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
Bravo, and do you see the irony that your generating all the hits on this story and keeping it going with constant spam of the the forum rules. If you stopped going on and on about the same point it would be dead by now.
No it's not, unless you're discussing it in very broad, general terms.
"Do not . . . refer people to specific techniques . . ."
If this was a control freak change, Apple would have made it in some part of the OS that isn't open source, like the checks they did in Rosetta and such that blew up on hackintosh machines. Instead, they made it in the open source kernel. You can't hide stuff like this in the open, so I stand by my statement that this was fixing a flawed logic check.
Intel ships a number of various CPUs with varying capabilities. Assuming "anything newer then 13 is better" is a bad check.
I suppose I should have worded my other part of the statement to "any cpu you can physically plug into a Mac, and is compatible with the chipset". The Atom is not pin compatible with any CPU Apple ships or supports.
This won't block legitimate consumers. Apple users have been upgrading CPUs for a long time, going back to the PowerPC days, and the PowerPC side of the kernel has similar checks as well.
Everyone loves a conspiracy I guess...
That's nonsense. EULAs don't apply to boxed software in Germany. That's been for almost a decade now.
And I don't even speak about http://pearc.de/ and which company failed in getting a preliminary injunction...
This has to stop!
Let me quote Macrumors' INSTANTLY BANNABLE OFFENSES:
"Spam and overposting. Not just being a prolific poster, but posting the same exact post many times, posting multiple pointless posts in the same thread, making numerous posts with no real content, or posting for the purpose of gaining a higher post count. This will get you banned"
I believe, some of your 40 (!) posts out of the 200 in this thread would qualify. You made your point, there is nothing that cannot be summarized in a few posts. This is a forum for the public, it should not be hijacked by anyone's ego.
Ironically, those 'better-informed' Mac users cannot install Snow Leopard on their hardware not just from 2004 but from even a year later. It turned out, that Apple forgot to warn them that soon, it was going to start selling PCs with Mac OS X installed and at one point, their OS would not support former hardware.
About the Ferrari analogy - yes, you can purchase a Ferrari engine and you can purchase any major part from Ferrari; and you can put them in several other cars that you like, as long as you are crazy, tasteless and rich enough. It is a mad idea, but it is not impossible. However, there are significantly more reasons to install OS X on a non-Apple hardware. Also, you cannot mix the Hackintosh phenomenon with piracy. Pirates don't pay for the software. Many Hackintosh users do and would be willing. It's only Apple, that does not support its software if it is installed on third party hardware. I wonder what would have happened if MS had the same attitude about Boot Camp.
Now, if you excuse me, I have WORK to do. Also, I have a LIFE. And I'm talking about the real stuff, not iWork and iLife.
Let me quote Macrumors' INSTANTLY BANNABLE OFFENSES:
"Spam and overposting. Not just being a prolific poster, but posting the same exact post many times, posting multiple pointless posts in the same thread, making numerous posts with no real content, or posting for the purpose of gaining a higher post count. This will get you banned"
I believe, some of your 40 (!) posts out of the 200 in this thread would qualify. You made your point, there is nothing that cannot be summarized in a few posts. This is a forum for the public, it should not be hijacked by anyone's ego.
Ironically, those 'better-informed' Mac users cannot install Snow Leopard on their hardware not just from 2004 but from even a year later. It turned out, that Apple forgot to warn them that soon, it was going to start selling PCs with Mac OS X installed and at one point, their OS would not support former hardware.
About the Ferrari analogy - yes, you can purchase a Ferrari engine and you can purchase any major part from Ferrari; and you can put them in several other cars that you like, as long as you are crazy, tasteless and rich enough. It is a mad idea, but it is not impossible. However, there are significantly more reasons to install OS X on a non-Apple hardware. Also, you cannot mix the Hackintosh phenomenon with piracy. Pirates don't pay for the software. Many Hackintosh users do and would be willing. It's only Apple, that does not support its software if it is installed on third party hardware. I wonder what would have happened if MS had the same attitude about Boot Camp.
Now, if you excuse me, I have WORK to do. Also, I have a LIFE. And I'm talking about the real stuff, not iWork and iLife.
Dell is pretty good with their BIOS updates. The older AMD systems could be upgraded to Phenom processors even though they didn't ship until the later versions of the same model. The same can be said of their current AMD systems. The base Sempron and Athlon II models are getting BIOS updates for their later revisions that imbue the older purchases with new CPU support as well.
Merom was a relatively simple drop in to Yonah. Yorkfield from Kentsfield raised a ton of issues and a delay in release as well.
I miss the old Apple Service Manuals site before the newer late PowerPC and Intel ones were taken down. I was lucky to save a few but Apple seems to want to limit those to certified technicians and the training material.
There is another irony about that quote. Whilst quoting rules and regulations, LTD's signature is in breach of Penton Media's terms of use. (Penton media own winsupersite)
http://www.penton.com/TermsofUse/tabid/71/Default.aspx
I assume that because his signature is a dig at Microsoft that he'll feel less passionately about this breach of rules.
Feel free to continue this forum feedback in this thread. I personally have no opinion on the matter. Generally, it's best to start these kind of threads in this forum as to not deviate the original thread off topic or to contact the mod team and wait for a response. Discussions can take time as we all aren't on at the same time so it can sometimes be a few days.
If you think your post (or large parts of your post) and subsequent posts should be moved back to the original thread, feel free to send me a PM or report the post.
If you think your post (or large parts of your post) and subsequent posts should be moved back to the original thread, feel free to send me a PM or report the post.
Sorry to burst your bubble. There is no irony.
Copyright laws make a distinction between quotations that may be considered 'fair dealing' and those that may not, and it is only the latter for which permission need be requested.
Guess which area my sig falls under.
And Paul Thurrott's blog here (http://www.internet-nexus.com/2004_12_05_archive.htm#110234010699210918) does not fall under Penton Media. Search for the quotation (or any part of it) on Winsupersite, and you won't find it.
Which means, ultimately, that I can do this:
-----------------------------
"YAY! I've recently had a hard drive die on me. My 320GB Western digital hard drive started clicking the other day so I pulled all the data off of it (just in case) and thought I'd leave it until the thing completely went.
Tonight was the night that the magic happened.
"(Charles Clout, http://chazrants.blogspot.com/)
-------------------------------
Oh well. I guess i fail as much as my hard driveSorry to burst your bubble. There is no irony.
Copyright laws make a distinction between quotations that may be considered 'fair dealing' and those that may not, and it is only the latter for which permission need be requested.
Guess which area my sig falls under.
And Paul Thurrott's blog here (http://www.internet-nexus.com/2004_12_05_archive.htm#110234010699210918) does not fall under Penton Media. Search for the quotation (or any part of it) on Winsupersite, and you won't find it.
Which means, ultimately, that I can do this:
-----------------------------
"YAY! I've recently had a hard drive die on me. My 320GB Western digital hard drive started clicking the other day so I pulled all the data off of it (just in case) and thought I'd leave it until the thing completely went.
Tonight was the night that the magic happened.
(Charles Clout, http://chazrants.blogspot.com/)
-------------------------------
(thankfully I lost no data in the hard drive failure)
Oh well. I guess i fail as much as my hard drive
(thankfully I lost no data in the hard drivr failure)
No worries. Sorry to hear about your drive.
Apple does not own the rights to the mach_kernel.
The "hack" is to a piece of software that Apple has no authority or ownership of.
The mach_kernel is open source and can be modified and distributed by anyone provided they include the copyright and permission notice in the file.
Apple wrongfully attempts to cover all of the open source components of OS X under their APSL.
Granted, modifying this file does allow one to violate the OS X license, but I wonder how well Apple's license would hold up if it were tested in court given this conflict of terms.
There seems to be conflict in the two licensing terms when one considers that OS X is really an extension of Mach OS (BSD).
Just some observations.
The "hack" is to a piece of software that Apple has no authority or ownership of.
The mach_kernel is open source and can be modified and distributed by anyone provided they include the copyright and permission notice in the file.
Apple wrongfully attempts to cover all of the open source components of OS X under their APSL.
Granted, modifying this file does allow one to violate the OS X license, but I wonder how well Apple's license would hold up if it were tested in court given this conflict of terms.
There seems to be conflict in the two licensing terms when one considers that OS X is really an extension of Mach OS (BSD).
Just some observations.
Mach isn't an OS. It's a kernel. Apple's Darwin kernel is a derivative work of Mach and not Mach itself. The BSD license permits redistributing code under another license, as long as the copyright notices are intact.
As such, Apple has done nothing wrong in their use of the BSD licensed portions of the Mach kernel.
On top of that, the issue is that the Darwin kernel may be open source, but Mac OS X isn't. There's more to OS X than just the kernel, and the license covers the use of the entire operating system. This license does not grant you any rights to install OS X on an Atom based computer not sold by Apple.
If you want that right, you are free to gather up all the open source portions of OS X and build your own distribution. It will lack important components like Quartz (to mention the biggest one), but it will be OS X without any of the restrictions imposed on the real OS X.
Since when is it illegal to modify and distribute open source software like the Mac OS X kernel? The source code can be dowanloaded straight from APPLE But I am surprised they did not come up with a modified boot loader that reported it as a core 2 duo/solo that was used in a real mac so they could not block it.
And yes, my hackintosh's leopard install is straight from a Leopard family pack disk that I own and has only 1 other install in use on it which is my PowerBook.
But I am surprised they did not come up with a modified boot loader that reported it as a core 2 duo/solo that was used in a real mac so they could not block it.And yes, my hackintosh's leopard install is straight from a Leopard family pack disk that I own and has only 1 other install in use on it which is my PowerBook.
Since when is it illegal to modify and distribute open source software like the Mac OS X kernel? The source code can be dowanloaded straight from APPLE
And yes, my hackintosh's leopard install is straight from a Leopard family pack disk that I own and has only 1 other install in use on it which is my PowerBook.
Depends what you do with your modified Mach kernel. If you use it to violate Apple's EULA, then you're no longer in the clear. Even if your Leopard install is straight from a family pack disc, you're still in violation.
Since when is it illegal to modify and distribute open source software like the Mac OS X kernel? The source code can be dowanloaded straight from APPLE
And yes, my hackintosh's leopard install is straight from a Leopard family pack disk that I own and has only 1 other install in use on it which is my PowerBook.
It's not against the license to distribute the open source portions of OS X (from binaries you built yourself, using the source code Apple proviided). However, it is against Apple's EULA to install your legitimately acquired copy of Leopard unto hardware that isn't sold or made by Apple. You're then in breach of Apple's license agreement. On top of that, by modifying Apple's distribution (which is not under the ASPL), you have created a derivative work which isn't officially licensed. You are now doing something very illegal.
You have to remember that Apple is the copyright owner of all portions of OS X and as such, can license their binary distribution under closed terms without violating the BSD license (even Microsoft uses BSD licensed code without opening their own source code or giving you distribution rights). This means you can't tamper with or distribute their binaries, or else, you're guilty of copyright infringement.
The code is opensource, OS X is not.
Lots of talk...
ok, I'll make it simple. Forum rules are outdated. We don't police EULAs.
For longer explanation:
Forum Rules regarding license agreements was written in December 2005: http://guides.macrumors.com/index.php?title=Help:Forum_Rules&oldid=7342
The updated position on it was here (2008):
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/4958453/
We don't police EULAs. We do try to stamp out things that are illegal (against the law).
People want to talk about Hackintoshes? Sure, I guess that's ok... expect it spawns hundreds with posts like this with arguments and gets shut down.
We linked it off the front page because it was newsworthy.
arn
ok, I'll make it simple. Forum rules are outdated. We don't police EULAs.
For longer explanation:
Forum Rules regarding license agreements was written in December 2005: http://guides.macrumors.com/index.php?title=Help:Forum_Rules&oldid=7342
The updated position on it was here (2008):
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/4958453/
We don't police EULAs. We do try to stamp out things that are illegal (against the law).
People want to talk about Hackintoshes? Sure, I guess that's ok... expect it spawns hundreds with posts like this with arguments and gets shut down.
We linked it off the front page because it was newsworthy.
arn
It is interesting to notice how those who whine the most about name calling happen to be among the greatest offenders:
Apparently, 'the rules' do not apply to him.
I completely agree - you cannot separate the open source portions of OS X from the proprietary components of the OS itself.
The owners of MacRumors reserve the right to:
remove, edit, move, or close any discussion or message for any reason.
close memberships that are detrimental to the forum community.
make changes to the forum rules without notice.
Fair enough. You've made the change. I didn't read anywhere under the FAQ/Rules, however, that the rules I'm reading are "outdated." Why not publish your updated position in the Rules/FAQ section where it *should* be? Why bury it somewhere else?
There was a good reason you included Section 3 (regarding license agreements/copyright and violations) under "Things not to do." Some of those reasons were legal; some of them were in the interest of due diligence and acknowledgement of third party IP rights. You seem to have thrown all that out now (or created exceptions) because you've figured out that discussion of EULA violations (and linking to sites contrary to Section 3) generates hits, and members seem to like discussing thr subject. But you're using the term "newsworthy." Which is fine, since it's your site. I'd simply like to call a spade a spade.
So in this light, you needed to throw out your entire EULA rule (even though it's still there) because you're going to end up violating Section 3 of your own rules anyway. But why is it not published formally in the FAQ/Rules section (why hide it from public view)? As it is YOUR site, you have a right to violate your own rules, even though Section 3 was put in place for a logical reason. Naturally, when no one should violate them, yet the site admins go ahead and do it anyway on a regular basis, it sort of negates the point of having the rule. So you've thrown that out. I understand this. Except the rule still exists in the FAQ/Rules section, for some reason.
But by doing so, and linking to insanelymac in the original MR article, you're getting very close to a DMCA violation. There have been 3 court cases in the US where sites were forced to take down links leading to infringing material on external sites. The sites were found guilty of "contributory infringement" for simply linking. (http://www.webtvwire.com/linking-to-infringing-content-is-probably-illegal-in-the-us/) Another area involves linking to software or devices which are designed to circumvent DRM devices, or links from websites whose sole purpose is to circumvent copyright protection by linking to copyrighted material. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act#Linking_to_infringing_content)
Section 3 of the Rules/FAQ covers this exactly. But you've decided to ingore some or all of it.
Although unclear the law leans in favor of the content owner, so if what you did was ever formally called into question, your position might not be very strong. A large number of cases never reach the courts where sites are served with takedown notices because the risk ignoring them (as they may otherwise face liability) is too great. (http://www.webtvwire.com/linking-to-infringing-content-is-probably-illegal-in-the-us/)
In any case, Macrumors and its owners have taken this risk because the overall payoff for the site in terms of hits and popularity seems to be too great. Nothing I can do about that.
My concern is that you haven't formally published your new position in the appropriate section in light of the fact that the current rule in Section 3 of "Things not do" is "outdated." What else in the FAQ/Rules is outdated? Making changes to the rules without notice is fine, but if members are going to read the FAQ/Rules section and take them seriously, then it might benefit them to make clear your ACTUAL position on Section 3 under "Things Not to Do."
Would you please publish your position as of 2008 to the FAQ/Rules section where it is easily accessible and visible to everyone?
And when you copy someone else's words verbatim, without any attempt to credit the original author/source, it's plagiarism.
The bolded sentences in the above quote were taken (word for word) from the article Linking to infringing content is probably illegal in the US.
Moving along to your next sentence...
And these words of yours (above) are a word for word quote from the Wikipedia article on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Tsk-tsk...
Keep trying.
Wikipedia is public domain, and usage of Wikipedia material falls under under "fair dealing." I don't need to credit anything or anyone in this case, although it's still cutomary to do it as a courtesy. I'm not bound to do so, however.
Don't attempt to deflect the issue.
We'll get to it. Like I said, it's outdated.
You've really been here long enough to know that this site is probably the most conservative around with regard to sensationalized headlines and link-baiting. We're not about just generating hits, and really have never been considering the fact that we're a "rumor" site.
arn