's all okay unless apple terminates your EULA, at witch point you just need to stop using the specified piece of apple software.

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.

Hey, I won't be a foul and think apple wants you to install mac os on non-apple hardware. But their EULA is full of holes. Awkward considering Apple is one of the most legally active tech company.

Also, for the single-user agreement, if you believe an apple-labeled computer is a computer that you paid apple money for, putting your net-top pc inside of a mac mini (or mac cube for style points) that should make it an apple labeled computer(?) , as it doesn't specify the hardware, simply the apple label.

Just sayin' hahaha
 
paolo- said:
I'm surprised apple didn't modify the EULA to clarify what an apple labeled computer is for Leopard. As, right now, if one emulates hardware and is running a vanilla kernel and doesn't modify the software in anyway, the apple label is the only ambiguity in the EULA, if you've bought a copy of leopard.

Also, if you have a family pack, according to the EULA, it seems you can install it on an infinity of non-apple labeled computers :

B. Family Pack. If you have purchased a Mac OS X Family Pack, this License allows you to install and use one (1) copy of the Apple Software on up to a maximum of five (5) Apple-labeled computers at a time as long as those computers are located in the same household and used by persons who occupy that same household.

It doesn't specify that you can't install it on non-apple labeled computer, the only limit is on apple-labeled computers. (the single-user specifies that you can't install it on non-apple software).
Click to expand...

Quality. I also like the way they restrict "Apple Labelled Hardware" to the same household, but by omission, we can install it in whatever household we like on our infinity of non-Apple labelled computers. :D

Just shows that they should bin the bloody EULA, not sell the software physically, enforce Apple-specificness through the distribution medium (valid serial number, perhaps?) and let copyright law handle the torrenters.
 
dejo said:
Apple doesn't have EULAs, they have SLAs (Software License Agreements). I suspect there is some kind of reasoning behind the different nomenclature.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eula
A software license agreement is a contract between a producer and a user of computer software which grants the user a software license. Most often, a software license agreement indicates the terms under which an end-user may utilize the licensed software, in which case the agreement is called an end-user license agreement or EULA.
Click to expand...
 
Single User said:
This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time.
Click to expand...

OK here you go.

1. Buy a Mac, mini, iMac, notebook, Pro, doesn't matter.
2. Wipe the HD of the Mac
3. Set PC physically on top of Mac.
4. Install OSX on the PC.

From a literalist perspective OSX is running on an Apple-labeled computer.

Unfortunately this is an expensive route and it would likely be much cheaper just to run OSX on the Mac you bought. But who am I to tell you how to spend your money?
 
atszyman said:
OK here you go.

1. Buy a Mac, mini, iMac, notebook, Pro, doesn't matter.
2. Wipe the HD of the Mac
3. Set PC physically on top of Mac.
4. Install OSX on the PC.

From a literalist perspective OSX is running on an Apple-labeled computer.

Unfortunately this is an expensive route and it would likely be much cheaper just to run OSX on the Mac you bought. But who am I to tell you how to spend your money?
Click to expand...
I'll disregard the silliness of this suggestion and point out that if you did this, you'd have TWO copies of OS X, not one. The Mac you buy has it installed already, so if you install on a 2nd computer, Mac or PC, you've violated the license agreement.
dejo said:
Mac OS X (Leopard) Software License (PDF)
Click to expand...

Yes, I've read that. Regardless of what Apple calls it, it's still an EULA. They're two different terms for the same thing, when it applies to end-users.
 
atszyman said:
OK here you go.

1. Buy a Mac, mini, iMac, notebook, Pro, doesn't matter.
2. Wipe the HD of the Mac
3. Set PC physically on top of Mac.
4. Install OSX on the PC.

From a literalist perspective OSX is running on an Apple-labeled computer.
Click to expand...

I've got a better one.

1. Acquire old Mac or other vintage Apple from local junkyard. Doesn't need to work.
2. Sit on it.
3. Install OSX on your PC.

You are thus "installing OSX on an Apple labelled computer" (as in the same way if you did an install while aboard the QEII, you'd be "installing OSX on a cruise liner").

You have to love the English language. :D
 
Buy an old G3 mini-tower off ebay for peanuts.

Fit an ATX sized PC motherboard into the mac case.

Add the CPU, RAM, Hard Drive, Optical Drive and Power supply off your PC

Do a bit of a "McGyver" job on the Mac case so you have all ports and stuff accessible from the back of the unit, using bits off the PC case and lots of glue, sawing etc... to get it all to fit together so from the front of the case it's still a standard Mac because all you can see is the tray for the DVD/RW and of course, the Apple logo.

Buy an Apple compatible USB Keyboard and Mouse, you should again be able to get these on eBay cheaply

1 "Apple" labelled computer. Perfectly legal because you've just "retro-fitted" it with a new Intel based motherboard. It's simply a glorified CPU upgrade that includes a new Chip set and motherboard!

:D

You might also like to visit your local green grocers and buy as many apple's as you can, removing the labels and covering the back of the case in labels that say "Golden Delicious", "Granny Smith" etc...
 
paolo- said:
I'm surprised apple didn't modify the EULA to clarify what an apple labeled computer is for Leopard.
Click to expand...

I had to deal with trademark and licensing issues for my own business a couple years ago, and as an aside, asked my attorney about this. He stated that 'labeled' has a defined legal meaning. When something is 'labeled' by a company, that means it is their own.

So, for example, one can't just slap a BMW logo on a Ford, and call it a BMW.

Likewise, if Apple restricts things to "Apple-labeled", it means Apple made. I don't have access to any legal directories or anything, but my lawyer seemed to be under the impression that this definition has been tested in court.

Of course, it's also possible that a court might rule that the "Apple-labeled" provision isn't enforceable. But until THAT is tested, if you want to remain "legal", you have to avoid installing it.

(I know that after the Clones were discontinued, Apple added the 'Apple-labeled' provision to Mac OS 9 to prevent people from installing OS 9 on clones. That may very well be when it was tested.)
 
ggjstudios said:
I'll disregard the silliness of this suggestion and point out that if you did this, you'd have TWO copies of OS X, not one. The Mac you buy has it installed already, so if you install on a 2nd computer, Mac or PC, you've violated the license agreement.
Click to expand...

Re-read step 2. And how dare you disregard the silliness... that was the entire point.:D
 
It's the mobo.

Take a PowerMac or MacPro. Replace the HDD, optical drive, RAM, video card, and processor with your own stuff (it's mostly interchangable with PC stuff, slightly less so for video cards) and it's still an Apple computer.

Put all that in a different case, and while it might not be recognisably a mac, it's still an Apple computer and can legally run OSX (There's a company that legally sells tablet macs made from rebuilt Macbooks.)

Go back to the original PowerMac / Mac Pro. Now change just the mobo (or logic board) for a PC one. I would say it's not an Apple computer any more.
 
Don´t ...

... make it too complicated. The EULA is not enforcable. But be done with the legal "tit for tat": Just do it: No one is coming to catch you cheating.

My HackMac called "Klementine" is running strong now for almost a year. It doubled the performance of the last Dual G5 Powermac for me, which I couldn´t afford as much as a Mac Pro. But she is catching up pretty quick - soon with some more hearts.

I used instructions on insanelymac, some modified kernel extensions and looooots of DIY tryouts to calm this schizophrenic endevour.

By the way: "Klementine" enjoys it quite a lot to behave like a Mac, to act like a Mac, to feel like a Mac. How is to blame here for some misconfiguration, tsts. Is she not Macable, like all of us?


PS

And my Logic installation doesn´t quarrel over it, too!

---
Klementine is made from a Core 2 Duo 1,86Ghz forced to beat 2,33Ghz with 8GB RAM, a heck of a lot harddrives in a tower as beautiful as a sahara shoeshine, but boy, is she lean´n´mean comes rain or shine. She breathes OSX 10.5.6, smoothly.
 
ggjstudios said:
Yes, I've read that. Regardless of what Apple calls it, it's still an EULA. They're two different terms for the same thing, when it applies to end-users.
Click to expand...
My point was that perhaps Apple doesn't call it a EULA because, to them, there is some, perhaps subtle, difference between the terms and how Apple would like them applied, especially in terms of more than just end-users.
 
Yes, but a EULA is a EULA. It's barely legally enforceable and really, if you have a retail copy of Leopard then to all extents and purposes it is a legal purchase. The most you can be forced to do practically speaking is to erase it on the PC.

It's funny how often we debate this non-issue here, when probably half the people in the Windows on Mac subforum are running OEM versions of Windows.

I do like the latter suggestions though: Next time the OSX86 guru is installing an OS X VM on one of my Sony's I'll tell him to sit on one of our Pros - if it doesn't collapse, that is.
 
Loccy said:
Again, welcome to the world where the USA isn't the only country.
Click to expand...

Don't you think Apple would have thought of these laws, and have some defense against them. Or do you really believe that they are sitting there, fat, dumb and happy waiting for someone to discover your so-called loophole that completely invalidates all IP rights they have in these supposed countries?

In some countries Apple's EULA is "illegal", in that it's essentially unenforceable because it enforces conditions that are against local law. Specifically, the Apple only stipulation might itself be "illegal" under European fair competition law/anti-monopoly law. The "you can't read it without opening it" factor - notwithstanding the fact you can return and get a refund - could well invalidate the whole EULA in European countries.
Click to expand...

You still haven't proven this. How about some links to back up your claim that SLAs are flat out "illegal" in these countries?
 
r.j.s said:
You still haven't proven this. How about some links to back up your claim that SLAs are flat out "illegal" in these countries?
Click to expand...

In Germany, e.g., EULAs are not enforcable at all. Products and services, which come with AGBs (Terms of Services), though, are - considered, that the written rules there don´t conflict with codified laws. If they do, they are non-binding to the clause. This already has been proven many times in court.
 
giffut said:
In Germany, e.g., EULAs are not enforcable at all. Products and services, which come with AGBs (Terms of Services), though, are - considered, that the written rules there don´t conflict with codified laws. If they do, they are non-binding to the clause. This already has been proven many times in court.
Click to expand...

Has anyone challenged Apple's AGB? Do you have links to prove your claim?

I'm not saying you're wrong - I'm asking for something more than an anonymous poster on Teh Internets™.
 
atszyman said:
OK here you go.

1. Buy a Mac, mini, iMac, notebook, Pro, doesn't matter.
2. Wipe the HD of the Mac
3. Set PC physically on top of Mac.
4. Install OSX on the PC.

From a literalist perspective OSX is running on an Apple-labeled computer.

Unfortunately this is an expensive route and it would likely be much cheaper just to run OSX on the Mac you bought. But who am I to tell you how to spend your money?
Click to expand...

Well - if you've already bought said Apple computer and find it is a POS, then it's worth it.
 
r.j.s said:
Don't you think Apple would have thought of these laws, and have some defense against them. Or do you really believe that they are sitting there, fat, dumb and happy waiting for someone to discover your so-called loophole that completely invalidates all IP rights they have in these supposed countries?



You still haven't proven this. How about some links to back up your claim that SLAs are flat out "illegal" in these countries?
Click to expand...

First, Apple market is basically (more than 90% I guess) american. They don't have much of a market outside and most people outside are normally professionals who make money with their Macs and won't jeopardize that with a hackintosh.

Second, american companies, as american citizens, tend to think that the world ends at the US border. Normally, lawyers are acquainted with their own country's code of laws and not the others. American lawyers think that US laws are universal laws directly dictated by God himself. Out of curiosity, go to The Pirate Bay and check the threatening letters these guys received from American companies. They were trying to judge Swedish citizens in Sweden with American standards. It's a good laugh if you read the responses as well.

Third, Psystar is in court right now concerning this issue. If I'm not mistaken, the reason for that is copyright infringement because they modify Leopard to install it in their computers. Apple did not try to enforce their EULA (the obvious thing to do, accusing them of installing Leopard on a non-Mac computer). I guess they did not do that because it wasn't so clear even in the US that they would win with that strategy. If they don't use it for a company that is making money selling computers with Apple's OS, you really think they care about what you do on your own computer?.
 
Macmel said:
...
Click to expand...

And you quoted me why?

I'm not saying US law is universal, I'm asking for proof of the claim that EULA/SLAs are illegal in these countries, and no one has provided any.

I am fully aware there are laws in other countries, stop telling me that and provide some links to some proof that SLAs don't apply there.
 
so pretty much

i guess it's safe to say that if you have to debate whether something is illegal or not, it's more than likely illegal.

however it just makes me a little upset that if i personally built a pieced together, part by part, mac pro in my own tower, with the same parts as the mac pro, it would be illegal to use it with OS X

oh well,

so much for DIY
 
michael.lauden said:
however it just makes me a little upset that if i personally built a pieced together, part by part, mac pro in my own tower, with the same parts as the mac pro, it would be illegal to use it with OS X
Click to expand...

I would express it slightly different: When you build a computer that is 100 percent compatible with a Mac Pro, then Apple is not willing to sell you MacOS X together with a license that allows you installation of the software on your computer.

On the other hand, when you think about it, people buying MacOS X and installing it on an Apple-labeled computer have already paid good money to Apple for their computer. And except for exceptional circumstances, they have a legal copy of an older version of MacOS X on their computer. So the price tag on MacOS X in the shop is the "special deal for people who have already paid lots of money to Apple and are likely to pay a lot in the future and have Tiger already installed". And when I buy a Macintosh, some of the price is justified by the implicit "option to buy the next version of Mac OS X at the special deal $129 price". If Apple sold MacOS X with a license that allows installation on _any_ computer, they would charge more than $129 for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back