Linking to "patches" on the front page?

[Eidorian]

They also have guidelines about Spam, so stop coping and pasting the same response everytime!

I was about to give the same advice to *LTD*. Report the MacRurmors bot for whatever benefit it might be and please stop spamming the MacRumors rules. We heard the first time.

The article is probably directly from arn so I don't see much of a problem with it if it gets past that authority here.

 

[Povilas]

Yeah had a think about it, and you know what, no where in this post does it tell you where to obtain an illegal copy of OS X,

No it doesn't tell, but it hooks you up to further analyze and after that downloading hacked OS X is not a problem (P2P, UseNet).

SO as much as you try to convince me that people who run hackintoshes have illegal copies of OS X, its not going to work.

Right . Ignorance is A Bliss. So bittorrent is ony used to share/download linux?

 

[Bafflefish]

You are part right / part wrong. First, there are no components built into the OS that would force Apple to play by the GPL rules (CUPS is under GPL but Apple owns the copyrights; there may be items that are dual licensed), and very few are under GPL. There are plenty under BSD license. You can take the BSD parts, modify them, and use them under Windows, or Linux, or whatever (if your Windows or Linux license allows it, nothing to do with Apple), but Apple's license doesn't allow you to combine the Apple-owned portions of MacOS X with changed BSD components.

Ah, ok. See, it's that part though regarding Apple's license not allowing you to utilize OS X with BSD components that makes me curious just whether it would hold up in court.

It's one thing to try and modify OS X to install on non-Apple hardware that you wish to then turn around and sell (such as Pystar).

It's another thing though for Apple to try to prevent users from modifying the open-source (if the CPUID table in OS X is itself open source) components of OS X for private use in a non-commercial environment. I don't know whether the courts would uphold their license agreement in that situation (if it could be proved it was purely for home, non-commercial use), especially since OS X has so much open-source code present within it.

Edit - I should say, given my (albeit limited) understanding of the GPL, aren't any open source components that Apple modifies, still subject to the GPL? I thought the only full restrictions Apple could enforce would be on code that Apple themselves have added that did not previously exist within the software framework they are using.

 

[*LTD*]

Sure! It's competition with Apple, and that's what this site covers.

Software licensing violations and IP violations are not competition. They are legal offenses.

Psystar was NOT competition for Apple. They were a rogue entity operating beyond the pale of legality.

The article is probably directly from arn so I don't see much of a problem with it if it gets past that authority here.

Well if you read MR's rules and you read the article, and then you deduce that the mods think it's ok (on top of all that), then that's rather disturbing (not about you, but about the mods/owners of the site.)

The only real issue is MR posting a direct link to the workaround. Remove the link and MR has a much stronger case for being in the clear according to its own rules.

 

[a.gomez]

well I for one do not get a check from Apple to police their stuff, and if you bought a netbook, a REAL copy of OSX, and want to play around with them - go crazy just like teateam

 

[gohanmzt]

*or* refer people to specific websites, software, or techniques whose purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods, distribute cracks, or obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation. Do not ask for or give such help.

Not ok here. Notice the *Or*s. Anything followed by *Or* is bad. If MR is guilty of violating only ONE thing after one of the *Or*s, MR is in violation of its own rules. The really important part is: "Or refer people to specific websites, (and/or) software . . . whose purpose is to break software licensing methods."

Running OS X on unauthorized hardware is a violation of Apple's OS X software license. The link posted in the MR article directs to to a website with information that shows you how to do just that.

LTD IS right people!. He's not saying that hackintoshing is illegal (and frankly I don't care enough to voice my opinion about it), he's merely pointing out a discrepancy in MR rules. The article could be rewritten leaving out the parts that violate the MR terms and still provide the same information.

Peace

P.S. And I'm not defending LTD, he's perfectly capable of doing that Himself, I just got a little tired of seeing the same information repeated over several pages. I thought that my browser was playing games on me.

 

[cjmillsnun]

So how does freedom of speech come into all this? Maybe newspapers should stop reporting on crimes and murders? I mean how dare they report on how a crime was committed, is that not like telling you how to do it. There is a difference between reporting news and carrying out the crime.

Simple. It DOESN'T. Freedom of speech doesn't apply to a privately owned forum.

It's more like a bar. You're welcome to go drink at the bar as long as you stick within the rules.

 

[Bafflefish]

No it doesn't tell, but it hooks you up to further analyze and after that downloading hacked OS X is not a problem (P2P, UseNet).

That's ridiculous reasoning though, as most search engines would qualify themselves (how easy is it for Google to "hook you up" to a hackintosh site?)

Right . Ignorance is A Bliss. So bittorrent is ony used to share/download linux?

Because actual Apple hardware owners never pirate OS X? Please...

 

[OllyW]

I was about to give the same advice to *LTD*. Report the MacRurmors bot for whatever benefit it might be and please stop spamming the MacRumors rules. We heard the first time.

The article is probably directly from arn so I don't see much of a problem with it if it gets past that authority here.

The article is by Eric Slivka or WildCowboy as he is known in the forums.

He's a member of the MacRumors staff and also an administrator so I'm sure he's fully aware of the rules.

 

[*LTD*]

LTD IS right people!. He's not saying that hackintoshing is illegal (and frankly I don't care enough to voice my opinion about it), he's merely pointing out a discrepancy in MR rules. The article could be rewritten leaving out the parts that violate the MR terms and still provide the same information.

Peace

Bolded the key parts.

This is exactly what I'm saying.

 

[MH01]

No it doesn't tell, but it hooks you up to further analyze and after that downloading hacked OS X is not a problem (P2P, UseNet).


Right . Ignorance is A Bliss. So bittorrent is ony used to share/download linux?

geez.. This has nothing to do with Bit torrent. How about you actually read the article. No where does it tell you about torrents or how to get illegal software. And if your a fricken goodie too shoes you can run a torrent without committing a crime, torrent itself is not illegal, it all depends on what you share.

 

[pdjudd]

Because actual Apple hardware owners never pirate OS X? Please...

And I am beting that you can prove that applies to all of us and can provide the identities of these people right? I mean, you wouldn’t accuse people without proof right? In other words, without context I might as well say the exact same thing and replace the words “pirate OSX” with “murder people”. I am sure their are mac owners out there that have murdered people. Doesn’t mean anything though since I don’t have any proof.

And to echo other posters, buying the retail OSX doesn’t give you permission to hack it and create derivative works. It doesn’t matter how you get OSX, legally you cannot hack it to create a derivative work per the copyright laws.

 

[Povilas]

That's ridiculous reasoning though, as most search engines would qualify themselves (how easy is it for Google to "hook you up" to a hackintosh site?)

That's the point and that's why there is no need to publish such links in the article.

Because actual Apple hardware owners never pirate OS X? Please...

Actual owners buy actual Apple hardware as well See the difference?

 

[Bafflefish]

geez.. This has nothing to do with Bit torrent. How about you actually read the article. No where does it tell you about torrents or how to get illegal software. And if your a fricken goodie too shoes you can run a torrent without committing a crime, torrent itself is not illegal, it all depends on what you share.

I don't know how long that'll last though, to be honest. Within the last few years the courts have been moving more towards the approach that if something can potentially violate copyright, then it's essentially illegal (I wonder then they'll ban guns finally, lol )

 

[Bafflefish]

Actual owners buy actual Apple hardware as well See the difference?

With one licensed version of OS X (and then future updates that fall under that licensed version).

Someone who bought a Mac with 10.4 or 10.5 isn't allowed to just take someone's copy of 10.6 and install it.

 

[Eidorian]

The article is by Eric Slivka or WildCowboy as he is known in the forums.

He's a member of the MacRumors staff and also an administrator so I'm sure he's fully aware of the rules.

Thanks for the correction. I'm usually only keeping track of the forum side of the articles and not the front page one. The author is stated over there.

 

[ChazUK]

Insanelymac forum rules: http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/index.php?act=boardrules

No posting of direct or indirect links to warez or pirated pieces of software, this includes cracks, serials and torrents.

No posting of OS X files. Open source (like Darwin) drivers and kexts are allowed (and encouraged!), but OS X files are not due to copyright.

Now, if anyone really has a beef with them and if this modified kernel is breaking their own forum rules why not:

A. Report the illegal kernel files to Apple (they could then invoke a DMCA and get it taken down) and
B. Report the original post on the insanelymac forums.

If it is in violation of their own rules they must deal with it.

 

[Povilas]

With one licensed version of OS X (and then future updates that fall under that licensed version).

Someone who bought a Mac with 10.4 or 10.5 isn't allowed to just take someone's copy of 10.6 and install it.

No and it's of course bad, but they buy hardware <-> Apple sell hardware. How installing hacked OS X on a netbook benefits Apple?

 

[cjmillsnun]

No. I installed a legally obtained and completely unpatched copy of OS X Snow Leopard on my Dell XPS M1530. And I live in Germany, European Union, where Apple's policy of forcing the customer to use OS X only on Apple hardware is as illegal as Microsoft's OEM policy was until the German Supreme Court ordered them to change their license policies. Apple will get the same treatment should they try and sue somebody for installing OS X on non-Apple hardware.

So, again: No. We're not talking about warez and piracy here. We're talking about Apple's business practices which are illegal in certain parts of the world.

Umm actually you are wrong.

In the EU we have something called the EU Copyright Directive, that all member states have agreed to. It is MORE restrictive than the DMCA and endorses EULAs.

MS got hammered because they were charging licence fees for PCs made by OEMs that didn't come with Windows. That is anticompetitive and illegal.

Apple own OS X and have the right to say it should only be run on their computers.

 

[HLdan]

That's ridiculous reasoning though, as most search engines would qualify themselves (how easy is it for Google to "hook you up" to a hackintosh site?)



Because actual Apple hardware owners never pirate OS X? Please...

Even if many genuine Apple Macintosh owners are pirating OS X, it's still being installed on genuine Apple hardware, and I don't think Apple would be nearly as steamed about that has oppose to what hackintosh users are doing.

 

[OllyW]

Insanelymac forum rules: http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/index.php?act=boardrules


Now, if anyone really has a beef with them and if this modified kernel is breaking their own forum rules why not:

A. Report the illegal kernel files to Apple (they could then invoke a DMCA and get it taken down) and
B. Report the original post on the insanelymac forums.

If it is in violation of their own rules they must deal with it.

The kernel is open source, so it's allowed (and encouraged).

 

[Bafflefish]

And I am beting that you can prove that applies to all of us and can provide the identities of these people right? I mean, you wouldn’t accuse people without proof right?

Did I accuse *every* Mac owner of pirating OS X? No, I didn't. Thanks for trying to attribute additional commentary to what I stated.

I have no problem saying that I honestly do believe that the majority of those who are running 10.6 *and* who have a Mac that wasn't originally running 10.6, purchased their copy legally and installed it as such.

But be realistic. Piracy occurs, even amongst those who purchased Apple hardware and wish to upgrade to the latest, greatest version. I've seen it happen amongst several of my friends.

In other words, without context I might as well say the exact same thing and replace the words “pirate OSX” with “murder people”. I am sure their are mac owners out there that have murdered people. Doesn’t mean anything though since I don’t have any proof.

Do you honestly believe OS X piracy only occurs amongst the hackintosh crowd? If you do, I have a bridge to sell you in the middle of the Atlantic ocean

More seriously, I've seen it happen amongst friends of mine. And while it is hard to quickly find statistics on OS X piracy, you can find copies of it on BitTorrent, UseNet, etc. I'm sure you'll brush that off as only the hackintosh community being involved.

It's much easier to track Windows piracy because Microsoft issues CD keys for Windows, and over time they accumulate a list of known pirated CD keys, which helps to identify just what % of copies attempting to activate or check for updates are pirated. Even then, that % is lower than what it really is, as quite a few pirated copies of Windows don't attempt to authenticate or update.

And to echo other posters, buying the retail OSX doesn’t give you permission to hack it and create derivative works. It doesn’t matter how you get OSX, legally you cannot hack it to create a derivative work per the copyright laws.

My earlier posts regarded questions I had over the GPL and OS X, which Gnasher responded to politely with a good response (which I tend responded to with another question as well as just some thoughts I had on it). I'm waiting for his response (and others who are more knowledgeable about the GPL) to see just what the final consensus is.

If you have some more info about the GPL, please, by all means present it. If all you're going to do is senselessly attack and add nothing to the conversation, please don't respond. Thanks

 

[Bafflefish]

Even if many genuine Apple Macintosh owners are pirating OS X, it's still being installed on genuine Apple hardware, and I don't think Apple would be nearly as steamed about that has oppose to what hackintosh users are doing.

Oh, I have no doubt Apple isn't happy about the loss of hardware revenue for those running hackintoshes.

At the same time though, I'd be very surprised if they weren't pissed over piracy of any kind. Remember, they expect hardware purchasers to pay for OS X upgrades, especially given how cheaply they offer it

No and it's of course bad, but they buy hardware <-> Apple sell hardware. How installing hacked OS X on a netbook benefits Apple?

Oh, I do think that Apple doesn't like seeing OS X installed on such "low quality hardware", lol. I just find it absurd that people around here seem to bemoan and complain about the "piracy" they see occurring amongst the hackintosh crowd and yet, seem to not care much if Apple hardware owners pirate OS X, since they've purchased legitimate Apple hardware.

Last time I checked, piracy is piracy

 

[ChazUK]

The kernel is open source, so it's allowed (and encouraged).

I wasn't too sure if it was so thanks for that OllyW.

 

[*LTD*]

Umm actually you are wrong.

In the EU we have something called the EU Copyright Directive, that all member states have agreed to. It is MORE restrictive than the DMCA and endorses EULAs.

MS got hammered because they were charging licence fees for PCs made by OEMs that didn't come with Windows. That is anticompetitive and illegal.

Apple own OS X and have the right to say it should only be run on their computers.

Thanks for the clarification. I was wondering what this whole Germany situation was about.