Os X Eula

[pjkelnhofer]

Does anyone know where I can track down a copy of the EULA for Panther (I cannot get to my Mac for a while). I have heard from some other places that it is written in the EULA that it is illegal to install Apple Software on a non-Apple system (for example, a generic PPC system running Linux and using Mac-On-Linux). I am trying to track down this portion of the agreement in particular so I can show it to a copyright lawyer friend of mine as to whether Apple would really be able to enforce this.

After, I bought it, if I only install it on one computer what difference does it make if it is manufactured by Apple?

 

[MisterMe]

Re: Os X Eula

Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
Does anyone know where I can track down a copy of the EULA for Panther (I cannot get to my Mac for a while). I have heard from some other places that it is written in the EULA that it is illegal to install Apple Software on a non-Apple system (for example, a generic PPC system running Linux and using Mac-On-Linux). I am trying to track down this portion of the agreement in particular so I can show it to a copyright lawyer friend of mine as to whether Apple would really be able to enforce this.

After, I bought it, if I only install it on one computer what difference does it make if it is manufactured by Apple?

You have no standing on the issue until you buy your own MacOS X license.

 

[pjkelnhofer]

Re: Re: Os X Eula

Originally posted by MisterMe
You have no standing on the issue until you buy your own MacOS X license.

Two things:
1) I have a license. I own Panther already, but as I mentioned I am away from my Mac right now so I cannot look at it any time soon.
2) Even if I didn't and I just wanted to read the EULA first there should be some way to read it before I pay the $129. What if I decide I don't accept Apple's EULA can I send it back and get my money back?

The whole point is that I want to read the rules - before I build a non-Apple computer and buy Panther for it.

 

[Sun Baked]

http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Images/MacOSX103.html

2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.

A. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time,and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time. You may make one copy of the Apple Software (excluding the Boot ROM code) in machine-readable form for backup purposes only; provided that the backup copy must include all copyright or other proprietary notices contained on the original.

Of course if anybody is really going to get audited, it would probably be a business -- and it would probably be by the www.bsa.org

Unless somebody really makes themselves visible or gets caught up in an investigation.

 

[pjkelnhofer]

Originally posted by Sun Baked
Of course if anybody is really going to get audited, it would probably be a business -- and it would probably be by the www.bsa.org

Unless somebody really makes themselves visible or gets caught up in an investigation.

So if I stick a label on my computer that says "Apple" I am all set.

 

[MisterMe]

Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
So if I stick a label on my computer that says "Apple" I am all set.

Sure, you are a counterfeiter.

 

[Duff-Man]

Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
So if I stick a label on my computer that says "Apple" I am all set.

Duff-Man says...I know you are just kidding...but it does bring up an interesting point that should be clarified perhaps in the license agreement in that the wording is not clear...there could be a difference betweeen a computer with an "Apple-Brand" on it (ie - removing the logo from another and pasting it on) and a computer "Branded *by* Apple" - just another thing for lawyers to argue about and get rich over.....oh yeah!

 

[pjkelnhofer]

Originally posted by Duff-Man
Duff-Man says...I know you are just kidding...but it does bring up an interesting point that should be clarified perhaps in the license agreement in that the wording is not clear...there could be a difference betweeen a computer with an "Apple-Brand" on it (ie - removing the logo from another and pasting it on) and a computer "Branded *by* Apple" - just another thing for lawyers to argue about and get rich over.....oh yeah!

Thank you Duff-Man I am glad you realized that I was kidding! So I guess it is technically a violation to build a PPC computer onself and then to run OS X via Mac-on-Linux. Very interesting. I am going to have my lawyer friend read the wording, but since it is not really his field, I am not sure he will give me a good answer.

 

[pjkelnhofer]

Upon once again reading the license the term "Apple-labeled" is never defined. It just seems like very odd wording.

edited out typo

 

[carbonmotion]

i had to buy 2 copies of panther...poop

 

[pjkelnhofer]

Originally posted by carbonmotion
i had to buy 2 copies of panther...poop

I would agree to the buying of a second copy, but it seems ridiculous to not be able to install it on anything but an Apple machine after you have paid for it.

 

[carbonmotion]

i dont think we should pick on apple so much, i mean if you really hated their products, we'd just buy something else....like windows xp.

 

[pjkelnhofer]

Originally posted by carbonmotion
i dont think we should pick on apple so much, i mean if you really hated their products, we'd just buy something else....like windows xp.

I love their products. I just want to build my own PPC computer to see if it works and I think it is a little ridiculous that it would be illegal to install the software on a non-Apple computer even if I pay for the license.

 

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
I would agree to the buying of a second copy, but it seems ridiculous to not be able to install it on anything but an Apple machine after you have paid for it.

If it's for your home...

Use it on a CHRP/'PowerPC Platform' machine if you aren't loud about it. But they're not always cheap Mac alternatives.

If it's for a business...

Don't risk it.

Because any employee you piss off can turn you in for the reward from the BSA for any "illegal" software on your machines. I hear their audit is usually worse that an IRS probe.

 

[pjkelnhofer]

Originally posted by Sun Baked
If it's for your home...

Use it on a CHRP/'PowerPC Platform' machine if you aren't loud about it. But they're not always cheap Mac alternatives.

If it's for a business...

Oh it's just for fun...
plus since I have everything else already (from my girlfriend's now unused Dell) and I can get a 1 GHz G4 microATX board for under $700 it is still cheaper than buying a used 1 GHz G4 tower on eBay. Plus, I am very interested to see what works and what doesn't if I get MOL working.

 

[Nermal]

I'm sure Apple doesn't really care. I mean, look at the Pegasos PowerPC systems - the "Supported Operating Systems" page on their site states that you can run Mac OS under MOL. I'm sure Apple would have asked them to remove that by now if they cared about it.

I remember several years ago, before getting a Mac, I was using the "Fusion" emulator to emulate a 68040 on my DOS computer. And the "Apple-labelled" topic came up in the mailing list once. It was decided that you had to stick an Apple label on your PC if your Mac OS licence stated that you needed one

 

[ingenious]

Come On!

I hate it that the EULA states that it can only be installed on one computer..... blah blah blah
but theres that clause about "running at the same time' you know!


If you buy a CD/DVD w/ an OS on it, u should be able to install it as many times as needed.

Example:

Computer lab at school and one license of Panther.

Get the picture?

I hate XP's registration. That's another plus for mac. no piracy tracking. I guess everyone's piracy could technically be called civil disobedience. Doesn't that get you some immunity in court? (i.e. music industry lawsuits over piracy )

 

[bousozoku]

Re: Come On!

Originally posted by Calebj14
I hate it that the EULA states that it can only be installed on one computer..... blah blah blah
but theres that clause about "running at the same time' you know!


If you buy a CD/DVD w/ an OS on it, u should be able to install it as many times as needed.

Example:

Computer lab at school and one license of Panther.

Get the picture?

I hate XP's registration. That's another plus for mac. no piracy tracking. I guess everyone's piracy could technically be called civil disobedience. Doesn't that get you some immunity in court? (i.e. music industry lawsuits over piracy )

You buy a big enough licence and I'm sure Apple will let you put it on as many machines as you like. Have a few million dollars?

 

[Duff-Man]

Re: Come On!

Originally posted by Calebj14
I hate it that the EULA states that it can only be installed on one computer..... blah blah blah
but theres that clause about "running at the same time' you know!

If you buy a CD/DVD w/ an OS on it, u should be able to install it as many times as needed.

Duff-Man says....that is why Apple sells the "Family Pack" (for home users) and if you contact them in regards to volume licenses for business/education I am sure you'll get a very fair deal....after all, Apple *wants* people to switch to OS X...but at the same time they are running a business, not a charity.....oh yeah!

 

[Sun Baked]

Re: Come On!

Originally posted by Calebj14
If you buy a CD/DVD w/ an OS on it, u should be able to install it as many times as needed.

Funny thing is the FBI thinks your ass should be in jail, and to let you know they are serious about it...

FBI Warning to Be More Widely Used
Jon Healey

Shoppers who buy music CDs, videogames and software may soon be greeted by a message familiar to anyone who buys or rents movies: a warning from the FBI not to make illegal copies.

Representatives of the FBI announced that they were making a new version of their anti-piracy warning available to the entertainment and software industries, along with a letter cautioning the public about copyright infringement, obscenity and hacking on peer-to-peer networks.

How those industries use the two-sentence warning and two-page letter has yet to be decided, but representatives of the music, game and software industries all indicated that they planned to incorporate the warning into their packaged and downloadable products.

— Jon Healey

 

[pjkelnhofer]

Re: Re: Come On!

Originally posted by Sun Baked
Funny thing is the FBI thinks your ass should be in jail, and to let you know they are serious about it...

The warning is about making copies. We are talking about installing on non-"Apple labelled" machines. Does the FBI warning say anything about that?

 

[Sun Baked]

Re: Re: Re: Come On!

Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
The warning is about making copies. We are talking about installing on non-"Apple labelled" machines. Does the FBI warning say anything about that?

Calebj14 was talking about installing as many times as pleased his evil little heart.

But if the warning is against copyright infringement, and "if" the use of unlicensed copies falls under that umbrella -- then it probably would include them as well.

Since using OS X on a non-Apple branded machine would mean making and using an unlicensed copy of OS X.

But the BSA is a pain for businesses of any size, and the FBI really only goes after the big fish cases.

 

[pjkelnhofer]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Come On!

Originally posted by Sun Baked
Calebj14 was talking about installing as many times as pleased his evil little heart.

But if the warning is against copyright infringement, and "if" the use of unlicensed copies falls under that umbrella -- then it probably would include them as well.

Since using OS X on a non-Apple branded machine would mean making and using an unlicensed copy of OS X.

But the BSA is a pain for businesses of any size, and the FBI really only goes after the big fish cases.

It seems to me that there is a major difference between installing one copy of multiple machines, and installing a single copy (for which you have purchased the license) onto a machine that is not Apple-labelled. Especially since the term "Apple-labelled" is used in the EULA, but never defined.

So, if I buy a used G4 that has an Apple label on it, that is Apple-labelled and okay.
What if I put it into a different case? Am I now violating the EULA when I install something on it since the Apple-label is no longer on it?
That seems a little extreme, but then where do you draw the line. What needs to be Apple-labelled? The processor card, the logic board, the case?
I would guess in Apple's mind it would be the logic board, but that is not clear to someone who is Accepting the EULA.

As Nermal pointed out Pegasos makes and sells a PPC based ATX style motherboard. They open touts that it can run Mac OS via Mac-on-Linux (in fact MOL is included with it), I would think if Apple would put a stop to this if it were truly against the EULA to install OS X on such a machine.

 

[Sun Baked]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Come On!

Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
It seems to me that there is a major difference between installing one copy of multiple machines, and installing a single copy (for which you have purchased the license) onto a machine that is not Apple-labelled. Especially since the term "Apple-labelled" is used in the EULA, but never defined.

At the core, it's the same thing -- you're installing and using unlicensed copies.

To enforce it against somebody with a single unlicensed copy is too expensive -- unless it's a business. And the BSA will strike against businesses if somebody turns the company they work for (or used to work for) into the BSA.

Apple has acted on companies looking to repackage upgraded older machines, while letting licensed companies that repackage current machines continue to operate. In fact, they even went as far as allowing a company offering faraday caged Mac Plus/SE style machines put on the Apple Logo -- since it met Apple's quality standard and further helped hide the machines nature.

If Pegasos stating giving away (or selling) a copy of OS X with each machine Apple probably would act. But it really hasn't been a problem since it isn't too visible.

If Apple saw that they were losing a decent chunk of revenue, they'd most likely act.

 

[rainman::|:|]

realistically, this is just a way to reaffirm that Apple does not support Mac clones, as they briefly did in the 90s... i doubt they give a damn about smalltime use, but they don't want other companies out there selling Mac OS compatable PCs...

paul