Question on how legal iAktos v1.0i is.

[joey4455]

Hi. I am new so if this is really dumb im sorry. I was wondering if I go out and buy Leopard at a store and then download iAktos v1.0i and put it on my pc, would it be legal? I would have payed for it, so wouldn't I be able to do that? Doesn't iAtkos use unmodified Apple Files?

[Hagar]

it's a fine line.. essentially the validity of the licence you buy with your retail copy of leopard depends on where you are & how the law is interpreted. Apple state quite clearly that their licence is only for use on their hardware (no sticker jokes, please) but the validity of this is questionable and has yet to be tested in court in many countries that do not consider EULA's legally binding.

 

The iATKOS copy you downloaded is a pirate copy. the chance of transferring your retail licence to it brings up yet another level of uncertainty, and although I am not a lawyer, I would think the chances of defending that idea in court would be slim.

 

Just my best guess from a lot of previous discussion of such issues, you understand.

[LS8]

iAtkos is illegal, same as any other hacked MacOS X DVD shared on internet.

 

On the other hand, it is not illegal to buy MacOS X retail DVD and install it on your PC. The Mac OS X Software License Agreement says "his License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time." The term "Apple-labeled computer" is not specified. You get two Apple labels (stickers) with Leopard DVD. Paste it on your PC and you have "Apple-labeled computer".

[Hagar]

(no sticker jokes, please)

 

The term "Apple-labeled computer" is not specified. You get two Apple labels (stickers) with Leopard DVD. Paste it on your PC and you have "Apple-labeled computer". smile.gif

 

 

[LS8]

It is not a joke. It's fact.

[Headrush69]

It is not a joke. It's fact.

Do you really think that would stand up in any court?

 

It's also "Apple-labelled" as in a computer Apple has officially sanctioned a Mac, not a computer with "An Apple Label".

You could argue in court it's not specific enough but I think the implied connotation is pretty clear.

[jsz0]

^^ I think it's a very valid loophole. Apple never clearly defines what Apple labeled means. They choose to use this vauge wording instead of something more concrete such as "Apple licensed" or "manufactured by Apple" Why? Who knows... I can understand the EULA for 10.4 not being changed but they knew about the OSX86 community before 10.5 and decided not to change the wording. In fact, they even give you some handy Apple labels in the box. Hmmm. I think it's pretty reasonable to argue you are abiding by Apple's EULA. Of course in the US we have the DMCA which instantly makes ToH, iATKOS, Kalaway, etc illegal. They are cirmcumventing copy protection and disbruting copyrighted code. That is illegal no matter what the Apple EULA says.

 

However... I think if you use the flat install method using the retail Leopard DVD on a real Mac you are pretty safe. You bought the product. You are abiding by the EULA if you put on one of the included Apple labels. (put both on to be extra safe) Technically you are still violating the DMCA by cimcumventing copy protection however at that point it becomes more of a fair use issue. You bought the product, you abided by the EULA and it didn't work. You HAD to cicumvent copy protection to use the product as outlined in the Apple EULA.

 

Probably doesn't matter anyway -- OSX86 sells computers for Apple and they know it. I believe it's all a trojan horse strategy and they will allow it to continue so long as there is a big enough barrier of entery to avoid canabalizing their own hardware sales.

[LS8]

...OSX86 sells computers for Apple and they know it. I believe it's all a trojan horse strategy and they will allow it to continue so long as there is a big enough barrier of entery to avoid canabalizing their own hardware sales.

 

That's true.

[ive scene enough]

Even Iatkos and Kalyway, as "easy" installs are still far harder than the average computer user, let alone mac buyer would be able to handle.

 

I work at a store that sells alot of computers including macs, the people buying macs are not the ones who want to figure out how to fake a computer into being a mac.

 

OSX86 probably creates more of a market than it hurts them.

[Konami®]

OSX86 probably creates more of a market than it hurts them.

 

I completely agree with you, I was a windows user for a long time and after the switch to hackintosh I will never going back to windows, in fact i hate it, and now my plan is to buy in the future a mac computer. I also already bought many mac softwares for my hackintosh.

[laddyboy]

I agree, I was windows to the core, even a Microsoft Beta tester. I put Leopard on my PC and love it. I have already purchased my own Leopard. I am also going to buy a Mac Mini to start. I own the following Windows O/S's...2 XP Pro's, 3 XP MCE's, 1 XP Home, 1 Vista Ultimate, 4 Vista's Premiums and 1 Vista Premium Upgrade. That's a lot of money to jump ship on without trying out a new O/S 1st. Even though I don't like the EULA's telling me I have to buy a separate O/S for each of my 6 computers I do see the amount of effort the hard work that goes into developing software and believe they deserve to get paid. Therefor I will comply...when I get the money to.

 

My 3 cents...(what?, inflation)

[apowerr]

Apples outrageous Macintosh prices are what should be illegal!

 

[/stupid pun]

[Param]

My Macbook is on the way, but for now I could not go another day getting annoyed for the simplest of things (i.e. crashes and performance issues on XP). JAS,mac.nub,iATKOS... all these versions have only convinced me more that going Mac is going forward.

 

If Apple came up with a plan... where they release out OS X for non-Apple machine for trial periods (working with folks at OSx86)... think they'll get a lot more converts!