51 replies to this topic

[RN95]

Hi,

This issue may be a red herring.

Note that Apple provides a Bootcamp utility the main purpose of which is to enable Mac users to install Windows on a separate partition and dual boot into Mac OS X or Windows. Here is the Apple Bootcamp manual:


http://manuals.info....-Setup_10.6.pdf

Quote:"This document shows you how to install and set up Boot Camp so you can use Microsoft Windows on an Intel-based Mac computer."

Now... Why should Apple allow and enable  Microsoft Windows to run on their hardware and not the reverse if you have purchase a copy of Apple Mac OS X?

And why should it be illegal to dual boot your PC in either Windows or OS X ? or Linus for that matter?


Do you think Apple will be looked favourably in a court of law if they tried to stop PC users from running Mc OS X (Purchased Copy) on their hardware?

If anything, Apple's OSX market share has shot up since the advent of Hackintosh's.

However, they may have a case against companies cloning their hardware or selling boxes with pre-installed Mac OS X.

[AllUrBase]

I really don't care. Yes, the EULA says you can only install on Apple hardware, BUT in no way, shape or form were we agreeing to APPLE'S TERMS, we were agreeing to our DISTRO'S terms. Therefore, it is legal. Mac OS X was specifically designed to run on Macs. The way the hackers have hacked, the architcture has been completely modified to run on "rougue" hardware. In a way, it is no longer Mac OS X, it is whatever your distro is, another open-source OS. Plus, when you go to About This Mac, it doesn't regiser as OX X, it registers as your distro, doens't it?

In conclusion, it depends on your view of the EULA and how well you can effectively bend the law to your will. This argument has saved me from a pile of lawsuits, so it should save you.]

If you have any more questions, email me at

jdog_yttg@live.com.au

[Gringo Vermelho]

That made me laugh. You should have stopped at "I really don't care".

Those who hack Apple's OS and distribute it are in no position to change the end user license of Apple's software. No matter how hacked to pieces it is, it is still the property of Apple.

Also, OS X does not become an open source OS by being molested to bits and shrunk to fit a single layer DVD.

Also your mom knows how to edit what appears in "About this Mac".

[Markrtoon]

We should really have a FAQ page that comes up when you type in the URL for this site,  for like 10 seconds, and then goto the real site.

[Hackintosh2000]

yamcha, on Jan 2 2010, 11:51 AM, said:

Hi guys,

Just out of curiosity is it legal to install OSX on a PC, a lot of people are saying it is not, but there are also people who say it is legal..

Can someone clarify this for me? I'm not worried or anything but just wanted to know..

Appreciate your help :]

If you buy it from Apple it's not like anyone can throw you in jail for using it.  And regardless of the EULA do you really think Apple has the time and resources to sue a bunch of broke hackintoshers?  After all if we had money lying around to pay Apple's legal fees we would have just bought a Mac in the first place.

[smartie77]

Hackintosh2000, on Jul 1 2011, 10:17 PM, said:

If you buy it from Apple it's not like anyone can throw you in jail for using it.  And regardless of the EULA do you really think Apple has the time and resources to sue a bunch of broke hackintoshers?  After all if we had money lying around to pay Apple's legal fees we would have just bought a Mac in the first place.

I just have had a look inside /Library/Documentation/License.rtf ( Snow Leo ) .

It says in german this very interesting sentence :

"Sie verpflichten sich, es zu unterlassen, die Apple Software auf einem Computer, der nicht von Apple stammt, zu installieren, zu verwenden oder auszuführen oder es Dritten zu gestatten, dies zu tun."

translated this means ( in terms of what they want to express with it , not word for word googlewise: )  :

"YOU PROMISE ( better : "YOU SWEAR ! ") TO NOT INSTALL,USE OR EXECUTE THIS APPLE SOFTWARE ON A COMPUTER THAT WAS NOT MADE BY APPLE ( "did not come from Apple" ) . YOU ALSO PROMISE TO NOT MAKE IT  (  means "such methods" ) AVAILABLE TO OTHERS ( TO RUN IT ON NON-APPLES )".

The devil lives in the detail .. It is Apple's wish if you want so that we do not do this ( in germany obviously ), but there is nowhere any Law cited that would forbid it.

This "License" would not stand before a german court. Here the motto is typically whatever software you buy you can put on your machine. In fact Microsoft lost a case in the early 2000s where they tried to forbid OEM-bundled reselling of Windows CDs that have printed "only with a new Siemens PC" on them. The court said it is perfectly legal because software CAN'T be bundled to only one vendor.. Apple would need to argument against this ten year old "right of unbundling" in Germany; At least selling OSX only for Apple machines is "bundling" - isn't it ? When every first grade IT student can argument how OSX is simply a generic i386/X64 Operating System that will technically run on any Intel machine..

I do not feel ashamed or illegal to have Snow on my Toshiba or Lion. : Snow was purchased in the Mac Box Set which by definition is the most "full version" one could buy. It has no "upgrade" sticker or license, and the included ilife and iwork are also standalone full versions, so I would say this pack is a all-in-one "Mac Beginner pack" ( as in the Name of the Product "Mac Box SET". ) .

For Lion : I have purchased it via the Snow Leo AppStore, therefore I have paid for it and have even become the owner of the app as it was intended as distribution channel. Nobody forbids an Macintosh User to create a bootable USB stick out of the App's files and that is what I have done. Of course I have added the kexts and the SMC fake infos so I could install it on my machine by clean-booting from off the stick..

Did I do something illegal then too ? ..

So I hold two licenses. One for Snow and one for Lion ( although there is no "evidence" I ever bought it - but that problem has every clean-boot-install User when the Disk is wiped empty .

Would Apple come after me , would I get my money back for not being able to use what I have paid for ? ..

Why for all reasons should Apple do it anyways. they would lose an AppStore customer  in the first strike. And Apple should know that Hackintoshers are simply in most cases people that cannot afford a real Apple machine ( but the software  as it is cheap ) , so they would not win anything, only lose in the bigger scheme. Who needs Mac Software ? Not a PC user.

And I am not in the position to swap my 450 Euro Laptop against a 1800+ Euro MacBookPro. But this would be the case to have the same memory and cpu power that I have in my "hacked" machine ( which performs excellent rockstable and ready for day-to-day usage with OSX as if it was made for it) . -- This deal is simply the reason why people do that. Apple puts cheap devices in their housings, it is a fact. How can Toshiba sell me this thing for 450 and Apple puts identical hardware in their iMacs and wants double to triple the sum ? ..

Not everybody sees computers needing a "shiny designer fit and finnish" - if you know what I mean. A computer - be it from Apple or from whomever - is in the first only a robot.A machine. The OS is the ghost inside that powers it. And this OS from Apple is my favorite. together with the software that have no match in the windows world.

So please do not treat Hackintoshers automatically as "criminals". You should be proud that we "copy" the hardware, because we LOVE your OS. ( we only hate the greedy company behind that sells "aluminium for the price of gold" .. ) .

btw - I had also "real" Apples in the past, but I can only afford used ones, and they don't live up to what I need for modern computing. My first was a Powermac G3 and  my most modern one was a G5. The prices for even the first gen Intels are so ridiculous high for used ones that you can buy a new PC for it..

Like I said.. THAT#s the reason  

[mnfesq]

I guess I'm the first attorney to weigh in on this issue.  Any installation of OS X on a non-Apple computer is a violation of its EULA.  Some, but not all, violations of Apple's EULA are violations of law (i.e. criminal acts) while others just give rise to a breach of contract claim (i.e. civil liability.)  If you purchased your copy of OS X, you did not commit piracy, which is illegal.  If you did not purchase your copy of OS X, it may not be illegal to install it on your PC if you do so for a limited period of time, or only install portions of the operating system (not something most people do) and your use is purely educational/non-commercial.  If you have written your own drivers, or added product ids/vendor ids to existing kexts, it could constitute criminal copyright infringement (like Psystar) but only if it does not constitute "fair use," (i.e., personal or educational use without any distribution to others.)  In sum, most people on this board are engaged in petty criminal conduct.  If it were otherwise, what would be the fun in it?  If this were legal, mega-corporations would have perfected this process years ago.

For me, Apple is the new monster corporation to hate.  It took over that position from Microsoft years ago.  Now, I beta-test for MS and steal from Apple.  I can't help it - it's just my sense of real justice.

[JamesLittler]

When purchasing a copy of Snow Leopard 10.6.3 from the Apple Store the guy behind the counter did not make it clear that I could not install it on non-apple hardware, I was unable to open the package to review the EULA before purchasing.
Would this alone not render the 'contract' that was initiated at the time of sale void ab-initio as there was not full disclosure from both parties on the details of the product.
I don't think apple would have a leg to stand on in court.

What if I have my non-apple hardware housed in a G5 case.
Could this be considered a computer made by apple? They made the case, that's the biggest bit of the computer!

[Alessandro17]

mnfesq, on 20 April 2012 - 04:58 PM, said:

Some, but not all, violations of Apple's EULA are violations of law (i.e. criminal acts)

Could you please explain which violations of Apple's EULA would be a criminal offence?

Quote

If you have written your own drivers, or added product ids/vendor ids to existing kexts, it could constitute criminal copyright infringement (like Psystar) but only if it does not constitute "fair use," (i.e., personal or educational use without any distribution to others.)

I believe this is fundamental. None of us is (or should) be engaged in anything other than "fair use". We do not condone commercial spin-offs of the OSx86 scene  (from the forum rules).

Quote

In sum, most people on this board are engaged in petty criminal conduct.

That is something really strong, and I believe it should be  further discussed/proven. That I am aware, no hackintosher engaged in "fair use" of a purchased copy of OS X has ever had trouble with the law.

[mnfesq]

The petty criminal conduct would all relate to "piracy" or the unauthorized downloading/use of non-purchased software.  I may be assuming that to be the case, but I doubt I am too far off the mark.  For me, getting the operating system to work on my Dell laptop is just the beginning.  I also want to be able to test out how well a wide variety of third-party software runs on a PC running OS X.  I can't help but believe that there are others out there pretty much like me.  BTW, I too have never heard of anyone with an OSx86 machine running into problems with the law.  I have even seen hackintoshes for sale on Ebay.  We are a pretty small and benign group, mostly content to fly below the radar so to speak.  I don't think anyone has anything to worry about.

[Alessandro17]

Good. So "piracy" is just an assumption, because we do not condone it in any way.

[valadares32]

It is legal in Brazil and it should be everywhere (although is not).

It is absurd to obligate a consumer to buy products of the same brand/manufactor. If you paid for the OS and if it is posible to run it in another hardware, obviously it should be your right to do it.

EULA's are NOT above the law.