EtherealRemnant Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 Yeah, whoever says Apple is losing money because of projects like this is retarded. This is giving people, who would have never gotten to actually get down and dirty with the software otherwise, a chance to fully experience the operating system in all its greatness. I'd say a large part of our community had never used OS X before or had VERY little experience (ie., played with it in a store but never bought a Mac) - its exposing a vast amount of people to Apple and thus, its bringing sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Technique Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 I can honestly say that you guys will be amazed. Trust me on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soündless Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 wtf? whatare you talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ezhoon Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 Yeah, whoever says Apple is losing money because of projects like this is retarded. This is giving people, who would have never gotten to actually get down and dirty with the software otherwise, a chance to fully experience the operating system in all its greatness. I'd say a large part of our community had never used OS X before or had VERY little experience (ie., played with it in a store but never bought a Mac) - its exposing a vast amount of people to Apple and thus, its bringing sales. Right on, EtherealRemnant, totally agree with you We are doing Apple a big, once-in-a-lifetime favor! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bikedude880 Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 To all of you who are skeptical, here is some proof: Video: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OoOoOoO Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 and this is confirmation ^^^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amalgam Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 and this is confirmation ^^^^ I can confirm it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OoOoOoO Posted November 26, 2006 Share Posted November 26, 2006 don't ask here for any files. or topic may be closed ------- kernel(on video and screenshot) is not from norad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soündless Posted November 26, 2006 Share Posted November 26, 2006 when do you think this will be "released"? or if it is, what can i google search to "see" it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe75 Posted November 26, 2006 Share Posted November 26, 2006 bikedude880, nice....very nice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ezhoon Posted November 26, 2006 Share Posted November 26, 2006 don't ask here for any files. or topic may be closed------- kernel(on video and screenshot) is not from norad N.O.R.A.D patch didn't work for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bikedude880 Posted November 26, 2006 Share Posted November 26, 2006 I have set up a blog for news on Leopard. Feel free to check it out. The link is in my signature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiel X Posted November 26, 2006 Share Posted November 26, 2006 The courts haven't figured this out yet. This Wikipedia article has a brief summary of issues involved. The point is that I'm not just buying a licence. I'm buying a physical DVD with a copy of the software on it. I don't own copyright to the software, but I damn well own that particular copy and I should be able to do anything at all with it except break laws - such as murdering someone with it, or breaking copyright law by distributing copies of it. I can spin it on my finger, or reverse all bytes on it, etc... even install it on a Commodore 64. Would it make any sense if you puchased a book, and it came with a licence agreement that stipulated you must not read it upside down or on a cloudy day? After all, you didn't buy the novel itself, publisher owns the copyright. You just got one copy and a licence to read it. On top of this, software comes with a licence agreement that you are almost certainly not aware of details at time of purchase, nor are even told the licence exists at the time of purchase, and it would be necessary for you to hire a lawyer and spend a disproportionately large sum of money to get a proper interpretation of a few pages of dense lawyereese these things are written in. And if you didn't like it, you would have to invest a lot of time to try to get a refund. Many companies will not even accept return of open software, yet you can't even see the licence until you open and install it. I think it is extremely unlikely that courts would forbid you from hacking your own, legaly purchased, copy of Leopard. Hacking it and distributing copies is another matter. Not because of hacking, but because of distribution. Laws already define what you can and cannot do with copyrighted material. Licences try to force you to abandon some of your rights by restricting what you may do with the item you purchased. The fact that a software company attaches a long legal document and forces you to click it, in no way means that you've entered into a legal agreement with them. Also see this article. Even DMCA does not prevent you from hacking the software (specifically breaking the encryption) to get it to work on your Commodore 64 or your PC. DMCA specifically allows reverse engineering for purposes of interoperability. See this article. Exactly what they would like you to think, but it just ain't so. I am not a lawyer and this is only my opinion. actually i was going to post basically the same thing. in a nutshell, EULA != LAW breaking a license agreement may mean that you forfeit extra bonuses that came with the product (technical support, future updates, etc.), but even in this era of the restrictive DMCA (for U.S. citizens) breaking a EULA has nothing to do with law. it's perfectly legal to reverse engineer software in the U.S. and Russia, it doesn't become a grey area until you distribute it. then it would fall into a few likely categories: (1) distributing proprietary IP, which would still probably be a civil matter and not a criminal one(though it could be criminal), (2) providing a means for circumventing copy protection, which is a crime in the U.S under the DMCA, or (3) not illegal at all the main clincher is the copy protection aspect...as long as that is out of the picture it's very hard to break the law by reverse engineering something. you should be able to get around the copyright/trade secret aspect of reverse engineering by only releasing a patch instead of the whole binary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttyseven Posted November 26, 2006 Share Posted November 26, 2006 actually i was going to post basically the same thing. in a nutshell, EULA != LAW breaking a license agreement may mean that you forfeit extra bonuses that came with the product (technical support, future updates, etc.), but even in this era of the restrictive DMCA (for U.S. citizens) breaking a EULA has nothing to do with law. it's perfectly legal to reverse engineer software in the U.S. and Russia, it doesn't become a grey area until you distribute it. then it would fall into a few likely categories: (1) distributing proprietary IP, which would still probably be a civil matter and not a criminal one(though it could be criminal), (2) providing a means for circumventing copy protection, which is a crime in the U.S under the DMCA, or (3) not illegal at all the main clincher is the copy protection aspect...as long as that is out of the picture it's very hard to break the law by reverse engineering something. you should be able to get around the copyright/trade secret aspect of reverse engineering by only releasing a patch instead of the whole binary. This explaination leaves out 2 things, which are not that easy to justify: 1.) All work based on a already PIRATED copy of a operation system not yet distributed. If you publish work on it and you are not a ADC member, you admit you OWN PIRATED SOFTWARE. Otherwise you would not be able to do so. So you are clearly admitting you are a pirat. Same goes for publishing own screenshots. 2.) You don't get around a law for stuff already illegal. Making obtained stuff work is not the same like using pirated software and make it work. Not even in russia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaemonES Posted November 26, 2006 Share Posted November 26, 2006 This explaination leaves out 2 things, which are not that easy to justify: 1.) All work based on a already PIRATED copy of a operation system not yet distributed. If you publish work on it and you are not a ADC member, you admit you OWN PIRATED SOFTWARE. Otherwise you would not be able to do so. So you are clearly admitting you are a pirat. Same goes for publishing own screenshots. 2.) You don't get around a law for stuff already illegal. Making obtained stuff work is not the same like using pirated software and make it work. Not even in russia. Are you a lawyer and know well russian legislation? May I guess? No... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OriginalMACNUT Posted November 26, 2006 Share Posted November 26, 2006 Well, I'm in luck, B/C I am a ADC MEMBER. anybody with 2 min. can be !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bikedude880 Posted November 26, 2006 Share Posted November 26, 2006 Well this is a wake up call. I received an email from Apple regarding a particular file on my site (KuKu anyone?) They politely asked me to remove it and being the person that doesn't want to be involved in a legal dispute, I promptly removed it. Let this be a warning: Apple is watching us. I say it's best that we lay low for a while with Leopard (or at least me ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trie Posted November 26, 2006 Share Posted November 26, 2006 somebody here works for apple.. otherwise they can't know about sites, links and so on so quickly OriginalMACNUT, you must be Premuin/Valuable (or how it's called) member $500 min Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panda200x Posted November 26, 2006 Share Posted November 26, 2006 Maybe that is because you dont need to be registered to view the forums... But Apple lawyers do come here and try and sue us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe75 Posted November 26, 2006 Share Posted November 26, 2006 somebody here works for apple.. otherwise they can't know about sites, links and so on so quickly This is a public site on the world wide web Anyone with an Internet connection can read everything we type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
semthex Posted November 26, 2006 Share Posted November 26, 2006 The first "side effect" of this {censored} already occured and freeflux forbid to host archive files. Thanks to the Leo people ... now I have to look for a new file host and prasys must change the autoupdater for the betatesters. Really nice... absolutly top This attemp of fame grabbing now harmed the whole community... This is WWW not sharewood forest, ppl think about that EVERYTHING you write here and publish can be read by ANYONE. You really thought Apple don't know this place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xentrion Posted November 26, 2006 Share Posted November 26, 2006 Were the screenshots removed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OriginalMACNUT Posted November 26, 2006 Share Posted November 26, 2006 somebody here works for apple.. otherwise they can't know about sites, links and so on so quickly OriginalMACNUT, you must be Premuin/Valuable (or how it's called) member $500 min Yes, your right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soündless Posted November 26, 2006 Share Posted November 26, 2006 why doesnt apple care about pics and vid and other things involved wit 10.4.8. why do they care so much about leopard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Neo Posted November 26, 2006 Share Posted November 26, 2006 The first "side effect" of this {censored} already occured and freeflux forbid to host archive files. Thanks to the Leo people ... now I have to look for a new file host and prasys must change the autoupdater for the betatesters. Really nice... absolutly top This attemp of fame grabbing now harmed the whole community... This is WWW not sharewood forest, ppl think about that EVERYTHING you write here and publish can be read by ANYONE. You really thought Apple don't know this place? Yeah semthex, but he only wanted the "best" for us... He just wanted to help! Sure the ppl should be more carefull. Apple is watching this place of course!! This is the #1 community in getting OS X to run on normal PCs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts