Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 14th Feb 2006 22:49 UTC, submitted by jayson.knight
Mac OS X It seems like flee-in-Apple's-fur, cracker 'Maxxuss', has succeeded in cracking Mac OS 10.4.4 for Intel. "We were just about to hunker down and wait through the cold winter and a wet spring until we saw some results on the OS X 10.4.4 for Intel hacking efforts, but it looks like we're getting a little Valentines present from 'Maxxuss' who has already broken through Apple's heightened security that is present in their shipping version of the OS. It's just a preliminary release, not all hardware is supported and it requires a bit of futzing around to get it to work, but seeing as we weren't expecting this kind of breakthrough this early, we really can't complain."
Order by: Score:
Just in time for...
by nicarley on Tue 14th Feb 2006 22:58 UTC
nicarley
Member since:
2005-07-12

Yeah this is just in time for the 10.4.5 release...Any news whether or not this break's 'Maxxuss' work?

Reply Score: 3

hmm..
by tastytaste on Tue 14th Feb 2006 22:59 UTC
tastytaste
Member since:
2005-07-08

if he's such a whiz kid then lets see him boot XP on a macintel

Reply Score: 5

RE: hmm..
by bytecoder on Tue 14th Feb 2006 23:03 UTC in reply to "hmm.."
bytecoder Member since:
2005-11-27

Who would want to? Seems like a waste of good hardware to me ;)

Edited 2006-02-14 23:03

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: hmm..
by Kroc on Wed 15th Feb 2006 08:44 UTC in reply to "RE: hmm.."
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

*le sigh*

When will you people realise that getting XP running on Macs will be the number 1 biggest thing to drive new people to OSX.

You don't pay a huge amount for a Macbook and then only run Windows. You buy it because you want OSX, you want iLife, you want the better computing experience, but you don't want to go cold turkey without your legacy apps and games.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: hmm..
by as400tek on Wed 15th Feb 2006 18:34 UTC in reply to "RE: hmm.."
as400tek Member since:
2006-02-15

"Who would want to? Seems like a waste of good hardware to me ;) "

Agreed!

Reply Score: 0

RE: hmm..
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 14th Feb 2006 23:03 UTC in reply to "hmm.."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Yeah, I'd rather see this cracker use his expertise to do legal things instead of this stuff... But oh well, apparantly there's a market for half-baked OSX installs on cheap self-built crap in a lot of basements around the world.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: hmm..
by DevL on Tue 14th Feb 2006 23:07 UTC in reply to "RE: hmm.."
DevL Member since:
2005-07-06

Like I said, people always flock to "free lunches" even if only junk food is served...

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: hmm..
by MamiyaOtaru on Tue 14th Feb 2006 23:15 UTC in reply to "RE: hmm.."
MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

apparantly there's a market for half-baked OSX installs on cheap self-built crap in a lot of basements around the world.

There was in Maxxuss' basement at least. Or maybe he just wanted a challenge. He's probably just scratching his own itch, I rather doubt he did it to satisfy some hypothetical widespread clamoring.

Regardless, it will remain a fringe activity. Every new version of OSX will require the same effort, likely every patch as well. While he will likely be up to it, average computer user will not find it a workable situation.

It's no threat to Apple. They might not like it, and of course we can decry those who just want to get OSX for free, but it really can't hurt Apple. The amount of people who will be willing to put up with the whole patching situation is going to be extremely minimal, and a lot of those folks may be motivated to get themselves the legit item after getting a taste.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: hmm..
by the_trapper on Tue 14th Feb 2006 23:16 UTC in reply to "RE: hmm.."
the_trapper Member since:
2005-07-07

Yeah, I'd rather see this cracker use his expertise to do legal things instead of this stuff...

What he is doing is not illegal everywhere.

But oh well, apparantly there's a market for half-baked OSX installs on cheap self-built crap in a lot of basements around the world.

Maybe there's a market for legally purchased copies of Mac OS X running on the hardware of our choice. Not all of the "self-built crap" is cheap Thom. As far as I am concerned it is only stealing if you don't pay Apple for OS X.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: hmm..
by Tom K on Tue 14th Feb 2006 23:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: hmm.."
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

> Maybe there's a market for legally purchased copies of Mac OS X running on the hardware of our choice.

Maybe you can keep dreaming. :-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: hmm..
by JMcCarthy on Wed 15th Feb 2006 04:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: hmm.."
JMcCarthy Member since:
2005-08-12

We can continue dreaming when it comes to Apple opening up to that market. They're not interested in selling an operating system or "just" a computer, more of a lifestyle, eh?

It's painfully obvious however, that there is a market for people who want the cake, without it being served on a turd plate.

Reply Score: 3

v RE[5]: hmm..
by Tom K on Wed 15th Feb 2006 05:28 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: hmm.."
RE[6]: hmm..
by JMcCarthy on Wed 15th Feb 2006 06:21 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: hmm.."
JMcCarthy Member since:
2005-08-12

"Being spoiled is a bitch, eh?"

What kind of retard thing is that to say? ;)

I simply pointed out there is a market for such people. "Being spoiled" or a sense of entitlement has nothing to do with it.

It's amazing how only a "Mac-type" could attribute anything than a desire to buy a simple product, without cruft.

Silly

Edited 2006-02-15 06:23

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: hmm..
by Tom K on Wed 15th Feb 2006 07:05 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: hmm.."
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

When you say there is a market for such people, who are "such people"? I'll tell you: They're people who want the Mac experience without paying the full price for it.

I call that a sense of entitlement. Wouldn't you?

Reply Score: 1

v RE[3]: hmm..
by somebody on Wed 15th Feb 2006 00:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: hmm.."
RE[4]: hmm..
by CrimsonScythe on Wed 15th Feb 2006 02:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: hmm.."
CrimsonScythe Member since:
2005-07-10

I don't know if your intention was to troll or if you're just narrow-minded, but I'll bite anyhow.

Really? Then, how do you buy OSX without Mac legaly.
1. Every retail box has clause that it requires Apple hardware.
2. All retail boxes are upgrades only in the fine print.
3. Every OSX is tied to computer just as any OEM license.
4. You can't buy Mac without Mac/OS/X.


Here you are under the strange delusion that these 4 points actually mean something everywhere you can buy OS X. If the box said that you'd have to jump off a bridge, would you still consider it legally binding? Anyway, such license provisions are in many countries worth next to nothing, since they often go against local laws.

Been smokin' too much pot lately?

What the hell is this about? Are you really so simpleminded that you can't come up with anything better than a stupid insult?

In that case, why not buying Apple then?

Obviously it hasn't occurred to you that Apple may not sell the best hardware out there.

Yeah, if you could. But you can't. If vendor doesn't want to sell you, he can't be forced. And guess what, Apple doesn't want to do that.

You can very easily go to a store and buy a copy of OS X, legally. So why are you saying that Apple doesn't want to do that? Are you saying that they in the immediate future will be pulling all upgrades to OS X from the stores?

Admit it, any kind of thinking like yours can be translated to "Look at me, I'm cheap"

Oh, I don't think you should be the person to try to put words in other peoples mouthes. I hope you have something better than a knee-jerk simpleminded reactionary comment the next time, but I'm not holding my breath.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: hmm..
by somebody on Wed 15th Feb 2006 02:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: hmm.."
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

Here you are under the strange delusion that these 4 points actually mean something everywhere you can buy OS X. If the box said that you'd have to jump off a bridge, would you still consider it legally binding? Anyway, such license provisions are in many countries worth next to nothing, since they often go against local laws.

Yes, the are. You get two agreements here not one. Resale and EULA.

Obviously it hasn't occurred to you that Apple may not sell the best hardware out there.

You talk to a known Apple basher here. I KNOW Apple hardware is not the best. I constantly bitch about this fact.

What I say is that Apple is entitled to decide to refuse selling to non-Apple owners.

You can very easily go to a store and buy a copy of OS X, legally. So why are you saying that Apple doesn't want to do that? Are you saying that they in the immediate future will be pulling all upgrades to OS X from the stores?

Ok, then take your PC and head to your nearest Apple vendor. Buy a copy an order installation. They will simply refuse this sale.

Notice here:
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wo/...
Unleash Tiger on your Mac today. Choose a single user license for home or office. Got more than one Mac at home? Upgrade up to 5 Macs in your household for one low price with the Family Pack*.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/upgrade/
Get ready to upgrade in three easy steps
1. Make sure your Mac meets the system requirements for Tiger.
2. Buy the upgrade from the Apple Online Store, an Apple Retail Store or an Apple Reseller.
3. Install and enjoy.


Only upgrades, no retails. Just as if you read fine print on the box. While original license is untransferable from the Mac it was bought with (you can't buy Mac without OS).

Oh, I don't think you should be the person to try to put words in other peoples mouthes. I hope you have something better than a knee-jerk simpleminded reactionary comment the next time, but I'm not holding my breath.

And you should check the facts before thinking loud

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: hmm..
by CrimsonScythe on Wed 15th Feb 2006 03:25 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: hmm.."
CrimsonScythe Member since:
2005-07-10

Ok, then take your PC and head to your nearest Apple vendor. Buy a copy an order installation. They will simply refuse this sale.

Yes, of course they will refuse to install it. They don't want me to install OS X on anything but an Apple computer, but that means absolutely nothing. I doubt very highly that they'll refuse to sell you the copy of OS X, though.

Only upgrades, no retails. Just as if you read fine print on the box. While original license is untransferable from the Mac it was bought with (you can't buy Mac without OS).

You still seem to think that what they print on the box is law. You need to understand that what a company claims is NOT law in any way, shape, or form. Your whole argument hinges around this delusion, and invalidates pretty much everything you've said so far.

If, let's say, a box of nails says that you can only use them for hanging up pictures with, do you really believe that it's illegal to use them to build a shelf with? Or do you perhaps just have a vested interest in trying to get people to believe that what a company says is the final word and cannot be questioned?

And you should check the facts before thinking loud

Again, you're confusing facts with claims. There is a big difference. What Apple claims is that they're upgrades only, but until they can actually check whether or not you are entiteleed to an upgrade and thus deny you the purchase, what they are selling is still full versions of OS X. And even if they could, it would be interesting to see whether or not such behavior would be legal.

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: hmm..
by Temcat on Wed 15th Feb 2006 08:47 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: hmm.."
Temcat Member since:
2005-10-18

Yes, the are. You get two agreements here not one. Resale and EULA.

There are a lot of places where EULA does not mean jack, since it's not a copyright license. And where resale is legal.

As for "upgrade" as they mark it, they can write whatever they please. In installs as a full-functional OS, so it isn't an upgrade.

I'm not sure if I would ever want to run OS X on non-Apple hardware, but I don't see anything bad or even (generally) unlawful in these actions.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: hmm..
by porcel on Tue 14th Feb 2006 23:21 UTC in reply to "RE: hmm.."
porcel Member since:
2006-01-28

And apparently, there is a market for wanna-be editors who never went to journalism school but boost their ego by putting down the efforts of others who are far more capable than them.

Guess what, people don't like limitations or being told that you can only use this software on this hardware because I control you and what you can do.

The quest for freedom is a universal human need.

Go ahead, mod me down to kingdom come. It will just show your immaturity

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: hmm..
by cujo on Tue 14th Feb 2006 23:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: hmm.."
cujo Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually, it shows yours.

People also don't like speed limits or the price of gas. That doesn't mean you should go to whatever lengths to get your way.

The quest for freedom is a universal human need eh? Spare the world your self-righteous load of bull. This isn't about slavery or breaking free of social injustice. This is about some guy doing something that everyone here knows isn't legit.

If you think this is legit, give it away yourself. And don't forget to put your name, address, and phone number on it.

Thom's comment may have been ill-advised, but the underlying idea is in the right ballpark.

Reply Score: 3

v RE[4]: hmm..
by monkeyhead on Tue 14th Feb 2006 23:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: hmm.."
RE[4]: hmm..
by Get a Life on Wed 15th Feb 2006 08:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: hmm.."
Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

Yes, being able to modify software and use it as you see fit on your own computer(s) is comparable to speeding (hypothetically endangering the lives others) or not paying for gasoline (not compensating another party for physical goods).

If you buy an Intel-based Mac and want to run the operating system on your Pentium 4, that's between you and your software. That others can acquire OS X without compensating Apple for it might be a side-effect, but it's not an especially sympathetic one. Every software provider has to deal with copyright infringement. That doesn't justify or invalidate any position you hold toward copyright infringement, but if you've ever pirated anything, ever, you're a hypocrite. If you think it's any more acceptable to pirate anything else, then you're a hypocrite.

But piracy is obviously not the only incentive, and no unenforceable EULA changes that.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: hmm..
by dylansmrjones on Wed 15th Feb 2006 12:51 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: hmm.."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Besides that, his actions are perfectly legal in Europe. Don't forget that.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: hmm..
by alcibiades on Wed 15th Feb 2006 08:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: hmm.."
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

"People also don't like speed limits or the price of gas. That doesn't mean you should go to whatever lengths to get your way."

Breaking the law, and breaking your contract, are two different things. Driving too fast is breaking the law and you can be prosecuted by the police/District Attorney/Crown Prosecution Service on behalf of the people.

Breaking your contract is perfectly legal, though it may be unwise. You cannot be prosecuted by the police/DA/CPS. You can be taken to court by your counterparty, and the court can impose penalties. Whether it will enforce the contract depends on its provisions.

Violating copyright is breaking the law.

Now, installing OSX on your Dell is not violating copyright. It is not breaking any law at all. It is not stealing. It may be violating a contract (the Eula), and the provision of that contractwhich forbids it may be enforceable in law in some jurisdictions.

Not, however, in Europe.

Now could we for goodness' sake have a calm and rational debate which starts from these facts.

And perhaps the editors could check, while they are at it, that the spectre of multiple registrations and modding up by Apple zealots has not returned? There is a strong smell of fish around some of these comments and mods.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: hmm..
by archiesteel on Wed 15th Feb 2006 22:59 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: hmm.."
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

And perhaps the editors could check, while they are at it, that the spectre of multiple registrations and modding up by Apple zealots has not returned? There is a strong smell of fish around some of these comments and mods.

My thoughts exactly. Seems like there might be a few sock puppets in this thread.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: hmm..
by DevL on Tue 14th Feb 2006 23:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: hmm.."
DevL Member since:
2005-07-06

I think your misinterpreted Thom.

He's not putting down the efforts of Maxxuss (for hacking 10.4.4) - he's questioning the reasoning behind trying to obtain a free lunch.

And no, the "freedom" to run Mac OS X on the hardware of your choise is NOT a human need and by implying it is you're making a mockery out of all the people in the world living under dictatorship!

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: hmm..
by Get a Life on Wed 15th Feb 2006 08:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: hmm.."
Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

As long as you aren't causing physical harm to others or your environment, what are acceptable restrictions that sellers may place upon all goods sold? Do I get to tell you how to read your books? Where you hang your copy of my painting? What you can mix with my vodka? Do I get to dictate what you run on your Xbox? What arbitrary asinine restrictions are acceptable, knowing fully that I will apply them to any product you license or purchase.

You know, just because people suffer under incomprehensible hardships caused by a different concept of empathy and justice, doesn't mean that arbitrary restrictions in a more 'free' society are acceptable. If you live in a country that says that healthcare is a universal right and it's denied to someone, is your belief invalidated because someone is having their feet cut off by an oppressive government somewhere else?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: hmm..
by somebody on Wed 15th Feb 2006 00:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: hmm.."
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

Guess what, people don't like limitations or being told that you can only use this software on this hardware because I control you and what you can do.

So if you like some car and man owning that car doesn't want to sell i to you? What? You're legaly correct if you simply steal his car? And please spare me with excuse that software is different. It is different only until you don't start to live from writing it. After that your viewpoint changes with a U-turn. Suddenly, commercial becomes commercial and free becomes free.

The quest for freedom is a universal human need.

Yes, quest for freedom, yes. But hacking/pirating software is not different from stealing. In my case, if I (or any developer/company) want some software of mine (or theirs) to be free (and it accounts for about 30% in my case) I give it out and I'm prepared to help anyone. If not, then you have to buy it in order to use it. And no, you're no better than thief in my eyes if you avoid my wishes.

Any other kind of thinking just shows your lack of respect for work of others (and the fact that your ass is probably your personal horizon).

Edited 2006-02-15 00:57

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: hmm..
by rayiner on Wed 15th Feb 2006 00:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: hmm.."
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

So if you like some car and man owning that car doesn't want to sell i to you? What? You're legaly correct if you simply steal his car?

And that, folks, is what is known in discourse as a "strawman argument".

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: hmm..
by somebody on Wed 15th Feb 2006 01:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: hmm.."
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

And that, folks, is what is known in discourse as a "strawman argument".

Strawman argument? Yeah, while you use your "strawman excuse": "original stayed intact, so it can't be stealing".

Simple story of one my friends. He was developing special and pretty large software. Sold one copy and gone broke. Why? Next three years he couldn't sell any copies. And although he knew where and which companies (in fact quite a few) use his software without paying, he simply couldn't afford legal costs.

Now place your self in his position and say "strawman argument"

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: hmm..
by rayiner on Wed 15th Feb 2006 01:25 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: hmm.."
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

You're still missing the reason why your argument was a strawman. We're not talking about copyright infringement here. Everybody acknowledges that redistributing a work without a license is illegal. What is under contention here is what terms a copyright owner is allowed to impose on the use of a legally obtained copy of a work.

To put it simply: Sony is entirely within its rights to sue you for making a copy of a CD without paying. They are likely not within their rights to say that you must use Sony CDs you've purchased in a Sony-labled CD player...

Reply Score: 5

RE[7]: hmm..
by somebody on Wed 15th Feb 2006 02:17 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: hmm.."
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

You're still missing the reason why your argument was a strawman. We're not talking about copyright infringement here. Everybody acknowledges that redistributing a work without a license is illegal. What is under contention here is what terms a copyright owner is allowed to impose on the use of a legally obtained copy of a work.

Yeah, but if it combines with OEM, retail/upgrade trick. Talk is about Apple and legal restriction of putting OSX on some other PC than Apple. Stick to the point.

To put it simply: Sony is entirely within its rights to sue you for making a copy of a CD without paying. They are likely not within their rights to say that you must use Sony CDs you've purchased in a Sony-labled CD player...

No, with these words it is not. But on the other hand Sony could simply make it different (aka. non-workable) and put a sticker "CAUTION: USABLE WITH SONY CD ONLY" on the box and patent his modification without possibility of licensing to other vendors.
What you get here is:
1. Legaly one can't modify his CD player and not break the patent law
2. If you don't break the law in point 1., you can't use that CD anyway.
3. If you succed to listen to that CD anywhere else but Sony CD player, you broke the law

And Apple sold you OEM-like with computer, after that the only thing you can buy are upgrade-retails. There is no retail version of OSX only upgrades. Meaning effect is the same, but method is different. Resale is legal agreement too, you know? And usualy it is in combination with EULA.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: hmm..
by archiesteel on Wed 15th Feb 2006 04:49 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: hmm.."
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Your friend, if he really existed, is an idiot. If he had such obvious knowledge of copyright infringement from these companies, any lawyer would have taken the case without asking for money upfront...

Just by curiosity, what's the name of your friend, and the name of the program that was allegedly stolen?

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: hmm..
by Chreo on Wed 15th Feb 2006 10:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: hmm.."
Chreo Member since:
2005-07-06

Yup if he had only used the car manufacturer instead of "the owner" of "one particular car" then it may even have had some validity. Ofc the direct counter to that is that the car manufacturer wants to sell as many cars as they can. Thay could not care less about who it is that buys (except for marketing purposes =).

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: hmm..
by Johan on Wed 15th Feb 2006 04:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: hmm.."
Johan Member since:
2005-06-30

The quest for freedom is a universal human need.

That's the biggest bullshit argument I've ever heard. If you're going to swindle Apple, just shutup and do it quietly. Don't hide behind the some idealism, trying to justify to yourself you're doing this for the good of mankind. There is no honour in breaking promises.

Apple only wants to sell OSX to people their hardware, that's the only way they can cover the costs and make a profit out of the enormous financial investments they put into developing the OS. They just can't justify the costs of development if the hardware costs are not included. If everyone bought OSX but not Apple machines, Apple will lose money. So theres an agreement that you can only install osx into Apple computers.

We all know this. You can argue the legality till the cows come home. If the current law cannot uphold this basic agreement, than its the failure of the system. But by actively trying to break this agreement, its ethically wrong. So don't try to claim some moral reason for dishonouring that agreement.

Apple is free to sell their products in any way they choose, and they do not force it upon anybody. You are free to not buy their products. But by dishonouring the agreement, and making them lose money, you are infringing on their freedom to make a living.

One does not have the freedom to infringe upon the freedom of others.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: hmm..
by archiesteel on Wed 15th Feb 2006 04:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: hmm.."
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Apple is free to sell their products in any way they choose, and they do not force it upon anybody. You are free to not buy their products. But by dishonouring the agreement, and making them lose money, you are infringing on their freedom to make a living.

I'm sorry, but if Apple choses the wrong business model, it is their own problem. They are free to sell their products any way they choose, but that doesn't mean that the model they chose is sound...

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: hmm..
by Johan on Wed 15th Feb 2006 05:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: hmm.."
Johan Member since:
2005-06-30

damnit, i was going to hit reply but accidentally modded you up. oh well consider it a gift.

I'm sorry, but if Apple choses the wrong business model, it is their own problem. They are free to sell their products any way they choose, but that doesn't mean that the model they chose is sound...

If their model is not sound, then it their freedom to run it to the ground. No one else has the right to decide their business model for them. Does it make it right for me to steal more fruits from the grocer if i think they are overcharging? No, but i do have the power to not buy from them.

Thieves can't get away with the excuse "i don't think their business model was right". Neither can we.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: hmm..
by rayiner on Wed 15th Feb 2006 05:34 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: hmm.."
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

Does it make it right for me to steal more fruits from the grocer if i think they are overcharging? No, but i do have the power to not buy from them.

The grocer has the right to charge whatever he wants for the fruit (actually, he doesn't because there are all sorts of regulations, but let's pretend). He doesn't have the right to say that you can only buy strawberries if you dip them in the sweet cream he also sells. I'd like to see that trial in a court of law.

Thieves can't get away with the excuse "i don't think their business model was right". Neither can we.

Because thievery is illegal. Breaking a EULA is a different matter entirely.

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: hmm..
by Johan on Wed 15th Feb 2006 05:44 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: hmm.."
Johan Member since:
2005-06-30

godammit, i keep modding people up by accident.

Again you're still equating legality to ethics. Many unethical practices has happened within the confines of the law.

If you don't like the way he sells the strawberries, then don't buy. But to agree to that rule, and then break that agreement when in fact you don't, therby wasting everybody's time and the grocer's money, then that very unethical. You're free to walk, but you're not free to lie.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: hmm..
by alcibiades on Wed 15th Feb 2006 07:57 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: hmm.."
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

Yes, Rayiner is quite right.

Even if the conditions on use in a Eula are enforceable in law (and most though not all of them violate some consumer protection and competition law), breaking them is not a criminal matter. It is a civil matter.

The company could try to claim damages from you. But you have broken no law. There is no law against breaking a contract. Whether it is enforceable depends on the contract.

It is not breaking the law to run Office under Wine. It is not stealing either. Whether the courts would award damages, is an interesting question. My bet is that if the Eula forbids it, at least in Europe, it would be held in violation of competition law.

Which is why none of these cases ever come to court.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: hmm..
by rayiner on Wed 15th Feb 2006 05:16 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: hmm.."
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

They just can't justify the costs of development if the hardware costs are not included. If everyone bought OSX but not Apple machines, Apple will lose money. So theres an agreement that you can only install osx into Apple computers.

If I were Apple, I'd be hesitant about basing my entire business model on a pseudo-contract that is on shakey legal ground even in the US, and is obviously not valid in some countries around the world. Of course, Apple is smarter than that. They count on the vast majority of users simply accepting that what's on the box is the law, and never challenging that idea. History suggests that they are right in believing this. However, that does not change the fact that there is thus nothing wrong with taking advantage of what you are legally allowed to do.

We all know this. You can argue the legality till the cows come home. If the current law cannot uphold this basic agreement, than its the failure of the system.

You speak as if having copyright holders dictate the terms of use is a good thing. Pesonally, I'm glad the system fails to uphold such a policy! I'm glad I live somewhere where, at least in theory if not in practice, the power of people over the actions of others is limited as much as possible. It's basic western thinking, though consumerism has diluted the power of the ideas somewhat.

Of course, at the very lowest level, its not a matter of ideology, but one of reality. The law is what it is. Apple maximizes its profit as much as it can within the law. I am, therefore, perfectly entitled to maximize my utility as much as I can within the law.

But by actively trying to break this agreement, its ethically wrong.

What is ethically wrong is basing your business model on the coercion of your customers.

But by dishonouring the agreement, and making them lose money, you are infringing on their freedom to make a living.

In the United States, people are not granted to make a living however they choose. They are granted the right to do so within the bounds of the law. If your business model depends on your customers obeying terms that they have no legal obligation to, that's your problem. Society is not obliged to make your business model work for you. I could very well start a bakery based on the "take a cookie, leave a dollar" model. Hell, I'd even have more legal standing to take people to court for violating that policy than Apple would for violating their EULA. But my business would likely not succeed, and society would not be obliged to see that it did.

Edited 2006-02-15 05:20

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: hmm..
by Johan on Wed 15th Feb 2006 05:35 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: hmm.."
Johan Member since:
2005-06-30

All your arguments were made as if the law is infallible. Laws change, society changes. Business models change throughout history and the law gets modified to accommodate them. If the current legal system is inadequate, it does not mean its ethically right to abuse loopholes. Many big businesses have done many abusive practices despite being within the confines of the law at that time.

At the most basic level, Apple is saying that, ok, i will only sell this to you if you install it on a machine you bought from me. You said, fine. But yet, behind Apple's back, you break that promise. There's no way you can ethically try to justify that.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: hmm..
by rayiner on Wed 15th Feb 2006 05:46 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: hmm.."
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

All your arguments were made as if the law is infallible.

The law is the law. You have to follow it as it is, and you can take advantage of it as it is. If Apple wants the law changed, they can lobby for it. Indeed, I'm sure they already are.

If the current legal system is inadequate

The current legal system is perfectly adequate, and perfectly consistent with a model where an author does not own a work, in a conventional sense, but is only granted temporary control of it. If you don't like that model, to bad, that is what we have in the US, even if it is being pared down day by day.


At the most basic level, Apple is saying that, ok, i will only sell this to you if you install it on a machine you bought from me. You said, fine. But yet, behind Apple's back, you break that promise. There's no way you can ethically try to justify that.

I don't have to ethically justify that, I just have to legally justify that. Beyond that, on an ethical level, I do not believe people have the right to decide how their products get used. I don't believe that people should have that kind of power over other people. Apparently, the law as it stands agrees with me.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: hmm..
by Johan on Wed 15th Feb 2006 05:54 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: hmm.."
Johan Member since:
2005-06-30

Well, if you don't want to ethcally justify that, then we have nothing to talk about. My original post was about ethics, since the post I was replying to was going braveheart on us an crying FREEDOOOOM and proceed to cheat apple of money.

Apple has no power to force you to buy their wares. They don't coerce anybody to doanything. How you feel about the way they are selling their products does mean its ethical to lie to them, and thereby deciding yourself how they should run their business.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: hmm..
by kaiwai on Thu 16th Feb 2006 01:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: hmm.."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, lets skip the bit about control and maybe lets assume the guy wanted a challenge? hell, he probably has NO interest in running the operating system itself, he just probably finds the whole idea of studying software security an interesting past time.

Some people tweak their cars, others like to play role playing games, and in his case, he likes disecting software and trying to work out how it ticks - and personally, I think its a good thing.

As for the viability of this; I'd say that Apple has only put some very rudamentry software protection in it, just enough to piss people off and simply work to fix the issues with each service pack - in otherwords, if one were to run it on their own machine, they would always be behind the eight ball.

With MacOS X 10.5 around the corner, this is probably the time where Apple will really push up the notch when it comes to security, they would have had over 18 months to come up with a security stratergy that takes advantage of all the features - lets remember guys, there are only limited things you can do in 6months in respects to getting MacOS X up and running, and secure on the x86 platform.

Couple that with the fact that there are limited drivers, and basically you're reliant on using the same motherboard and processor specifications as what the Mac uses, the 'great freedom' people herald on about is nothing more than a fictional fantasy; It would be a hard pressed task to find that same components as Apple and put them together in a beige box cheaper than Apple can, because unlike Joe Basement Geek, Apple gets volume discounts.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: hmm..
by miscz on Wed 15th Feb 2006 00:27 UTC in reply to "RE: hmm.."
miscz Member since:
2005-07-17

But oh well, apparantly there's a market for half-baked OSX installs on cheap self-built crap in a lot of basements around the world.
Oh please, stop this dull grey crap propaganda. My notebook is far from being self-built or looking bad and OSX fits it nicely.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: hmm..
by Celerate on Wed 15th Feb 2006 00:48 UTC in reply to "RE: hmm.."
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

"But oh well, apparantly there's a market for half-baked OSX installs on cheap self-built crap in a lot of basements around the world."

What makes you think that being a smart consumer and building a computer at home makes the hardware any worse, did you forget that article on what hardware is behind the shiny aluminum panels of Macs already?
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=12671

Home building a computer means that you can heave the exact same parts minus the branded case for much cheaper, how then would being home built make the case cheaper. And for that matter most people building their own computers are putting together powerful systems, not cheap ones.

If people were going to use cheap computers they wouldn't home build them, they'd buy an e-machines computer for $300. Home built computers are in majority much higher end and would put even the iMac line to shame.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: hmm..
by Celerate on Wed 15th Feb 2006 00:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: hmm.."
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

There's a mistake in there,
The part: "how then would being home built make the case cheaper."
Should have been: "how then would being home built make the hardware cheaper."

Too bad there isn't an edit option for replies too, proof reading isn't perfect.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: hmm..
by Dave_K on Wed 15th Feb 2006 01:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: hmm.."
Dave_K Member since:
2005-11-16

Home built computers are in majority much higher end and would put even the iMac line to shame.

That's very true, most of the home built systems I see are high end gaming systems, or are built because the user has specific requirements that aren't met by ready built products. The kind of computer enthusiasts I know who build their computers tend to spend as much on their case, PSU and cooling as other people spend on their whole computer. It's the cheap PCs mass produced by various companies that give PCs in general a bad name for quality.

I built my PC because I wanted something silent for audio work and it cost as much as a high end Mac. Considering how noisy most high end Apple computers have tended to be, I doubt their Intel towers will fit my needs. Given the choice I'd rather run Windows and have superior home built hardware than buy a Mac, even though I do like Mac OS X.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: hmm..
by MORB on Wed 15th Feb 2006 08:59 UTC in reply to "RE: hmm.."
MORB Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah, I'd rather see this cracker use his expertise to do legal things instead of this stuff... But oh well, apparantly there's a market for half-baked OSX installs on cheap self-built crap in a lot of basements around the world.

Myself, I'd rather see companies like apple not waste their time creating complicated protection schemes that are bound to be cracked eventually.
Especially in apple's case where there is so little incentive (except the technical challenge, but that wouldn't even be there if there was no protection to begin with) to make their os work on a regular pc because of the lack of drivers and such.

Edited 2006-02-15 09:00

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: hmm..
by dylansmrjones on Wed 15th Feb 2006 12:49 UTC in reply to "RE: hmm.."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

If he lives in Europe (let's say Holland or Denmark) his actions are perfectly legal, Thom. And you know that.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: hmm..
by as400tek on Wed 15th Feb 2006 18:35 UTC in reply to "RE: hmm.."
as400tek Member since:
2006-02-15

Long Live Maxxuss....Long Live Apple

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: hmm..
by l3v1 on Sun 19th Feb 2006 18:59 UTC in reply to "RE: hmm.."
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

market for half-baked OSX installs on cheap self-built crap in a lot of basements

I guess spitting out idiotic remarks about people who really spend quite a lot of their rightfully earned money on absolutely not crappy hardware has just got fashionable among internet "journalists" ?

It's one thing stating your opinion about someone cracking an OS whose EULA is not even valid everywhere on this planet. It's another thing to make useless idiotic remarks about people who have the money, the time and the knowledge to buil their fraggin' good systems at home.

Your remarks make more an impression of a person living in a basement than the actions of someone hacking OSX for whatever reason.

Reply Score: 1

10.4.5
by DevL on Tue 14th Feb 2006 23:06 UTC
DevL
Member since:
2005-07-06

And now 10.4.5 is out. Boys and girls, when you've stopped hacking/playing (which is cool and admirable*) and/or given up on getting a free lunch AKA Mac OS X on your grey boxes (which is just cheap**) do yourselves a favour and go out and buy the Real Thing (TM).

* Hacking in order to gain knowledge is very cool as long as you don't break things for others.

** This post is going to get soooo modded done by all the kids out there who doesn't realize that their 1337 gaming rigs aren't meant to run Mac OS X without handing $$$/€€€ to Apple for their hard work.

Reply Score: 4

RE: 10.4.5
by CaptainFlint on Wed 15th Feb 2006 08:59 UTC in reply to "10.4.5"
CaptainFlint Member since:
2006-01-24

pshaw! Apple have made too much money selling hyped up products. As for Maxxuss breaking things for others, I think he just made available a hardware and vendor locked os for the masses, so Apple executives will have to wear silver cufflinks with their hand spun silk shirts now instead of their golden ones... boo hoo

Reply Score: 1

In sync with 10.4.5
by BlackJack75 on Tue 14th Feb 2006 23:17 UTC
BlackJack75
Member since:
2005-08-29

The plot thickens. Come on.. everyone knows that Maxxus is an apple employee teasing the X86 users. You just get the taste of it but never the real thing (stability simplicity).

If Maxxus is a real person, just a student out there, with a lot of time, he certainly does a great job at what he does. Apple should definitely hire him (if that's not already the case that is).

Reply Score: 4

Fun while it lasts
by Tom K on Tue 14th Feb 2006 23:19 UTC
Tom K
Member since:
2005-07-06

Sure, hacking OS X to run on cheap white-box PCs is fun while it lasts, but it's not a long-term endeavour. Consider the following:

- Hardware manufacturers will still only support (in the form of drivers) the hardware which is currently available for x86 Macs. Don't have the same kind of Ethernet/audio card that an Intel Mac does? Tough sh*t. No Ethernet/sound for you.
- Apple can break things for you with *any* update they release.
- Apple can update Xcode to automatically compile all Cocoa projects with a small, randomized machine-check before the rest of your code, thus rendering any and all applications eventually released useless on your hacked box.
- And so on ...

That OSx86 site is full of fools. Take for instance the following quote:

"Without doubt, this will have profound impacts on the company’s future as running OSx86 on a PC becomes less a hacker’s trick and more mainstream. When all it requires is the downloading of a DVD, that’s certainly the future we’re looking at."

It will *NEVER* become mainstream, you fools. It will never become mainstream because it will always be a half-assed, half-working hack, it will never be 100% stable, and it will never be as simple as popping in a DVD and installing OS X on your little self-built box. The driver support is simply not there.

Ah well, 14-year-olds will be 14-year-olds.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Fun while it lasts
by DevL on Tue 14th Feb 2006 23:37 UTC in reply to "Fun while it lasts"
DevL Member since:
2005-07-06

"It will *NEVER* become mainstream, you fools. It will never become mainstream because it will always be a half-assed, half-working hack, it will never be 100% stable, and it will never be as simple as popping in a DVD and installing OS X on your little self-built box."

Actually, this kind of reminds me of Windows and you have to call it mainstream...

(Sorry for going OT, I just couldn't resist this. :-))

Reply Score: 1

RE: Fun while it lasts
by rayiner on Tue 14th Feb 2006 23:39 UTC in reply to "Fun while it lasts"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

It will *NEVER* become mainstream, you fools. It will never become mainstream because it will always be a half-assed, half-working hack

So was Win 9x, but look where that got Microsoft? Don't underestimate the general public's capacity for broken software.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Fun while it lasts
by Tom K on Tue 14th Feb 2006 23:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Fun while it lasts"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

*sigh*

Windows 9x and hacked OS X on x86 whitebox hardware are so far from being parallels that if they were any farther away, they'd be getting closer. :-)

Reply Score: 3

RE: Fun while it lasts
by cg0def on Wed 15th Feb 2006 00:13 UTC in reply to "Fun while it lasts"
cg0def Member since:
2006-02-12

the funny thing is that you of all people is complaining about 14 year old behavior and yet there are some strikingly 14-year-oldish comnets comming from you. First of all there is pretty much no hardware that Apple uses in the Intel Macs that you can't buy. So this whole driver issue is pretty easily resolved. Also Apple is not going to ever implement some * random hardware check *. If they were to do this it would slow down the boot up process for paying users and ultimatelly any such check is very much crackable. If you new anything about compilers you would have caught the line about code obfuscation in the article. Yet even this didn't help Apple much. The bottom line is that any code is crackable if you want it too bad. In the case of Apple there are people that want it really bad just for bragging rights. So no matter what Apple does the software will be cracked. Plus as soon as a new version comes out there will also be a new crack. It's been done for windows software for decades now so the same fate awaits Apple. The driver problem is the only thing that is going to stop people for a while but Apple has to open up their hardware support base if they are to remain compatible in the x86 world. Plus you would be surprised how many 3rd party drivers were there for the powerpc architecture. Contrary to common believes Mac do have a pretty large hardware base.

Oh and I can't believe that there are still people confident in the fact that Macs are build to a higher quality standart that any pc. Maybe it comes as a surprise to some of you but there are some really high quality custom build pcs and they are hardly the exception anymore. From the perspective a custombuild computer Apple's product are cheaply made and the hardware is nothing but mainstream ( well may be except for the G5 cpus and some of the larger displays ).

Anyway the interesting thing from this article IMO is that Apple didnot implement any CPUID check. I am not sure how true this is but the guy is saying that any CPU with SSE2 support will do. I expected that Apple would at least check if it is an Intel CPU since they were so eager to pick Intel over AMD.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Fun while it lasts
by rayiner on Wed 15th Feb 2006 00:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Fun while it lasts"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh and I can't believe that there are still people confident in the fact that Macs are build to a higher quality standart that any pc.

One of the fans in my G5 PowerMac has begun intermittently buzzing. Not a whole lot, but its off-balance just enough to be annoying. I've got an 8 year old Dell which ran as the server in our house for several months while the basement was being remodeled. It inhaled all sorts of dust, but to this day, the fans are as quiet as the were when they were new.

Apple's hardware quality is vastly overstated, something which surprisingly enough most Mac users are aware of. They've dealt with the super-loud "wind tunnel" G4 PowerMacs, the buzzy power supplies in the G5 PowerMacs, the leaky water cooling systems, the constant logic board problems in some of the earlier G4 iBooks, all the assorted issues that plagued the Rev A G5 iMacs, etc. They still love Apple machines, but they don't seem to have the irrational image of Apple hardware quality some of the Apple contingent like to espouse.

Reply Score: 5

Apple isn't worried yet!
by stephanem on Tue 14th Feb 2006 23:20 UTC
stephanem
Member since:
2006-01-11

> there's a market for half-baked OSX installs on cheap self-built crap


Installing MacOSX on a PC clone in itself isn't bad for apple.

What you don't want happening is a bunch of hardware cloners palming off cloned MacTels as the "real" deal.

Reply Score: 1

It's...
by JustAnotherMacUser on Tue 14th Feb 2006 23:26 UTC
JustAnotherMacUser
Member since:
2006-01-08

..a war of attrition by Apple.

"There's nothing like the real thing ba-by..."

http://homepage.mac.com/hogfish/iMovieTheater19.html

Reply Score: 1

RE: It's...
by CrimsonScythe on Wed 15th Feb 2006 02:54 UTC in reply to "It's..."
CrimsonScythe Member since:
2005-07-10

Just out of curiosity, but what was the point of that video? That an iMac can play several videos jerkily?

Then again, when I play two videos in QT on my Powerbook they both jerk, while my Gentoo box easily plays 4 videos smoothly. (On 3 year old hardware, mind you. Both computers have 1.5GHz cpus.) Maybe all that shows is that Mplayer/Xine is better than QuickTime, but that's been my impression ever since I first tried QuickTime.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: It's...
by somebody on Wed 15th Feb 2006 03:11 UTC in reply to "RE: It's..."
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

Just out of curiosity, but what was the point of that video? That an iMac can play several videos jerkily?

Then again, when I play two videos in QT on my Powerbook they both jerk, while my Gentoo box easily plays 4 videos smoothly. (On 3 year old hardware, mind you. Both computers have 1.5GHz cpus.) Maybe all that shows is that Mplayer/Xine is better than QuickTime, but that's been my impression ever since I first tried QuickTime.


And neither can do that any other player on OSX. With the fact you constantly lack codecs.

This should change with VideoCore, but I wonder how long it will last for players to be transfered to VC.

I'm waiting for almost 10 years now to be able to play videos decently on my Macs (your first impression is the same as mine after 10 years). Lucky me, Linux to rescue here and the fact that Macs are always complete minority of my computers.

Reply Score: 1

The legality of hacking OS X
by rayiner on Tue 14th Feb 2006 23:42 UTC
rayiner
Member since:
2005-07-06

I think it is frightening how many people have been brain-washed into believing a company can put whatever it damn well wants into a "EULA" and that is the word of the law. The legal basis behind EULAs is *very* shakey. Also, it just doesn't make sense when you consider it in a larger context. Apple telling you what you can install OS X on is like a book publisher telling you what brand of bookshelves you can keep a book on.

That said, its true that it is not currently legal to use OS X x86, simply because retail copies of it are not available without the purchase of a Mac. When that happens, though, the legality of OS X on whitebox PCs may very well be upheld.

Reply Score: 5

RE: The legality of hacking OS X
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 14th Feb 2006 23:54 UTC in reply to "The legality of hacking OS X"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I don't care whether or not the EULA is enforcable, Rayiner. For me, it's something personal. I see an EULA as a contract, and as such, when I agree with it, I'll have to adhere by it. You may claim that EULAs are unethical, and I respect that viewpoint.

However, then I also expect you, and others, to respect my viewpoint: I clicked 'agree', and as such, I will not break it. Same as I will not break my rental contract on my house. Same as I will not break someone's rules while staying in their house.

Both viewpoints are valid, in my opinion. However, I'm getting pretty annoyed over people calling me names just because I happen to want to adhere to a contract I agreed to.

Reply Score: 5

rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't care whether or not the EULA is enforcable, Rayiner. For me, it's something personal. I see an EULA as a contract, and as such, when I agree with it, I'll have to adhere by it. You may claim that EULAs are unethical, and I respect that viewpoint.

I'm not claiming that EULA's are unethical (though I think most are), but rather that EULA's do not have enough legal foundation to be able to say that breaking them is illegal. Most EULA's are full of clauses that likely would not stand up in a court of law. Microsoft's Windows EULA says the license is only transferable a single time. That means if you're the third owner of a used computer, you're violating the EULA. If Microsoft sued you for that, do you think they'd win? Companies put all sorts of crap in EULAs that they know they likely cannot enforce, just because they know most people will not challenge them. It's fine if you want to voluntarily play that game, but don't attack people who call it as being the bullshit it is.

However, I'm getting pretty annoyed over people calling me names just because I happen to want to adhere to a contract I agreed to.

You were the one who lashed out at the people who cracked OS X. It's fine if you want to follow the EULA because you like Apple. However, don't confuse "being nice" to Apple with fulfilling your legal obligations to Apple.

Reply Score: 5

somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

I'm not claiming that EULA's are unethical (though I think most are), but rather that EULA's do not have enough legal foundation to be able to say that breaking them is illegal. Most EULA's are full of clauses that likely would not stand up in a court of law. Microsoft's Windows EULA says the license is only transferable a single time. That means if you're the third owner of a used computer, you're violating the EULA. If Microsoft sued you for that, do you think they'd win? Companies put all sorts of crap in EULAs that they know they likely cannot enforce, just because they know most people will not challenge them. It's fine if you want to voluntarily play that game, but don't attack people who call it as being the bullshit it is.

What you've described is that some EULA licenses are stupid and contain discriminatory measures, which is agreed. Such licenses must be corrected.

But, for author not to be possible to have anything to say basic things about how and what is allowed conduct with his product? Why do you use his product then, if you disrespect him so much? Sometimes licenses for commercial software are like marriage, take it or leave it.

Edited 2006-02-15 01:07

Reply Score: 1

rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

But, for author not to be possible to have anything to say basic things about how and what is allowed conduct with his product?

No, not really, not beyond whatever powers are granted to him by copyright law. If I want to buy a copy of an author's opus and use it as toilet paper, I'm entirely within my rights to do so.

It is important to remember the nature of copyright. In the United States, at least, works, when created, belong to the people, not to the author. That is the "state of nature", as it were. Copyright was explicitly couched as a temporary artificial measure designed to make the creation of new works more profitable. In this mindest, the idea of the "natural right of authors" has no meaning. The rights of the author are whatever copyright law afford them. The Berne convention is a very approachable legal document http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html. Could you please show me where in here it says authors have the right to control the use of reproductions?

Why do you use his product then, if you disrespect him so much?

Respect and disrespect are social constructs. They have no meaning in the world of law. All that exists is "legal" and "illegal".

Sometimes licenses for commercial software are like marriage, take it or leave it.

More like prostitution, but even that analogy is flawed. At least when you pick up a hooker, you agree to a verbal contract about what he/she will or will not do for your money. If software vendors want to set up official contracts for the use of their software, more power to them. That's entirely within their rights. However, they want to have their cake and eat it too. They don't want to introduce the hassle of a real contract, because that'd reduce their sales, but want to have the power to enforce restrictions as if they had a real contract. Well, they can't have it both ways!

Reply Score: 5

somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

Respect and disrespect are social constructs. They have no meaning in the world of law. All that exists is "legal" and "illegal".

And since you can't buy OSX legaly without buying Mac? Your point would be? (read the fine print: Requires Apple Computer).

More like prostitution, but even that analogy is flawed.

So, you can screw a hooker and run without paying completely legaly? If she doesn't want to give it for free you're entitled to take your self the right?

That's entirely within their rights. However, they want to have their cake and eat it too. They don't want to introduce the hassle of a real contract, because that'd reduce their sales, but want to have the power to enforce restrictions as if they had a real contract. Well, they can't have it both ways!

True, but... not in case of Apple. Be a good boy. Pick up your PC, take it to nearest Mac vendor and try to buy OSX (and yes, demand installation as you're prepared to pay for it).

Guess what, they will decline this sale. Meaning, Apple does eat its pem cake.

No vendor ever asks for proof of ownership, they just assume no one would buy OSX without having ApplePC.

I can for example walk in any shop and buy Upgrade (in the end, it is cheaper) version of any software. No problem. Problem stated here is: "Can I really legaly claim ownership of license for that product?".

Reply Score: 1

rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

And since you can't buy OSX legaly without buying Mac? Your point would be? (read the fine print: Requires Apple Computer).

The fine print is what is under contention here! It's not clear that Apple is allowed to attach those kind of terms to sale of the software license. Would a clause that said "you can only use this software while naked" be valid? What's the qualitative distinction between that and "requires Apple Computer"?

So, you can screw a hooker and run without paying completely legaly? If she doesn't want to give it for free you're entitled to take your self the right?

Um, how do you come to that conclusion from my statement? If you do what you said, you're violating a verbal contract with the hooker, so no, you are not legally in the right. However, the validity of verbal contracts is well-established in law. The validity of EULAs is an entirely different kettle of fish.

Again, let's be clear about this. My contention is not that installing OS X on a PC violates Apple's EULA, but rather that its likely that Apple's EULA has no power to enforce such restrictions. More generally --- EULA's take upon themselves vast, far reaching powers to enforce restrictions on the use of products, but its not really clear what laws give them such powers!

Reply Score: 5

somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

Again, let's be clear about this. My contention is not that installing OS X on a PC violates Apple's EULA, but rather that its likely that Apple's EULA has no power to enforce such restrictions. More generally --- EULA's take upon themselves vast, far reaching powers to enforce restrictions on the use of products, but its not really clear what laws give them such powers!

You don't get it.

OEM, retail and upgrade are the problem here not EULA. By definition any OSX you buy separately is declared as upgrade product, not retail. Apple selld upgrades only. And I think I explained that well enough in one of my previous posts.

There is a difference between beeing able to buy and legaly buy.

Reply Score: 2

Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

That's an interesting comment there Thom, but I take my principles over the tyranny of some rich guy just looking to shovel more cash into his bank account.

As an example I absolutely had to use Microsoft Office 2003 to do my school work a year ago, there was no way out of it. The school had computers in the library but that was just so they could say students had no excuse for not having their homework done if it required a computer. The computers were always taken up no matter how early you got there, and most of the people on them were either checking e-mail, forums, or porn when the librarians weren't looking so you HAD to have a computer and the required software at home.

There was no alternative for the software we had to use, it was Microsoft Excel or nothing because OO.o wouldn't do the graphs the way the teachers wanted them. Microsoft got the schools to use their proprietary software with closed standards by offering them the software cheap (in several cases bribery of the deciding individual(s) is also involved), knowing full well students would have to pay $200 for the software in order to get their homework done and not fail. In my opinion what Microsoft was doing was malicious, there's no two ways about it and frankly whoever decided to standardize the entire district on their software was no better. Had my parents not bought MS Office I would have pirated it wouthout feeling even slightly guilty, what goes around comes around and Microsoft picked the fight.

As far as Apple software is concerned I wouldn't pirate that because they don't force me to use it, Apple plays nice with me so I play nice with them.

The point is that a rock solid stance to obey whatever contract a company throws at you isn't a good policy when that company starts abusing you.

Reply Score: 2

Jesuspower Member since:
2006-01-28

Its the vendor saying, if you want to use my product, you must promise to do such and such.
I applaud the fact that you are a man of your word. Most people are not. They also blame shift everything. (ex: "it's the vendors fault I broke my promise!")

However, both viewpoints cannot be valid. They are opposing viewpoints that cannot logically be equal.
One involves keeping a promise. The oter involves breaking a promise.

Speaking of which, if everyone that bought the software broke the agreement, the vendor might get angry enough to start enforcing the agreement.
If people were more honest, and kept their word, and did not use software that they were going have to make a bad agreement on, then the venor could not enforce it, because you did not agree to it and they would have to make a new license.

Reply Score: 1

alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

Thom, you are missing something. It is legally possible in Europe to impose some kinds of conditions on use in a Eula. But the kind of conditions on use which prevent you from running bought software on the hardware of your choice are not among them.

This is because in general, post sales restrictions on use, imposed by conditions of sale, are unlawful in the EC. There are a variety of reasons. One is they lead to anti competitive linked sales. Two is they violate the EC regulations which are embodied in the UK consumer protection and sales of goods acts - you can't as a manufacturer impose unreasonable conditions, or use your greater power in the market with respect to consumers to impose conditions of sale.

This is why MS cannot stop you, by Eula, from running Office under Wine or Crossover.

Now, do you have a moral obligation to only run software on the systems specified in the Eula, and as specified? I would have thought exactly the reverse. The supplier has the moral, as well as the legal obligation to respect the culture and laws of the region he is selling in. If the law prohibits certain kinds of restrictions on use, he is quite wrong to try to incorporate them in a Eula. Effectively this borders on fraud. It leads the buyer to believe he has assented to binding conditions which are not in fact binding, and which no EC court would enforce.

You have no more a moral or legal obligation to only run your bought copy of OSX on a Mac, than you do to refrain from reading the latest novel you bought in the bath - no matter what the Eula says, in either case.

Of course, Apple is not obliged to support you. That's a different matter entirely. You can limit your support obligations to some conditions of use, to some extent at least, in a Eula.

Reply Score: 4

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Whether you click "agree" or not doesn't matter in any legal way.

You might say "I agree" to a gangster, but that doesn't bind you legally when forced to accept a law-breaking deal.

You might say "I agree" to an EULA for some software, but that doesn't bind you legally when forced to accept a law-breaking EULA.

However, I like the fact you won't break the someone's rules while staying in their house. That's a nice side of your personality ;)

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

First a small nitpick: there is no such thing as 'Holland'. My country is called the Netherlands. There are two provinces with the name 'Holland' in them-- Northern-Holland and Southern-Holland. But anyway.

Whether you click "agree" or not doesn't matter in any legal way.

As I already said about 2894291 times, to me it does not matter whether or not it is legal or not. I'm getting tired of typing the same over and over again, so here is a c/p:

"You are not getting it. I *understand* all this might be allowed by law. But, as I already said, I don't care. Do you do everything just because the law allows you to?

When I'm throwing a party, I might come to an agreement with my neighbour that my friends are allowed to park their cars on his driveway. Now, I'd be pretty pissed off if in the middle of the party he starts kicking all the cars off of his driveway-- even though he is legally perfectly allowed to do so. Apparantlly, people like yourself would not be pissed off at all- you neighbour has done nothing illegal, so why care?

When I use an Apple, Microsoft, or any other product which comes with a contract, then I have an agreement with that company. And as such, I will try my best to adhere to that agreement, whether the law forces me to or not. It's not because I like those companies; it's because I have an agreement. Just like I had with my neighbour.

And I'd be pretty pissed off if everyone were to just break agreements because they are not legally binding. What a world we'd live in."


There.

Reply Score: 5

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Whatever... when the forced agreement is lawbreaking I don't mind breaking it.

Look at it this way. You buy a car, and the manufacturer tells you, you will be prosecuted if you buy food from Lidl, and that you're only allowed to buy food from Aldi.

Now that's an unreasonable demand, and something I'd break for sure. But hey, I'm danish - freedom above anything.

And the english name is Holland as well as The Netherlands. Just like there is two names in Danish. Holland and Nederlandene. Just to be a small nitpick ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: The legality of hacking OS X
by DevL on Tue 14th Feb 2006 23:59 UTC in reply to "The legality of hacking OS X"
DevL Member since:
2005-07-06

"That said, its true that it is not currently legal to use OS X x86, simply because retail copies of it are not available without the purchase of a Mac. When that happens, though, the legality of OS X on whitebox PCs may very well be upheld."

You say 'when' - I ask why that should EVER happen. Apple has no need to release anything BUT OS upgrades as no Macs come without OS X...

Reply Score: 3

rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

The current retail versions are full versions, not upgrades. IIRC, they don't say anything about requiring an older version of OS X to be installed.

Also, your logic shows its limitations when it comes to second-hand Macs. What happens if you buy an old Mac without a hard drive? What if you assemble one out of used components? Is it impossible for me to now put an OS on that machine? Or are you going to argue about the immorality of buying used hardware and say I should pay $$$ for a new Mac?

Reply Score: 3

somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

The current retail versions are full versions, not upgrades. IIRC, they don't say anything about requiring an older version of OS X to be installed.

Time to start learnig how to read for you. Read the fine print. Requires Apple hardware. You can't buy Apple without OS. So, technicaly, it is upgrade.

But, it doesn't say original version has to be installed.

Also, your logic shows its limitations when it comes to second-hand Macs.

Nope. His logic works. Read warranty, read box label. You got Install CD. Also your invoice is a proof. And it is specified which Mac comes with which OS.

What happens if you buy an old Mac without a hard drive?

Hard driv has nothing with that.

What if you assemble one out of used components?

The one containg the serial number of computer will be valid to transfer your license on. Other licenses go to waste like any OEM license.

Is it impossible for me to now put an OS on that machine?

Nope. As long as you have proof of ownership.

Or are you going to argue about the immorality of buying used hardware and say I should pay $$$ for a new Mac?

Since Apple would like to see that. Yes. Enforcing them to buy 1/9 of the product (just the least profitable part)? No. It is like stealing their profit because you're cheap.

It is Apple product, so why wouldn't Apple decide who and how can use it?

And notice that I dislike both, Apple and OSX. But still own one G5 for my needs.

Reply Score: 3

rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

Requires Apple hardware. You can't buy Apple without OS. So, technicaly, it is upgrade.

Sure you can. Sitting next to me, I have a used PowerMac G4 that I bought without a hard drive and without an OS.

But, it doesn't say original version has to be installed.

It doesn't say anything about owning the old version at all! In my case, I have the hardware legally, but I was not transferred the OS X license. By your logic, I cannot go and buy a copy of Tiger and put it on the machine.

Nope. His logic works. Read warranty, read box label. You got Install CD. Also your invoice is a proof. And it is specified which Mac comes with which OS.

The Mac is not magically tied to a copy of the OS. If you don't explicitly get an OS license and media with a machine, you don't have a license to the old OS.

Nope. As long as you have proof of ownership.

Except I don't own an OS 8.6 license nor do I have a copy of the media.

It is Apple product, so why wouldn't Apple decide who and how can use it?

Because they have no legal power to do so? Moreover, what is your legal reasoning for the OS license that is magically tied to the hardware?

Reply Score: 4

somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

Sure you can. Sitting next to me, I have a used PowerMac G4 that I bought without a hard drive and without an OS.

WRONG! You can't.

Read the fine print. You really do own MacOS9 or OSX (G4s were sold last with 10.2, in this case you own both) license. It was automatically transfered with the Mac you bought it. There is just one trouble, license (or both) is tied to that specific G4 computer and it doesn't upgrade if the model you ought suddenly starts reselling with newer version. You got yours when you bought it, or the one before you got that.

Look at it from OEM perspective. If you buy one computer with OEM license. You can't buy retail upgrade for the second, no matter if the first computer is under your table and shut down. You can do that for the first computer only.

It doesn't say anything about owning the old version at all! In my case, I have the hardware legally, but I was not transferred the OS X license. By your logic, I cannot go and buy a copy of Tiger and put it on the machine.

Give me the model, serial and date of purchase. I'll tell you which. It is tied by OEM like agreement. As in one product with G4. You can't separate them.

By your logic, I cannot go and buy a copy of Tiger and put it on the machine.

On that G4, yes, you can. On the PC next to him, nope.

The Mac is not magically tied to a copy of the OS. If you don't explicitly get an OS license and media with a machine, you don't have a license to the old OS.

Yep. You (or at least you could) can perfectly legaly downgrade. Or buy upgrade.

Except I don't own an OS 8.6 license nor do I have a copy of the media.

Go to any Mac vendor and you'll get a copy. Legally, but paying for the burning only. You can even make a copy your self from some other CD containg your version.

Because they have no legal power to do so? Moreover, what is your legal reasoning for the OS license that is magically tied to the hardware?

Because you agreed with it when deciding to buy Mac? OEM-like, baby, OEM-like.

Reply Score: 2

rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

WRONG! You can't.

What the hell are you talking about? I bought one on ebay two months ago.

It was automatically transfered with the Mac you bought it

No, it wasn't.

Because you agreed with it when deciding to buy Mac? OEM-like, baby, OEM-like.

I didn't agree to anything, and Apple doesn't have my signature on anything. Which is of course the whole contention behind the legality of EULAs.

Reply Score: 1

elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

The current retail versions are full versions, not upgrades. IIRC, they don't say anything about requiring an older version of OS X to be installed.

Upgrade or not, the retail versions are for OS X on PPC. OS X for Intel is an entirely seperate product, there is no grey zone there.

Nor is there a grey zone over the fact that you must purchase a brand spankin' new shiny Mactel to obtain a license for OS X for Intel. The only grey zone is whether Apple can enforce an EULA that only allows it to run on Apple hardware; personally I don't think they can, nor do I think they're entitled to, and really, that's up to the particular jurisdictions to determine. But if the only way to purchase OS X for Intel is to purchase a brand new Mactel, really, why should Apple care? They're laughing all the way to the bank.

Oh, and if one purchases that Mactel to obtain the license so they can hack OS X onto the Intel platform of their choice, they would be required to remove OS X from the brand new Mactel. Otherwise it would still be stealing. No grey zone there, either.

Put another way, just because you purchase a game for the PS/2 doesn't entitle you to a free version of the same game for the XBox. Doesn't work that way. They may look the same, work the same and go by the same name, but they're two different products.

Having said that, if somebody has a legal copy of OS X Intel, wants to turn their Mactel into a doorstop, or worse, a Wintel machine, just for the sake of installing it on their platform of choice, I say all the more power to them.

But any other way is illegal. No grey zones.

Reply Score: 3

rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

Upgrade or not, the retail versions are for OS X on PPC. OS X for Intel is an entirely seperate product, there is no grey zone there.

I noted that earlier in the thread. My points were talking about what happens when Apple releases OS X Intel in the retail channels.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: The legality of hacking OS X
by Duffman on Wed 15th Feb 2006 09:47 UTC in reply to "The legality of hacking OS X"
Duffman Member since:
2005-11-23

"Apple telling you what you can install OS X on is like a book publisher telling you what brand of bookshelves you can keep a book on."

False. Apple is selling book that can only be kept in their own bookshelves because the size/format of the book doesn't fit on another bookshelf.

This guy is cutting the book because he wants it to fit in his bookshelf. It's just like trying to read a floppy disk in a CD drive.

Reply Score: 1

nimble Member since:
2005-07-06

False. Apple is selling book that can only be kept in their own bookshelves because the size/format of the book doesn't fit on another bookshelf.

That's a good analogy actually.

This guy is cutting the book because he wants it to fit in his bookshelf.

So what? As long as it's his copy of the book and his copy of MacOS he can do with them what he wants.

Booksellers can't do anything about using their books as loo paper, and nor can Apple do anything about running MacOS on a bog standard PC. ;)

Reply Score: 1

Technically, it isn't OS X.
by snozzberry on Tue 14th Feb 2006 23:46 UTC
snozzberry
Member since:
2005-11-14

For one thing, his patches involve replacing the entire Mach kernel which is the heart of OS X and what separates it from other BSDs as well as Linux.

What you end up with is actually a lot closer to an emulated OS rather than the OS proper, except with sloppier HW support and the moment the OS expects to talk to EFI, good luck to you.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Technically, it isn't OS X.
by Chreo on Wed 15th Feb 2006 10:33 UTC in reply to "Technically, it isn't OS X."
Chreo Member since:
2005-07-06

Tho I have not looked into this one bit, you can't exactly say that Darwin is NOT part of MacOS X and since I'm guessing they used OpenDarwin that would make is VERY much Mac OS X in my view. That said without looking into the issue.

The OS *should* not talk to EFI, those parts should be in kernel/driver and could be translated/emulated to BIOS (tho EFI is coming soon to generic motherboards soon).

Reply Score: 1

Give it a REST people.
by Sabon on Wed 15th Feb 2006 00:13 UTC
Sabon
Member since:
2005-07-06

Seriously. Give it a REST.

First, most of my computers are currently Macs.

There is NOTHING wrong with Maxxuss learning how to crack Mac OS X. Before he could harm Apple, Apple would be all over him. He is just trying to figure out how to do it for the sake and fun of learning how.

Knowledge is good. He may actually want a job at Apple. If he knows how to crack it he could tell them how to make it harder to do this. Or maybe he just wants to have some fun. Either way this doesn't hurt Apple at all.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Give it a REST people.
by PowerMacX on Wed 15th Feb 2006 05:24 UTC in reply to "Give it a REST people."
PowerMacX Member since:
2005-11-06

"There is NOTHING wrong with Maxxuss learning how to crack Mac OS X. [...] He may actually want a job at Apple. If he knows how to crack it he could tell them how to make it harder to do this."

Yes, there is nothing wrong with blackmail... (???)

Reply Score: 1

Woow, a new definition....
by somebody on Wed 15th Feb 2006 00:18 UTC
somebody
Member since:
2005-07-07

of pathetic on forum.osx86project.org. Don't know if it is only me but, those people there were sure let down when brains were distributed.

If Maxxuss would do a little of real work (earning instead of hacking), he could easily buy him self a Mac if he wants OSX so badly. And so could all others... ????... no, they couldn't, at least based on stupidity of their comments my deduction is that they aren't equiped with brains.

Apple wantd to have its OS on its own hardware (it is easier, cheaper, better to do it like this). As soon as OS /*bound to specific vendor like OSX*/ oversteps from controlled to uncontrolled variety of hardware, his quality in public talks drops because soon more and more people talks about "How to solve this! This doesn't work! This crashes! You can't!" The last thing Apple wants is bad PR like this.

If you want OSX, at least show appreciation to the vendor for his work and buy his box. Not that I'm Apple fan, in fact I hate Apple. But still... enforcing something where it isn't supposed to be? What is next, people forcing their cars to start flying for sole airplane envy?

??? Maybe I'm just to old to understand this.

Reply Score: 1

What's with the 'Free' crap?
by HappyGod on Wed 15th Feb 2006 00:35 UTC
HappyGod
Member since:
2005-10-19

In evaluating the worth of Maxxuss' efforts we're forgetting those users (rare though they are) that may have purchased the OS.

They bought the hardware, they bought the software, so what's wrong with making them work together? Aside from busting some worthless EULA of course.

Reply Score: 1

Hehe, Russians
by Dr-ROX on Wed 15th Feb 2006 00:40 UTC
Dr-ROX
Member since:
2006-01-03

Russian hackers... ;)

Reply Score: 1

hmm
by Mellin on Wed 15th Feb 2006 00:59 UTC
Mellin
Member since:
2005-07-06

if eulas don't work then open source license doesn't work
?

Reply Score: 1

RE: hmm
by cerbie on Wed 15th Feb 2006 05:05 UTC in reply to "hmm"
cerbie Member since:
2006-01-02

Apples and oranges. Wikipedia actually has good descriptions of the issues in their EULA and OSS license articles (and links).

Reply Score: 2

Intellectual Property
by sp29 on Wed 15th Feb 2006 02:16 UTC
sp29
Member since:
2006-01-04

Piracy is against the law and this is what it is. These aren't bought copies of OS X. These are downloaded, borrowed and modified to work on non-apple boxes. If this is allowed it won't be only the geeks downloading OS X, but your average joe computer user.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Intellectual Property
by rayiner on Wed 15th Feb 2006 02:18 UTC in reply to "Intellectual Property"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

How do you know Maxxus doesn't own an Intel Mac, and hacked the OS so he could run it on his beast Opteron machine (and then converted the Intel Mac into a Linux server)?

Reply Score: 1

It's solid.
by Jimmy on Wed 15th Feb 2006 03:41 UTC
Jimmy
Member since:
2005-07-06

Hey now, I read a lot of posts saying that Apple OS X for Wintel boxes is half assed because it isn't stable or what not.

Have you tried it?

I have installed 10.4.1, 10.4.3, and now 10.4.4 on an AMD Sempron Compaq machine I bought for $299 (with rebates and 17 inch monitor)

Guess what? It only took me a couple hours to fully configure my hardware. I had to use a Netgear ethernet card, but now everything works including my printer, a card reader, and I can even sync my Palm m125.

"Apple can crack your machine!" Yeah, they can, and have. On 10.4.3, I tried to download an universial binary of iTunes. When I ran it, I got a message telling me "This version is expired!" and suddenly I couldn't run other programs. I learned, and whenever I reinstalled the OS, I didn't touch anything from Apple.

I have a 1.25 ghz iBook G4; the performance really sucks compared to my hackintosh. I'm going to use my new system with third party applications, and dual boot with Windows XP.

So for those bashers out there; performance doesn't suck, and a lot of hardware is supported. I love using OS X on my cheap box. If Apple doesn't like it, then they can take my iBook G4 and make it faster, or give me my money back. I spent $1000 on a system thats performance in the x86 world is worth around $300.

Reply Score: 3

RE: It's solid.
by DevL on Wed 15th Feb 2006 05:26 UTC in reply to "It's solid."
DevL Member since:
2005-07-06

"If Apple doesn't like it, then they can take my iBook G4 and make it faster, or give me my money back."

Riiiight, let me just contact every company that I've bought a PC from and demand them to give me faster hardware out of the blue...

"I spent $1000 on a system thats performance in the x86 world is worth around $300."

Ever heard of "try before you buy"? Or perhaps ebay? If you're so unhappy with the performance, sell the computer! I'm sure you'll get more than $300 so you can by yourself a new Hackintosh.

Reply Score: 1

WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

Why not make Intel OSX available boxed for $50 with the disclaimer that there is no official support for it if you don't run it on their hardware? I for one would buy it, and Apple would be $50 richer than they otherwise would've been, and they wouldn't even have to offer support to me ... hell, that's like free money ;)

Edited 2006-02-15 04:19

Reply Score: 1

RE: OSX Hacking
by Wondercool on Wed 15th Feb 2006 04:35 UTC
Wondercool
Member since:
2005-07-08

"As an example I absolutely had to use Microsoft Office 2003 to do my school work a year ago, there was no way out of it. The school had computers in the library but that was just so they could say students had no excuse for not having their homework done if it required a computer. The computers were always taken up no matter how early you got there, and most of the people on them were either checking e-mail, forums, or porn when the librarians weren't looking so you HAD to have a computer and the required software at home. "

I think you are mixing up things here, MS is not the bully here but your teachers/school for enforcing MS software and/or demanding certain graphs that can only be done in Excel. You should address this with your teachers, not with MS

Reply Score: 2

Very Good Point
by Shannara on Wed 15th Feb 2006 05:09 UTC
Shannara
Member since:
2005-07-06

The EULA is only binding if both of the following is true.

1. It is presented to you at the time you pay money to purchase the product. At that time, you have the option to either purchase the product or not.

2. It does not violate local laws.


If neither of the above is true, then any "I agree" used during installation to the EULA is invalid and the EULA is not enforcable in any shape or form.

In other words, it should not be legal for the company to take you to court for "breaking" the EULA, since it is not legally valid ... ... ...

Read comments below: http://slashdot.org/articles/02/10/25/1636215.shtml

However, the following :
http://www.uniforum.org/news/html/publications/ufm/dec96/legal.html

States that Shrinked wrap licenses are legal, however, licenses in a box IS NOT LEGAL.

Reply Score: 1

RE[1000001]: hmm..
by Bringbackanonposting on Wed 15th Feb 2006 07:50 UTC
Bringbackanonposting
Member since:
2005-11-16

100+ comments...I sense the evil presence of Apple Mac do-gooders. Go play somewhere else. Theres a good Apple forum at www.ilovemymacandyouhackershurtmeinside.com

Reply Score: 1

Geez... I give up!
by DeadFishMan on Wed 15th Feb 2006 09:02 UTC
DeadFishMan
Member since:
2006-01-09

Raynier and a couple of other posters have been patiently explaining (and even dealing with insults) why it cannot be considered illegal anywhere in the world what Maxxus have done, but there is no way with some Mac users/apologists here. You guys have my deepest admiration and sympathies for trying so hard.

Iīll give my educated opinion about some of the arguments presented by Apple apologists, but I know that Iīll probably waste a few keystrokes. But anyway, there you go:

1) Why do you buy their product if you donīt want to abide by their conditions?

Is not that I donīt want to abide by their conditions. The problem is that theyīre a bit unfair to me. They are selling a goodie that I want to buy, with hard-earned money. They arenīt doing me any favors, you know? If I call them demanding their help to install the damn OS on another PC thatīs not a legit Apple machine, theyīre entirely within their rights to say "Screw you! We donīt have to do that, moron.". And thatīs OK. They really donīt have to.

2) Why buy the damn thing if youīre not planning to install it on a Mac anyway?

Well... Just because I can. Again, I paid them and now the damn thing is mine. To do whatever I want with it. If I want to buy it to use it as a toilet paper, they donīt have a saying about it either. Some of you might say that youīre just licensing their software but that wonīt fly on most countries (Iīm guessing this, since I know firsthand that it wonīt fly here in Brazil). When you buy something here, then the previous owner legally have to transfer ownership to you.

3) But thatīs piracy! You canīt do it.

Hmm... Youīre confusing two different things here. Iīm not reselling, copying, lending or otherwise handing the damn thing over to anybody else. I bought it to use it myself. In other words, Iīm not infringing any copyright laws here.

You might have a point when you say that Iīm not fullfilling one of the conditions of the EULA that says that I have to use it only on a machine supplied by them. But that term, as correctly pointed out by Raynier and several other posters, is based on very shaky grounds. The whole EULA tries to grant too much rights to the vendor that surely wouldnīt work that well on a regular contract. Itīs just too much restrictions on the end-user side when they canīt even be held responsible by damages occured during their product usage.

Some people shouted "Patent law!" earlier... Iīm still trying to figure out what they meant, so I will refrain from answering. :-)

4) But reverse engineering is illegal!

Says who? DMCA?!?! By the way, itīs very sad that such stupidity won its way as a law over there where you guys live. Iīm sure that it will come back to bite you guys in the ass on the future.

Reverse engineering is what allowed Compaq to create IBM PC clones and kickstart the huge industry that we have today. Donīt think even for a second that such stupidity will find its way on other countries (But then, certain commercial agreements that Brazil have with the USA might pave the way for this shit. I sincerely hope that it donīt).

5) OK... Reverse engineering might not be illegal, but there is no retail version of OSX for Mactels. So you cannot legally buy this thing to hack it to run on your crap PC.

Well, again Iīll concede a point here. There is no such a thing... yet. Apple will have to sell this thing soon, and when they do it, they better be prepared for the consequences. :-D

Technically, Maxxus did nothing wrong since neither you or I can tell whether he purchased a Mactel already or not.

6) Youīre overestimating peopleīs capacity of going over all this hassle just to have this shit installed on their crap PCs...

Come on... Now youīre just underestimating them. Look what happened to Microsoft. If there is gonna be someone wanting it that badly, theyīll do whatever it takes to get it installed on those crappy PCs...

7) But youīre ignoring the ethical aspects of all of this.

No, Iīm not. I bought their product. It is mine now. I gave them money for it. I did not prevent them from getting what they deserved for it. Iīm not going to put it on P2P networks nor lend it to a friend. I wonīt even bug them to help me out with this thing. I just donīt think that it is fair to let them tell me what to do with my stuff. And the law supports me on that line of thought (Fortunately).

If there is someone ignoring ethical aspects of this whole thing itīs them, the vendors. They try to grant too much rights to themselves, even if most of those rights step on some basic laws. But since I want to buy whatever they might be selling, Iīm willing to forget it. Just donīt expect any good will from me either.

8) But they deserve their huge profit margins on each unit sold. They invested time, money and effort on R&D to deliver such wonderful products. They raised the quality bar for everybody else. The hardware is top notch. You canīt find it anywhere.

The hardware inside an Apple computer is hardly vastly better than on some self-built game rigs that Iīve seen. And you can build it much better than what they offer for less money. You can buy good/stylized cases for PCs , too. Why should I settle for less?

9) What about iLife? You canīt tell me that you paying less until you sum up the amount of money required to purchase PC equivalents of this suite...

Well... Putting it mildly, I couldnīt care less for iLife. And I consider myself a creative user, doing all sorts of multimedia editing including sound, vectorial drawing and even 3D.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Geez... I give up!
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 15th Feb 2006 09:45 UTC in reply to "Geez... I give up!"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Raynier and a couple of other posters have been patiently explaining (and even dealing with insults) why it cannot be considered illegal anywhere in the world what Maxxus have done, but there is no way with some Mac users/apologists here. You guys have my deepest admiration and sympathies for trying so hard.

You are not getting it. I *understand* all this might be allowed by law. But, as I already said, I don't care. Do you do everything just because the law allows you to?

When I'm throwing a party, I might come to an agreement with my neighbour that my friends are allowed to park their cars on his driveway. Now, I'd be pretty pissed off if in the middle of the party he starts kicking all the cars off of his driveway-- even though he is legally perfectly allowed to do so. Apparantlly, people like yourself would not be pissed off at all- you neighbour has done nothing illegal, so why care?

When I use an Apple, Microsoft, or any other product which comes with a contract, then I have an agreement with that company. And as such, I will try my best to adhere to that agreement, whether the law forces me to or not. It's not because I like those companies; it's because I have an agreement. Just like I had with my neighbour.

And I'd be pretty pissed off if everyone were to just break agreements because they are not legally binding. What a world we'd live in.

Edited 2006-02-15 09:46

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Geez... I give up!
by Chreo on Wed 15th Feb 2006 11:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Geez... I give up!"
Chreo Member since:
2005-07-06

"When I use an Apple, Microsoft, or any other product which comes with a contract, then I have an agreement with that company."

That is because you view that as an agreement between the two of you. I view that as a "forced to accept agreement" of use and that is NOT what I agreed to when I purchased the product.

That you view the "thank you for buying our product, now here's how WE allow YOU to use it" after purchase as valid is your issue but I see it as very unethical behavior and as I have the right NOT to adhere to that here in europe then I see that as VERY ethical and a moral obligation to oppose this the right way, by using their product the way I see fit and stick it to "the man". Not buying and whining is valid too but does NOTHING to further the rights of those that for various reasons adhere to the so called "agreement".

Now if I had to agree to the contract BEFORE I purchased the product THEN we're talking different matters. However, some things are not legally enforcable even if you agree before purchase (the "right to your firstborn if you agree" type)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Geez... I give up!
by DeadFishMan on Wed 15th Feb 2006 12:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Geez... I give up!"
DeadFishMan Member since:
2006-01-09

Thom,

I understand your point. Really. I know that you can't stand the idea of going against the terms of the agreement that you signed and I fully support that as I also do my best to fullfill all of my commitments.

But I think that I speak on behalf of many here when I say that, when we say that there's nothing wrong in this particular case, it is because nobody's gonna be prejudiced. You, as a consumer, is using the product the way that best fit your needs (or desires). The vendor gets his money, no complaints and possibly a happy customer that could come back later to purchase the real thing.

We don't see it as something ethically wrong. At least, not to the same degree that some people have implied on this thread comparing the enthusiasts willing to pull it to thieves, pirates, rapers and God-knows-what-else.

Nobody is doing this because the law ensures that he or she can do it, but if that's what it takes to uphold our rights, then we'll most likely pursue that route.

However, it doesn't really matter that much to me as I don't even own any Apple product and don't intend to do it on the foreseeable future unless they change their prices[1] to something more realistic outside the USA boundaries, even if I love their OS. I said what I said because that's is what I believe is right.

[1] I could buy a reasonable powerful x86 gaming rig with the amount of money that they charge for an iPod Nano here. Please don't get me started on the PowerMacs prices...

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Geez... I give up!
by alcibiades on Wed 15th Feb 2006 15:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Geez... I give up!"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

Thom, you're missing it, still. The point is not like your neighbour at all. The point is, that the restrictions which you think you have signed up to are actually unlawful in the EC. It really is contrary to consumer protection and competition law to attempt to impose these conditions on buyers.

This is why it is quite wrong to consider yourself bound. It is condoning unlawful behaviour on the part of your supplier.

Reply Score: 1

Apple is happy!
by devnull on Wed 15th Feb 2006 09:23 UTC
devnull
Member since:
2005-07-06

I think Apple is very happy about this, ok not happy but
not all that pissed...
This is the way Apple prob. is getting much more popular
and thus there OS gets used more, more used is more applications, software, hardware, media attention etc.

Windows and Wordperfect got big because i got so enormous illegally copied.

Edited 2006-02-15 09:24

Reply Score: 1

Screenshots
by audun on Wed 15th Feb 2006 10:16 UTC
audun
Member since:
2005-07-13

Why haven't anyone asked for screenshots yet??

We all want to see a beige computer running OS X 10.4.4

Reply Score: 1

RE: Screenshots
by MamiyaOtaru on Wed 15th Feb 2006 10:30 UTC in reply to "Screenshots"
MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

Why haven't anyone asked for screenshots yet??

We all want to see a beige computer running OS X 10.4.4


You'll have to wait. With all the hoopla, the patches provided still don't make it possible to get to the welcome screen. Some folks can get to the gui, but that's it. A blue screen. That's a lot more than was possible before, they are hardly useless but much more will have to be done before it will be usable.

Obviously some will go to the trouble just for the cachet of OSX on beige, but it looks to be a terrible amount of effort.

The 10.4.5 update breaks the patches that are already out of course (that aren't even sufficient for use yet) since it updates the kernel, one of the components changed by the patch.

Patches of future updates may come faster now that Maxxuss has done it once, but that's only assuming Apple doesn't revamp things hard, like they may with 10.5.

Like I said before, hardly anyone is going to be able to get it going, and it will be just about impossible to keep up to date. No harm to Apple, fun for those who bother.

Says Maxxuss:
Here's the message from Apple buried in the OS' commpage:

Your karma check for today:
There once was was a user that whined
his existing OS was so blind,
he'd do better to pirate
an OS that ran great
but found his hardware declined.
Please don't steal Mac OS!
Really, that's way uncool.
(C) Apple Computer, Inc.


Amusing ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Screenshots
by audun on Wed 15th Feb 2006 11:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Screenshots"
audun Member since:
2005-07-13

Thank you for a great answer :o)

I'll be waiting for the screenshots. I don't plan to buy a copy of OS X to install on my DELL, so it'll just be for looking.

Maybe later I'll get one of those gorgeous laptops.. My old Toshiba satelite just got stolen..

Reply Score: 1

Apple EULA vs. DMCA
by nimble on Wed 15th Feb 2006 11:30 UTC
nimble
Member since:
2005-07-06

The EULA clause tying MacOS to Apple hardware is invalid in the US too. Have a look at DMCA §117:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117

§ 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. - Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner


Edited 2006-02-15 11:32

Reply Score: 1

RE: Apple EULA vs. DMCA
by kaiwai on Thu 16th Feb 2006 01:24 UTC in reply to "Apple EULA vs. DMCA"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I've read that DMCA clause you provided several times, and like most legal documents, it can be interpreted in many different ways - its kinda like the bible, you can interprete it as giving freedom or heralding a life of bloody missery and control; all depends on how persuasive your arguments are.

With that being said, however, the clause in the EULA is simply added, not because of 'legal' issues but to implicitly outline what Apples obligations are when it comes to consumers protections in relation to their legal requirements - if they explicitly outline, "this is software, you use it with out computer in this manner", they've clearly outlined, as required, the purpose of their sofware and the intended use of that software.

In the New Zealand consumers protection legislation, the clause requires that products sold work as the manufacturer intended, in the same manner as the manufacturer intended it to be used - Apple has explicitly outlined that set, meaning, if at a later date MacOS X installations become a more mainstream event, they can legimately turn around and say, "they're not using the product as we explicitly outlined, there for, we have no legal obligations to provide support".

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Apple EULA vs. DMCA
by nimble on Thu 16th Feb 2006 07:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Apple EULA vs. DMCA"
nimble Member since:
2005-07-06

I've read that DMCA clause you provided several times, and like most legal documents, it can be interpreted in many different ways - its kinda like the bible, you can interprete it as giving freedom or heralding a life of bloody missery and control; all depends on how persuasive your arguments are.

How? I thought it's as clear as legalese is ever going to get: it explicitly grants you the right install a program, no matter the reserved rights of the copyright holder. Therefore the copyright license just doesn't come into play, and hence things like VMWare's benchmarking clause are void too.

Support is unrelated to copyright, and Apple is under no obligation to provide it beyond what they advertise, so they're free to restrict that anyway.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Apple EULA vs. DMCA
by kaiwai on Thu 16th Feb 2006 19:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Apple EULA vs. DMCA"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

But if they never outline it in their EULA, they would then be obliged to support all those who bought MacOS X and took the effort to circumvent the security which Apple has used.

Don't think a legal challenge is possible? there is now a moron suing Apple because of 'ipod hearing damage', forgetting the fact that the idiot later came out and said, 'well, my hearing isn't damaged, but it could!".

What ever happened to personal responsibility? it went down the toilet when the likes of the Conservatives and Left started using social welfare and other forms of social engineering thus removing any responsibility individuals had for their own lives and the choices they make.

The idiot with the ipod is responsible for the fact that he listened to the music for extended periods of time at a high volume level - what next? suing Metalica because the concert they put on was a 'wee bit loud, and caused some ringing in the ears'?

All you would have to do is have some moronic judge, skipping around on the crocked up mandate of 'consumer advocate' as to allow idiots to start demanding Apple support their bootleg version of MacOS X on their jucked up PC they assembled from computer parts they fished out from the local meet-and-swap.

Reply Score: 1

Holland
by FrankNBeans on Wed 15th Feb 2006 15:20 UTC
FrankNBeans
Member since:
2006-01-30

"There is no such thing as 'Holland'"

I love you Thom, you make my mornings

Reply Score: 1

Hackablility as a business strategy
by geert on Wed 15th Feb 2006 21:44 UTC
geert
Member since:
2005-12-31

Mac OSX can be bougth and used on a normal PC. If you are tech shavvy. This means the exposure to Mac OSX becomes so much bigger, and this exposure might lead to you bauying a Mac next time.

Step one: geek buys OS, uses it.
Step 2: Family and friends impressed when they buy new computer, they might consider.
Step 3: geek sees stability and ease, buys Mac server and installs dual boot for linux.

Where dit Mac lose?

Reply Score: 1