Psystar Releases 'Rebel EFI' Software to Enable Installation of Snow Leopard on PCs

[Mac Kiwi]

Definitely starting to look like these guys {Psystar} have some serious backing and cash on hand.


I wonder how MS feel about a serious amount of SL copies on PCs,if it all blows up in Apples face,would make life even more difficult for MS.

 

[ri0ku]

They just seemed to update the iso right now, its called rebelefi_latest ? dunno whats new

Anyway im going im bored of people in here talking about apple and laysuits as if they actually know whats going on in big companies as if they run one themselves.

Fact is none of you know silch on Apple other than the products it makes, your not in there legal team your not a coperate know it all you dont work in there industry so save it and talk about something you really know about.

 

[JohnDoe98]

Actually, the Psystar case is not about contract law issues or EULAs, it's about 2 things :

1- Distribution. They are selling you OS X installed on a computer. They are thus distributing OS X, but aren't licensed to do so. This is copyright infringment.

Of course the case for copyright infringement presupposes that they are not licenced to install the software on computers of their choosing, hence presupposes the validity of the EULA. So, the first point is about the EULA.

2- Circumvention. They are providing a tool or method that circumvents Apple's protection that prevent you to use their products in an unauthorised way. This is against provisions of the DMCA. Provisions that have been found valid and upheld in courts before (DVD Jon vs the DVD consortium, DeCSS case).

Agreed, but this again is only unauthorised circumvention provided the EULA stands, should the EULA not stand, the circumvention would be entirely appropriate.

The countersuit Psystar filed specifically against the EULA and Apple's "anti-competitive" practices was dismissed by the court in November 2008 meaning the judge didn't quite see it their way.

These people still harping on and on about the EULA this and Anti-trust that don't quite seem to understand that part of the case has already been decided and Psystar lost.

Should that be the case I stand corrected. So my only question at this point would be, is the dismissal concerning the EULA subject to a possible appeal?

 

[a1d2c4]

I've read most of the comments up until page 10 so I'd like to bring up a couple of issues. I'm not a current Mac owner/user.

A lot of people bring up the notion that for them, Apple is about the Hardware AND Software "Experience". Now I'd agree, there is something to the Software "Experience", but Hardware?? I'd say its the software. The HW has been for sometime now 'better' grade PC components made for Apple by other manufacturers. I've used XP (about same time OS X was released) all the way to Win 7, many Linux distros, FreeBSD, BeOS, Solaris, etc and still nothing beats or compares to OS X.

Now before going on, please note I feel OS X kicks some serious ass. I've never been happier and more productive than using OSX. Its the OS and the great (compared to PC) 3rd party apps. Heck, some OSS software had been better engineered than Windows versions (I've been a heavy user of TeX). The TeXLive distro is fantastically well integrated and one of the reasons I love using OS X.

I owned a 2nd Gen iMac G5. I was happy with the hardware in that it looked nice and worked. But, I found that as a more technical user, the expansionless internals of the system left much to be desired. I would have loved to at least add one extra HDD in the case. Couldn't and still can't. I found the FW and USB ports to be particularly finnicky - much more than any PC system. The nice, clean design for me was a misnomer as I had an external 2 HDD Raid enclosure and one external DVD drive. The built-in CD/DVD unit in the iMac was frankly retarded. It would jam up at least once or twice a week on fairly good quality standard burnt discs. Nothing my PC wouldn't handle. I'd need to reboot the system just to make use of the CD drive. Which is why I got the external. There goes the asthetics argument to me.

There's also been problems with Apple HW. Fans on 1st gen iMacs didn't work correctly. Defective nVidia chips (that was nV's fault) , etc.

The problem I have with the Apple HW experience is its also a PITA to get it fixed. If you don't live in a City with Apple shop or don't have a car to access one either you take time out of your day and arrange for Courrier pick-up and delivery to Apple or take a Cab/bus with a system. You're left w/o a working system. With a PC if the part is reasonably cheap to replace, and most you can get running for > $100, you can just replace yourself and warranty it later.

So maybe the system I had, had some problem parts (expansion slots) and CD/DVD drive. I felt Apple HW warranty claims to be such a PITA, I'd put up with it. Had it been a PC, a new $20 CD/DVD drive would have fixed it. In fact I have a $20 DVD burner I bought 3 years ago and not one single Jam. Maybe its because iMac has the side-loading, slot drives. I dunno, but doesn't reek of a qualtity premium-grade/price HW to me.

I love the software. What people with a PC do with OS X is their own responsibility. All I know is if I built my own Hackintosh, I'd have much better hardware in it than what I can get in an iMac (I can't afford the G5) for much cheaper. I'd have an expandable system that I would be more pleased with aesthetically (can pick the case etc). Dell and HP systems have cheap hardware. But if you 'build your own' and choose more premium parts PSU, Motherboard, Video Card, there IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON why these parts won't last as long or longer than the Apple parts. Apple doesn't manufacture its own stuff - it outsources it to other manufacturers to build under Apple spec.

I think Apple's choice to move to Intel was great. They didn't have much choice. But it opened Pandora's box.

The only people they might be losing to (or are more likely to) lose sales from are ethuiasts with the technical know-how, ability and desire to setup a hackintosh. Charge more money for the OS and don't provide support. If they charge $400 or $500 for OSX (which would be RETAIL for Windows 7 ultimate but infiinitely better) they'll make the same margins as they would with a mini or iMac. And the people doing this won't call Apple support. They use the Internet. When I owned an iMac and had one-year Apple care, I never called for support *** and I've never called any HW or SW manufacturers for support either.

I've also toyed with the latest iMac systems in the Apple stores for 1/2 hour. The HW itself, I'm indifferent to. I've tried some i5 and i7 systems and they don't 'feel' any better or worse. Software gets the job done.

 

[Bubba Satori]

Possibly, though I doubt it, since I believe even their previous effort was stolen from the OSx86 project.

Stolen literally or figuratively ? Should somebody call the police ?

 

[KnightWRX]

Yeah, it just returns Data. I ran file on the osxlinuz file though:

prometheus:test kellyl$ file osxlinuz 
osxlinuz: isolinux Loader

Now, I'm not sure if that's just the loader program, or if I can extract it. I tried gunzip, uncompress, and unzip...

If it's an ISO, you can always try mount -t iso9660 -o loopback (going from memory here) on it.

But it does look like Linux. Since you downloaded the product, it's time to send Psystar an e-mail and place a request to obtain their modified source code (or the non-modified one) along with any files needed in order to rebuild their isoLinuz image.

And a link to kernel.org doesn't satisfy the requirements of the GPL.

 

[PygmySurfer]

Stolen literally or figuratively ? Should somebody call the police ?

Figuratively - my understanding is the took the GPL-Licensed OSx86 code, modified it, and didn't release the changes back to the community under the terms of the GPL.

 

[KnightWRX]

Of course the case for copyright infringement presupposes that they are not licenced to install the software on computers of their choosing, hence presupposes the validity of the EULA. So, the first point is about the EULA.

The EULA doesn't grant them distribution rights. The EULA limits your usage of the software product. Agreeing to the EULA doesn't permit you in anyway to distribute OS X unless there is specific language in there that permits it. There is not.

This is not a EULA case. The EULA part was dropped. This is blantant copyright infringment. Only Apple can authorise distribution of OS X and I'm pretty sure they'd know if they did license it for distribution to Psystar. Also, Psystar has failed to produce even records of purchasing the copies of OS X during the discovery phase of the trial, meaning they weren't even entitled to use them themselves, much less distribute them.

Understand the case and the law before you comment on it.

Agreed, but this again is only unauthorised circumvention provided the EULA stands, should the EULA not stand, the circumvention would be entirely appropriate.

No, even if the EULA doesn't stand, the DMCA is quite clear on the circumvention mecanisms. Ask DVD Jon about it. He even tried to argue that DeCSS was used to promote interoperability, something that the DMCA specifically allows (the only thing it does in fact) as a reason to make and sell/distribution a circumvention method or tool and he failed miserably.

 

[Loudest]

You have the opportunity to go with a different company. So do it.

Did you actually read any of my posts? I have to use both Mac and Windows. Not everyone here is a one-sided fanboy. And because Apple refuses to offer some simple upgrade options, I'm still better off with my cheap Mac Mini and a separate PC. I'd be fine with giving Apple some more money, but in your arrogance you'd rather not have them take it.

 

[Eidorian]

I saw the Apple logo on my P55 tower.

I need get that P45 system back together.

 

[Lava Lamp Freak]

I think you should've read this one :

Mac desktops + portables = 4B revenues. Biggest revenue generator.

Thanks, I actually wasn't that far ahead in posts when I posted my last response, but I think that actually proved my point. They made more money off of music, iPod, and iPhone sales than they did off of desktops and laptops combined. That is 4.88b on music vs 3.96b on combined computer sales. Desktops are a very small part of their profit, which is where open Mac OS X would be most heavily cutting into. They could still remain viable in the $999 MacBook sales even with an open OS X on the market.

 

[PygmySurfer]

If it's an ISO, you can always try mount -t iso9660 -o loopback (going from memory here) on it.

But it does look like Linux. Since you downloaded the product, it's time to send Psystar an e-mail and place a request to obtain their modified source code (or the non-modified one) along with any files needed in order to rebuild their isoLinuz image.

And a link to kernel.org doesn't satisfy the requirements of the GPL.

Doesn't mount - maybe I should get my OS X disc and try to install with it..

 

[Beric]

I saw the Apple logo on my P55 tower.

I need get that P45 system back together.

LOL. Good point. My X58 build may gain a Apple logo as well.

 

[Eidorian]

LOL. Good point. My X58 build may gain a Apple logo as well.

That's as far as I got though. I'm too lazy to put more work into it right now since P55 is such a recent chipset.

I have a friend that has a Gigabyte P45 system with a 4850 so he's going to give it a spin.

 

[KnightWRX]

Thanks, I actually wasn't that far ahead in posts when I posted my last response, but I think that actually proved my point. They made more money off of music, iPod, and iPhone sales than they did off of desktops and laptops combined. That is 4.88b on music vs 3.96b on combined computer sales. Desktops are a very small part of their profit, which is where open Mac OS X would be most heavily cutting into. They could still remain viable in the $999 MacBook sales even with an open OS X on the market.

It only proved your point for a very loose definition of your point. You've just lumped Mac vs everything else. And forgot to add in software on the Mac side to boot.

iTunes music is not an iPod/iPhone thing. At most, you could try lumping iPods and iPhones together (2 different markets) and the Macs still come out on top.

Macs are the core business, no matter how you try to spin it.

 

[Bubba Satori]

Figuratively - my understanding is the took the GPL-Licensed OSx86 code, modified it, and didn't release the changes back to the community under the terms of the GPL.

That's a violation of the license. Was any action taken ?

 

[Digitalclips]

How many times do we have to say it?

Apple went down this road ages ago, and got absolutely slaughtered (almost went under). Why the hell would they do it again?

You are right and they won't.

Someone at this company's bank should sell the user name and passwords to their bank account, I am sure that would be in keeping with their view on life and business and they wouldn't mind one bit.

 

[Beric]

That's as far as I got though. I'm too lazy to put more work into it right now since P55 is such a recent chipset.

I have a friend that has a Gigabyte P45 system with a 4850 so he's going to give it a spin.

Well, tell your friend good luck. Interestingly, Psystar seems to be claiming it will work on "any computer". I'd be curious to see if that's true, even on older chipsets, or AMD chipsets.

 

[Lava Lamp Freak]

It only proved your point for a very loose definition of your point. You've just lumped Mac vs everything else. And forgot to add in software on the Mac side to boot.

iTunes music is not an iPod/iPhone thing. At most, you could try lumping iPods and iPhones together (2 different markets) and the Macs still come out on top.

Macs are the core business, no matter how you try to spin it.

I am only suggesting that with an open Mac OS their market share would grow and they would actually make more money than less. They would end up loosing some of the Pro sales, which is only a small part of their overall profit, but as far as software goes, open Mac OS would bring in more revenue in software. So, software wouldn't drop at all -- it would skyrocket.

 

[*LTD*]

I wouldn't be surprised if Psystar's next act is to Rick Roll the judge.

 

[JohnDoe98]

The EULA doesn't grant them distribution rights. The EULA limits your usage of the software product. Agreeing to the EULA doesn't permit you in anyway to distribute OS X unless there is specific language in there that permits it. There is not.

This is not a EULA case. The EULA part was dropped. This is blantant copyright infringment. Only Apple can authorise distribution of OS X and I'm pretty sure they'd know if they did license it for distribution to Psystar. Also, Psystar has failed to produce even records of purchasing the copies of OS X during the discovery phase of the trial, meaning they weren't even entitled to use them themselves, much less distribute them.

Understand the case and the law before you comment on it.

I'm not commenting on the law so there is no need to be demeaning. I'm simply asking for clarification concerning matters that people are making claims about. It's not clear to me what Pystar has done wrong so I'm asking those, like yourself, to explain what you are saying. Things are clear and obvious to you so there should be no problem enlightening others. To turn around and take the "high road" just showcases that things aren't so clear. When one can no longer explain or justify themselves they tend to try and dodge the issues by running away with convenient turn of phrases.

So, should you be willing to explain and justify your claims, perhaps you can explain to me in what sense Pyster is "distributing" Mac OS X. If I buy a copy of Mac OS X and install it, rightfully, on a computer and then resell that computer and software to someone else it is not clear to me that Apple has any legal right to claim I am doing anything wrong. So leaving the EULA aside, it is not clear to me what this "distribution" charge amounts to. Furthermore, simply because one no longer has the bill does not entail someone has stolen the object. I don't have the bill for my macbook pro, does that mean I am not only not entitled to using it, but furthermore I would not be entitled to selling it to someone else should I desire to do so?

 

[Lava Lamp Freak]

Well, tell your friend good luck. Interestingly, Psystar seems to be claiming it will work on "any computer". I'd be curious to see if that's true, even on older chipsets, or AMD chipsets.

By "Every Computer" they mean "certain Intel chipsets". It won't work on my i5 or on AMD.

 

[Hugh]

Already have.

Well, no.

1. When you purchase MacOS X Leopard or Snow Leopard, the purchase is not final until you have accepted Apple's license agreement.

2. Apple's license agreement, which you have to accept to legally purchase MacOS X, states that you have no right to install this software on a computer that is not Apple-labeled (10.5) / not Apple branded (10.6), and that doing so will revoke your license.

3. Because of (2) you are committing copyright infringement when you install MacOS X on a computer that is not Apple labeled/branded, and you are also committing copyright infringement every single time you use MacOS X.

I expect that Apple will eventually ask Psystar for a complete customer list.

Actually in a way they have. If they win this case(s) (there's two of them at the moment) they want Psystar to take back all computer sold with Mac OS X. Not like that's going to happen, they just go bankrupt again and that would be the end of that.

Hugh

 

[couto27]

Figuratively - my understanding is the took the GPL-Licensed OSx86 code, modified it, and didn't release the changes back to the community under the terms of the GPL.

who is the psystar legal owner???
it was indirect request buy someone from microsoft or some hardware company to test apple???

who knows???

 

[oldwatery]

your post reminds me of the same people who thought apple going intel will lead to macs getting viruses

explain then how linux, which runs on everything, is a stable os? thats the flaw in your logic

not to mention many people running stable hackintoshes either with non apple supported kexts

One...... I don't remember any educated people making the claim of potential viruses because of the Intel switch.

Two....Linux most definately does not run on every platform without flaw. Drivers and other compatibility issues are not bad but are a reality. Also would you claim that it is as easy and intuitive as Mac OS?

And there lies the rub with all you people bitching about this.
If you want and desire the Mac OS experience so bad you have to wade in to these arguments then buy a bloddy Mac and get one with your lives

I don't want my great experience (in general) spoiled because some people out there feel they deserve something that the Apple cannot reliably provide.