Linked by Andrew Youll on Sun 7th Aug 2005 15:36 UTC, submitted by heron
Mac OS X According to the guys at www.osx86.classicbeta.com, some intrepid individuals have been able to get OS X running on generic hardware. There is a full explaination and some details on the site.
Thread beginning with comment 14861
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Hyprocritical.
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 7th Aug 2005 17:32 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

I must agree with the people saying that cracking OSX this way is simply illegal.

As someone rightfully pointed out, you *license* OSX, and you *agreed* to that license, like you would *agree* to a job contract. If that job contract tells you that you get payed a Christmas bonus, but then you don't get it because your employer thinks it's immoral, then you'd be up in arms, wouldn't you? What is different in Apple or any other company making sure you keep your end of the contract?

Secondly, a lot of these so-called "freedom" boys will be the first to squeal if someone violates the GPL-- don't you people understand that the GPL is in itself a license just like the license Apple is giving you? What gives you the right to break Apple's license on one side, and throw a fit when someone violates the GPL? That's blatant hippocracy! Someone care to elaborate?

Reply Score: 5

RE: Hyprocritical.
by on Sun 7th Aug 2005 17:43 in reply to "Hyprocritical."
Member since:

Thom, you are just wrong about this one, like a lot of people. Take a look at EC competition law, and you will realise that post sale restraints are not enforceable. In fact, the attempt to have post sale restraints, eg by cutting of a supplier who violates them, may lead to severe competition law penalties. People don't understand this, but it is so. Here is why. If I can impose post sale restraints, I cannot be prevented from doing linked sales. I could then dominate one field, and by preventing competition in linked sales, extend my domination. For instance, I will not sell you tiles unless you buy your tile cement from me. I will not sell you timber unless you buy your paint from me. I will not allow any aftermarket for my car accessories - they must all be bought from me. None of this stuff will fly, and rightly. What you can do is, for instance, patent the plug, and then stop people making other plugs that will fit. Or you can do DRMs or ROM bindings. But you cannot do it by EULAs. Unenforceable, and very risky to even try.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: Hyprocritical.
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 7th Aug 2005 17:53 in reply to "RE: Hyprocritical."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You are forgetting a key point: you *agreed* to that EULA, and in some countries, that is *binding*, as in some countries, even an oral contract is binding. It might be called an EULA, but in the end it's just a contract.

If my neighbour and I come to a contractual agreement that he may build a part of his shed on my land, and in return he needs to wear an orange hat every 3rd sunday of the month, then I can take legal action if he doesn't-- because we both *agreed* to that contract.

Same for me and Apple. I installed Tiger. Apple allows me to run Tiger, and in return I can only install it on Apple's hardware (=wearing an orange hat on every 3rd sunday of the month). It's exactly the same, just different terms.

According to you, you cannot enforce the contract you agreed to. Then how is the FSF goign to enforce the GPL? The GPL is just a license, like Apple's, and the GPL is supposed to be enforcable. That's why I was referring to hippocracy: those boys screaming that this whole OSX-cracked thing is good for freedom, on the other hand squeal death and decay when someone violates the GPL, which in effect is the exact same thing as these guys cracking OSX are doing.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: Hyprocritical.
by japail on Sun 7th Aug 2005 18:07 in reply to "Hyprocritical."
japail Member since:
2005-06-30

The GPL does not cover how you use software, but rather how you redistribute software. It is affording you redistribution rights that you do not otherwise have under copyright law. It isn't the equivalent to the behavior afforded by a EULA, and I'm sure any of the hypothetical people of which you refer would make that distinction. I say hypothetical because what you've constructed is a bit of a straw man. That is, "I'm right, because everyone that would violate a EULA would be outraged by copyright infringement on GPL software."

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Hyprocritical.
by rayiner on Sun 7th Aug 2005 18:56 in reply to "Hyprocritical."
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

As someone rightfully pointed out, you *license* OSX, and you *agreed* to that license, like you would *agree* to a job contract.

When was the last time you heard of contracts that come into force without you ever signing or even verbally consenting to anything?

What is different in Apple or any other company making sure you keep your end of the contract?

There is no contract!

Secondly, a lot of these so-called "freedom" boys will be the first to squeal if someone violates the GPL-- don't you people understand that the GPL is in itself a license just like the license Apple is giving you

The GPL is a copyright license, and its terms only cover the terms of redistribution. As a copyright license, controlling how the work is allowed to be redistributed is perfectly within the GPL's domain. Indeed, that's the whole point of copyright licenses. On the other hand, a copyright license is not a general contract. If RMS gets really high tomorrow and inserts a clause into the GPL saying you can only use the software when you're naked, well, that clause can have no power, because copyright law doesn't give copyright licenses the power to make such assertions.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Hyprocritical.
by on Sun 7th Aug 2005 19:03 in reply to "RE: Hyprocritical."
Member since:

"When was the last time you heard of contracts that come into force without you ever signing or even verbally consenting to anything? "

When you install OS X, you must check a box saying that if you check this box and proceed you are agreeing to the terms.


"There is no contract!"

Yes there is... the EULA

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE: Hyprocritical.
by r_a_trip on Sun 7th Aug 2005 20:44 in reply to "Hyprocritical."
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

Secondly, a lot of these so-called "freedom" boys will be the first to squeal if someone violates the GPL-- don't you people understand that the GPL is in itself a license just like the license Apple is giving you? What gives you the right to break Apple's license on one side, and throw a fit when someone violates the GPL? That's blatant hippocracy! Someone care to elaborate?

I'd rather not, but the way you pose it, I have to. You are confusing Free Software users with the rif-raf that has invaded our movement lately. The mongrels who are looking for a free lunch without responsibility, but who are not shy of making crazy demands like make GNU/Linux work like Windows.

Don't try to shove the "piracy-label" into the faces of us Free Software adherants. We are quite content to have Apple have their little x86 play, because we are not missing out on anything but their restrictively licensed, treacherous computing enabled OS.

Who said Aqua is the epitome of Desktop interfaces? I believe it was the Apple "marketing department" comprised of its userbase. I'm very happy either running Gnome or KDE (and not panic stricken if it is one of the smaller DE's)

Do you really think we need an illegal Apple OS to run on our pure x86 boxen? No Sir, GNU/Linux all the way. (Maybe HURD/L4 in the future).

Reply Parent Score: -1