Username or EmailPassword
The question seemed to indicate that the one person had moved from 10.6 to 10.7 installed on the machine. This providing the 10.6 install DVD for the second person.
An issue to be aware of here is that 10.7 is likely considered an upgrade not a fresh install. The machine is being upgraded from 10.6 to 10.7 and 10.7 was sold at a low cost based on the expectation that the machine was already running a legal 10.6 install. They may make an argument that both 10.6 and 10.7 install media belong to the one (now) 10.7 machine rather than the upgrade freeing 10.6 up for install on another machine.
I'm not deeply familair with Apple licensing policy though. That's just the issue that came to mind based on the age old Microsoft trick of "upgrade" installs requiring validation of the prior "full install" version it was meant to replace. It's a friggin pain too because now you have to keep the install media for the prior version encase you have to prove that you are upgrading during a re-install of the newer version.
There's a third way to buy Lion, which is to buy it on a USB stick.
Yeah but there is a problem with the upgrade take.
First for me personally if you can install it on a empty system it is not an upgrade. when you upgrade something you build on the previous generation.
And then there is the practical problems i have gotten mac's delivered without a os. I got them from the university that had some kind of bulk software deal.
so now i have used mac's whiteout an os where do i buy the full version of OSx to install on these machines.
Well you cant since apple only sells upgrades or....
To start, brazilian laws are very pro-consumer centric; we have a very decent consumer code-of-defense that is applied throught a broad range of aspects in our lives.
We have no Digital Millenium Crap, and reverse engineering is not only legal in most cases - like porting code to unsuported devices or platforms - as there are laws to ensure that data will not be impossible to be used once a manufacturer stops selling the hardware it runs on. For example, anyone could create a Super Nintendo clone if they can prove that there is no way to buy a new one or (this is important) use your already purchased game in newer platforms (if Nintendo wants to charge you to play Super Mario 3 in the Wii even if you already have the game, for instance).
Well, this opens the door to anyone breaking the OSX bootloader in order to run on other hardware, but what about EULA?
Well, there are already some cases in justice were it was determined that a contract can't tell the buyer HOW TO use the product, nor forbit a specific usage of it.
What happens is that AFTER - remember, one is innocent until proven that isn't, something american legislators like to forget - the user misuses it, he can:
a) loose all warranty, support and devolution if the product is bought.
b) if the product is a subscription or service, the product can be cancelled - for example, you use your antenna of paid-TV to get channels that you do not pay for - and you can pay some fine - this is why subscription is getting popular here, few sell satellite antennas, most are borrowed to the consumer.
Now for that last part and most important part:
Software in Brazil, is not considered to be a "service" like Apple alleges, but a simple product like a hammer, so you end up with option (a), the only thing you can do is to void the warranty and support for the users that run OSX on a PC.
Pretty nice and legal
PS: Do not think that all of this is because Brazil do not have laws or such, we do; it is just that as was in US when it was a young nation, the laws are made to protect individuals, not big corporation's profit.
I don't believe you. Brazil is pro-consumer? Then why do Brazilians pay thru the roof for their products due to tariffs among others?
Simple economics, you need import tariffs to dissuade importation that which they should be making in their own country.
It's the lack of import tariffs that is killing the US as it's killing the US consumer base by exporting labor over seas in the name of artificially low prices in the short term.
High import tariffs lead to more companies hiring more workers to make consumer products in state, thus having more people in said state with the money to buy said goods thus building your consumer base and raising your nation's overall standard of living.
Exporting your labor only kills off your consumer base because you can't have an entire economy based on the financial or service industries. To do so is to make your economy a house of cards, a nudge in any direction causes the whole thing to collapse in on itself.
Somethings will never be made in Brazil, leaving Brazilians with nothing to buy. You can have your controlled economy and your tariffs. I'd rather pay less for my stuff and if local companies want to win me they need to be competitive. Protectionism and tariffs don't work.
Ah yes, the "Free Market", which goes to wherever on earth it can find the cheapest possible slave labor so it can "compete" by charging the same or more for products of inferior quality while sacrificing the economy of the country said companies are based out of?
I'll take the actual competition of having someone decide it's more cost effective long term to build a factory in my country over importing cheap crap made in deplorable conditions.
"Free Trade" is a race to the bottom and creates nothing but fiefdom at the cost of your own economy and national security in the name of over priced plastic junk.
There are two kinds of lawyers: Those who explain the legal consequences of various actions and those who say "tell me what you have done or want to do and I'll make sure its OK legally". You can guess which kind is more successful.
I did this with my ThinkPad...then realized OSX is the worst operating system ever.
I love OS X, but when I put it on a laptop the previously ran XP, I really didn't like it at all, it didn't help that a few of the drivers were missing. I ended up going with Ubuntu.
Liking or not liking the big boys (Win / *nix / Mac) is a matter of understanding them more than anything else. I prefer OS X to Win 7 by a very big amount, but that doesn't mean Win 7 is crap, just means I prefer how OS X works. A mate of mine has a new iMac but runs Win 7 on it, he prefers that.
In reference to your copying argument, I think there is reason to claim fair use. If I own a book, I am allowed under fair use to make a copy of it for personal use. Maybe I want to annotate the copy. Maybe I don't want to risk the original getting wet in the tub. For books, the original and the copies are considered a single entity. If you sell the book, you either need to destroy the copies or give them with the book. Going back to computers, it is perfectly legal to make backup copies of your installation media. Media don't last forever, and copies of the original makes sense. While I am sure Apple would argue against this reasoning, outside of computers this type of thing is ordinary. Why do you think they have photocopiers in most libraries?
Some of Apple's EULAs are a nightmare (especially mobile SDK related ones). No one in their normal mind would really be happy with accepting those terms.
At least you can have some laugh from it, after hearing an example of iTunes EULA dramatic reading:
(note the Effective until part, and what is required if you don't comply Edited 2011-11-30 23:08 UTC
Regardless of the "gray areas" the bottom line is this: if you're not installing OS-X on a Macintosh computer than Apple isn't going to be happy about it, they're not going to support you and they'll do everything in their power to stop you. Period.
I get the impression that Apple don't especially care unless you are producing hackintosh clones and selling them commercially...
They don't really go out of their way to make OSX not work on non apple hardware, they just don't include drivers for anything other than the hardware they provide, and they require an EFI firmware (which isnt an apple only thing, other manufacturers are just much slower to move forward).
Apple has a lot of power, but I doubt you can find any examples where Apple wielded this power to go after Hackintosh owners. Did they even go after iOS jailbreakers?
PCs running OS X don't get intentionally disabled, sites offering how to make your own Hackintosh don't get letters from Apple, the LA police doesn't raid your house.
They're even pretty cool with their OS media. No install keys, no limit to the machines you can install it on and upgrade version are really full versions.
Well, Apple clearly expressed a desire for jailbreaking to be an offence prosecutable under DMCA (a quick bunch of links as always on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_jailbreaking#United_States_legal_i... ) - now, why would they desire that, hm?...
(also Apple claimed, and court in Psystar case affirmed, that OSX has intentional technical measures to prevent hackintosh practices)
I really don't think that Apple give a crap what hardware you, as an individual, run Mac OS X on.
The only scenario where they do care is if somebody tries to commercially resell computers running Mac OS X.
Apple puts restrictions on their license to say "only run this on genuine Apple hardware" because they don't want to open themselves to having to offer support to people attempting to run OS X on non-Apple hardware.
Yes, there are technical hurdles to installing Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware. That's down to the fact that Apple doesn't need to support anything besides the hardware they have manufactured. That's not malice, just practical reality - they're not going to spend thousands of engineering hours to support hardware they've never shipped.
Apple has never bothered to put any kind of technological restrictions on the installation of Mac OS X. There has never been any copy protection or license codes. They are completely aware that Mac owners regularly and routinely "pirate" major updates of OS X. The only thing they have done to tackle this issue is to radically reduce the price of their OS upgrades.
History has clearly shown that Apple will do nothing at all to try to stop individuals from installing Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware.
Well said. My take on it is similar: Apple doesn't necessarily like that you put OS X on your generic PC, but they're not going to waste time and money trying to stop you. It's been my experience that Hackintoshers generally tend to already own at least one Mac, and even if they don't, they might eventually get frustrated with the whole process and buy the real thing.
Apple has mostly been a hardware vendor, writing great software in order to sell their hardware for profit. They also make lots of money from iTunes, which just so happens to run on their "competitor's" OS, and probably makes them more money than iTunes users on their own OS.
It's the Psystars of the world they want to quash, as they cut into one of Apple's real money makers: Hardware sales. Why buy a $3000 Mac Pro when you can get more or less equivalent performance for $1000 and still run OS X? That scares them, and they take action at that point. Again though, they never went after the Psystar customers, just the company itself. Edited 2011-12-01 12:21 UTC
“It's the Psystars of the world they want to quash, as they cut into one of Apple's real money makers: Hardware sales.“
Correct, but just because you want something, it doesn‘t mean you have the grounds to do it. If you sell a mac clone without an OS, and in countries where the DMCA doesn‘t apply (somehow making a mac clone violates the DMCA, don‘t ask why i don‘t know), on what grounds can Apple get you? None. Edited 2011-12-02 09:06 UTC
Without Apple there would be no Mac OS. Apple sells Mac OS for less than cost. Apple is not in the business of software but hardware. Mac OS is a service. Apple used to sell it for $120 and now dropped to $30 and I won't be surprised if they make it free like iOS upgrades. Did you price the cost of a Windows license?
Most wouldn't give a monkeys whatever the legality as the chances of any comeback are next to zero. Nor would many ponder much on any ethical/legal just-so's either before or after. Edited 2011-12-01 03:10 UTC
I always wondered why nobody has started a Psystar-like business in Europe and Asia, where the DMCA doesn't apply. Sell the computer without an OS, and make it so that the the OS Xinstall disc thinks the computer is a mac (and that the computer has mac-compatible peripherals), so that no special tricks are need. Then, all the user has to do is pick up an OS X disc, and install it. Edited 2011-12-01 10:56 UTC
Part of the explanation could be that OSX has much smaller traction in most of the world than too many pundits and web-loud people, living in few atypical places, realize (just go through Statcounter region and country stats). Making it not only not-so-attractive (more just "weird"), even simply not very known (plus, in some places, there might be quite recent ~bad association - like with ending of: http://www.osnews.com/permalink?489120 )
OTOH, people who do prefer Apple in such places, seem to treat them as a status symbol much more than is usual (doesn't work with hackintoshes)
Anyway, quickly glancing at Wiki does give something... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PearC (plus few other without Wiki pages at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSx86 )
The EULA language for OS X clearly prohibits the installation on non-Apple branded hardware. In WIPO signatory countries (like the US and Europe), you must accept the EULA terms to obtain a license to use (copy to disk or memory) the software and a license for the patents embodied in the software (codecs, etc.). In other parts of the world, it may not be a copyright violation or a patent violation.
The DMCA would not apply to the Apple software as there are no access controls of any sort in place. There are technical issues to be overcome to use the software, to be certain, but there's no encryption or intentional impediment to prevent access or copying.
I usally let my cat agree to these kind of deals.
For doing that kind of unsupported thing, I found it would be better to download a pirated DVD with the anti user crap removed. Even if it is legal to install it, it will be crippled. Professional pirates make sure to remove the barriers so it works fluently. It's dangerous because there are some bad pirated that add even worse stuff in there but if you take the DVD from a pirate with a good reputation, it would work better than the original DVD sold by Apple.
Don't do it, it is illegal. If you did it your computer would work better but that would not legal. Edited 2011-12-01 07:36 UTC
Three selected quotes from Microsoft:
"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." - Jeff Raikes, a Microsoft executive
"It's easier for our software to compete with Linux when there's piracy than when there's not." - Bill Gates
The key being this:
"As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade." - Bill Gates
Um.. one does indeed have to agree to the GPL in the form of adhering to it's four granted freedoms do they not? If one modifies the code, compiles it distributes the binary and does not provide access to the modified source code they are breaking the agreement to adhere to the GPL. Specifically; infringing copyright by removing permissions which the license requires they pass down to the recipient of the derivitive work.
If what one wants a license inherently agreed to with no limitations then that would be a copy-center type license more like BSD, MIT or the DWTFPL ( http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/ ).
So, by meeting the conditions of the permissive license one is in-fact agreeing to the terms of the license then. It grants anyone the basic copy rights plus the additional rights (hence, the permissive license) only so long as they agree with and remain within the terms of the license.
Make no mistake, I'm not criticizing or questioning the GPL. I'm questioning the idea that one does not have to agree to the license. Agreement being in the form of acting within the stipulated limitations of the license.
In a scenario where Apple will sell MacOS without hardware Apple would probably charge x4-x6 the price.
Most threads I read about people hackintoshing is those that really want to run Logic, Quark or final cut but cant afford a Mac.
If they add the price of those software with a Mac pc it comes into a hefty amount. And many just cant afford it.
Those people are quite willing to buy Logic ect. on their own but just cant with the hardware tie in. Edited 2011-12-01 12:08 UTC
The EULA is usually pretty clear. I doubt it is a crime to do it. It may be a civil matter but in most cases you just can't get OEM support.
The best way to run MacOS X is on Apple Hardware.
Mac Mini's are so cheap, it's not worth fiddling with a Hackintosh. I've played with Hackintoshes since the first developer release of MacOS X 10.4.1 on hardware that was the same as the developer MacPro less the DRM chip.
It's just not worth the problems, like the hassles when an update comes out that hoses the system.
If there were a system which was cheaper, and didn't make me spend more time fixing things that get broken by updates than using it, I'd probably build one.
Meanwhile, the Macbook I picked up on eBay for $350 works fine for all my Mac needs.
The time I spend keeping a Hackintosh costs something too.