Gees, get a life man....
I wonder what kind of religious mind votes negative on a such news. If they bought the software, it's not piracy.
Just like it would not be piracy, if you mod a legally obtained OS 10.6 to work on PowerPC.
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.
Linking to "patches" on the front page?
- Thread starter *LTD*
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Gees, get a life man....
I wonder what kind of religious mind votes negative on a such news. If they bought the software, it's not piracy.
Just like it would not be piracy, if you mod a legally obtained OS 10.6 to work on PowerPC.
But OS X is subject Apple's software license. Using an open source kernel to circumvent Apple's software license is still a violation of said software license.
If you bought OS X and you clicked your agreement with the EULA, and you're doing this, you're in violation. If you're downloading a modified copy of OS X via torrents, and you're doing this, you're in violation. You're hacking OS X to run on unauthorized Apple hardware, and in this case, MR is helping you do it by pointing you to the website that shows you how.
It's not piracy. But it is facilitating the circumvention of Apple's software license agreement. That's the sticking point here. Apple's EULA was recently upheld in court. In fact, it followed a long string of EULAs being upheld in court. Hackintosh users are in violation of Apple's software license. It's that simple. The reason Apple doesn't go after them is because it would be realistically unworkable. For now. Nothing preventing them from going after one or two individuals, however, in order to prove their point. This can happen at any time, subjective PR issues aside.
MR ignores the rules in this area, then what's next? I guarantee if I started to spout off obscenities at you and call you all kinds of names the mods would be on me like flies on ish. Or maybe not?
This Atom hack feels more and more like copyright violation. What gets distributed? Is it a full patched copy of OSX, or a small patching routine? Since the OSX being patched doesn't run, what machine is the patching being done on?
Up to now, I've thought of hackintoshing as an interesting technical exercise, modifying your machine to make it capable of loading OSX. But I think this crosses a line. This is a lot more like forging a license key to run a copy of Windows.
If you care.
That's what I'm curious about. What, if any, obligations does Apple have towards the GPL in regards to the open source code they have utilized? (I guess, more clearly, can Apple's license agreement simply disregard any obligations to the GPL, if those obligations even exist?)
If the process that checks for CPU compatibility is purely of Apple's origin, than obviously it's Apple's right to do with as they please. But if it's code derived from open source software, wouldn't it potentially be legal to modify it?
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
Yes, piracy is piracy, but one way Apple sells hardware and hardware is their goal and other way they sell nothing because 99.99 of hacintoshes run hacked OS X from p2p or other sources.
I'm not arguing that part of Mac users do the same.
if you have a copy of OS X, and you've made it run on unauthorized hardware, regardless of the means, you're in violation of the license agreement, open source kernel or not. I highly doubt you can compile OS X from scratch and customize it for unauthorized hardware. At some point you're going to run into code or functions that are critical to the system and which are proprietary.
But yes, I'm curious as well to see Apple obligations re GPL. I know that you can play around with Darwin to your heart's content, for example (if I'm not mistaken.)
I'm gonna complain to my local news stations whenever they report on drugs or gun trafficking because that might encourage me to go buy drugs and guns AND it might tell me their names so i can look for them when they get out of prison!
*LTD*, you thoroughly entertaining thing: In the '70s Steve Jobs was earning the money necessary to later start up Apple proper by selling blue boxes, devices for illegally obtaining long distance telephone service.
Although it's an issue between the telecomms company, SJ, and maybe the police, which has been settled pages/decades ago, shouldn't you be weighing in on it, calling for SJ to be sent to jail for his illegal part in illegally obtaining pirated service and involving himself in the promotion and sale of those illegal devices which are against the EULA for 'phone service?
Also, this post is not sold to you, only licensed, and by reading to this paragraph you agree to give me a peck on the cheek. If you do not give me a peck on the cheek you lose all rights to this post, and must hunt down and wipe any copies in your browser cache or in un-zeroed free space on your hard drive. Also, the remaining magnetic domain pattern on your drive will be considered a creative derivative work. Respect my rights as a content creator! I didn't even ask you to pay a fee before getting a chance to read the terms - how cool is that?
Although it's an issue between the telecomms company, SJ, and maybe the police, which has been settled pages/decades ago, shouldn't you be weighing in on it, calling for SJ to be sent to jail for his illegal part in illegally obtaining pirated service and involving himself in the promotion and sale of those illegal devices which are against the EULA for 'phone service?
Also, this post is not sold to you, only licensed, and by reading to this paragraph you agree to give me a peck on the cheek. If you do not give me a peck on the cheek you lose all rights to this post, and must hunt down and wipe any copies in your browser cache or in un-zeroed free space on your hard drive. Also, the remaining magnetic domain pattern on your drive will be considered a creative derivative work. Respect my rights as a content creator! I didn't even ask you to pay a fee before getting a chance to read the terms - how cool is that?
.. ... .
*LTD*, you thoroughly entertaining thing: In the '70s Steve Jobs was earning the money necessary to later start up Apple proper by selling blue boxes, devices for illegally obtaining long distance telephone service.
Ok.
Although it's an issue between the telecomms company, SJ, and maybe the police, which has been settled pages/decades ago, shouldn't you be weighing in on it, calling for SJ to be sent to jail for his illegal part in illegally obtaining pirated service and involving himself in the promotion and sale of those illegal devices which are against the EULA for 'phone service?
Has nothing to do with Macrumors' articlet and the relevant section of the forum rules. But I assume you're joking.
Also, this post is not sold to you, only licensed, and by reading to this paragraph you agree to give me a peck on the cheek. If you do not give me a peck on the cheek you lose all rights to this post, and must hunt down and wipe any copies in your browser cache or in un-zeroed free space on your hard drive. Also, the remaining magnetic domain pattern on your drive will be considered a creative derivative work. Respect my rights as a content creator! I didn't even ask you to pay a fee before getting a chance to read the terms - how cool is that?
Where's my Agree/Disagree option as required?
Yeah, the EULA in general might not hold up in court either, which is what LTD has his panties in a bunch over. MR's rules seem much more geared towards actual piracy, not buying Snow Leopard and using it how you wish. Apple's EULA is pretty sketchy in that regard, and I think it's hilarious how furious he is over people who use OSX in any way they choose (after buying it).
So have 9 to 5 Mac and AppleInsider links to the MacWorld story which links to the hack. The entire Apple community is rotten to the core
Depends on their forum rules.
Not sure whether the following applies just to new posts or forums, or whether there is a difference.
http://www.macworld.com/info/tos.html
You may participate in any forums or messaging threads offered through the Service, but you agree not to post any material the content of which (i) is defamatory, libelous, obscene, indecent, abusive, threatening to others, or in violation of any law; or (ii) infringes the copyright, trademark right, or other intellectual property right of any third party. You will be solely responsible for all content that you post on the Service.
http://www.macworld.com/article/143977/2009/11/atom_hack.html
Macworld has posted link(s) to here:
http://teateam.blogspot.com/2009/11/mac-os-x-1062.html
Not sure if posting links = "post any material the content of which." Unlike Macworld, Macrumors is very specific and clear in this area.
Macworld might very well be in violation of their TOS, provided the TOS applies to news articles.
So have 9 to 5 Mac and AppleInsider links to the MacWorld story which links to the hack. The entire Apple community is rotten to the core
Seems article hits sometimes take precedence over the rules. Too bad, really. Not only does it suggest hypocrisy, it also sends a fairly negative message to everyone else. Of course, these things often go unnoticed until someone at some point gets curious.
As far as I know Apple doesn't use GPL software. They have FreeBSD code which is under the BSD license. Plus theres Apache which is the Apache License.
Re: Open Source.
http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/
H. Certain components of the Apple Software, and third party open source programs included with the Apple Software, have been or may be made available by Apple on its Open Source web site (http://www.opensource.apple.com/) (collectively the "Open-Sourced Components"). You may modify or replace only these Open-Sourced Components; provided that: (i) the resultant modified Apple Software is used, in place of the unmodified Apple Software, on a single Apple- branded computer; and (ii) you otherwise comply with the terms of this License and any applicable licensing terms governing use of the Open-Sourced Components. Apple is not obligated to provide any updates, maintenance, warranty, technical or other support, or services for the resultant modified Apple Software.
I. You may not and you agree not to, or to enable others to, copy (except as expressly permitted by this License), decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, attempt to derive the source code of, decrypt, modify, or create derivative works of the Apple Software or any services provided by the Apple Software, or any part thereof (except as and only to the extent any foregoing restriction is prohibited by applicable law or to the extent as may be permitted by licensing terms governing use of Open-Sourced Components). You agree to use the Apple Software and the Services (as defined in Section 5 below) in compliance with all applicable laws, including local laws of the country or region in which you reside or in which you download or use the Apple Software and Services.
http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/
H. Certain components of the Apple Software, and third party open source programs included with the Apple Software, have been or may be made available by Apple on its Open Source web site (http://www.opensource.apple.com/) (collectively the "Open-Sourced Components"). You may modify or replace only these Open-Sourced Components; provided that: (i) the resultant modified Apple Software is used, in place of the unmodified Apple Software, on a single Apple- branded computer; and (ii) you otherwise comply with the terms of this License and any applicable licensing terms governing use of the Open-Sourced Components. Apple is not obligated to provide any updates, maintenance, warranty, technical or other support, or services for the resultant modified Apple Software.
I. You may not and you agree not to, or to enable others to, copy (except as expressly permitted by this License), decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, attempt to derive the source code of, decrypt, modify, or create derivative works of the Apple Software or any services provided by the Apple Software, or any part thereof (except as and only to the extent any foregoing restriction is prohibited by applicable law or to the extent as may be permitted by licensing terms governing use of Open-Sourced Components). You agree to use the Apple Software and the Services (as defined in Section 5 below) in compliance with all applicable laws, including local laws of the country or region in which you reside or in which you download or use the Apple Software and Services.
LTD, do you want to be a lawyer? Or are you just trolling?
Clearly, this "breaking of the rules" doesn't matter a bit, or admins would have taken the link down hours ago.
If you want to complain about "the rules" further, go to the suggestions forum. As it is, you're just embarrassing yourself and spamming up this thread.
Clearly, this "breaking of the rules" doesn't matter a bit, or admins would have taken the link down hours ago.
If you want to complain about "the rules" further, go to the suggestions forum. As it is, you're just embarrassing yourself and spamming up this thread.
APSL is nothing to do with Apache.
Psh I assumed that. APSL is used for Apache as well. :/
Read Edit.
This "breaking of the rules" doesn't matter one bit? What's your opinion on that? I'm dying to know.
Would it matter whether I broke the rule about forum conduct? How about I call you all kinds of obscenities and find interesting ways to threaten you online, via these forums? Would you like that? Think I could get away with it without being reported? Would you like to see me get away with it constantly, with no action taken by the mods?
I think you see what I'm getting at . . .
And by the way, we're discussing Open Source now. I've advised mods of the issue with the article, and would be interested in their answer. But if anyone has further questions about the article and how it relates to the rules, I think we should all be free to answer them. Seems like an interesting and relevant topic, especially in light of recent information, starting at about . . . oh, post #10.
It's not piracy. A patch like this only overwrites data that is already on your disk. We assume someone bought Mac OS X. This modifies the copy they own by writing over top of it. It is not a modified copy, which would be a copyright violation.