Linked by Andrew Youll on Sun 7th Aug 2005 15:36 UTC, submitted by heron
Mac OS X According to the guys at, 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 15429
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Legality of the EULA
by on Mon 8th Aug 2005 14:59 UTC

Member since:

Let us consult our good friend wikipedia, shall we? Three relevant entries I found are:

These articles seem to fully support the argument that Rayiner is making: the legality of any given term in an EULA can be questionable. The courts are mixed. Some have held that EULA terms are enforceable, some have not. If you'll note the third link I posted, it mentions that VA and MD are the only states which have passed such a law. I'm guessing it's not coincidental that somebody above posted that cases in VA and MD have upheld EULA's.

As you'll read from the first link, whether or not all the terms of an EULA can be enforced can depend on where you are. The 7th and 8th circuits of the US appeals court tend to agree with the "licensed, not sold" argument. Most of the others do not. I'm getting the distinct impression from other posters here that the European courts also do not subscribe to the "licensed, not sold" argument.

Let's also keep in mind that I believe it to be the case that the terms of any given EULA are usually considered individually when the EULA is disputed in court. A company may put the following two terms in their EULA:

- You may not make copies of the software and distribute them.
- You may only use this software on computers with Pentium processors.

The second term may seem very onerous and probably could be struck down in court, but it doesn't strike down the entire license, invalidate the "no redistribution" term and leave the company with no copyright left on its product. Only the second term is held unenforceable.

Actually, as somebody else posted, the first term is not even necessary in the first place because copyright law grants software authors this right. Software authors are free to waive this right completely, by placing the software in the public domain, or partially, by placing restrictions on how the software can be redistributed.

Copyright law allows the software author to define restrictions on how his software can be redistributed. It's perfectly acceptable for an EULA to say something like "if you want to redistribute this, you must first fly to Mars and back, allow us to inspect the contents of your computer at our leisure and buy us a lifetime supply of Juan Valdez Columbian coffee." These may seem very onerous, but they're perfectly acceptable in a license because by default, you have no right to redistribute at all. This is because of copyright law.

Copyright law does not govern use of software. So if I want to apply patches to NT Workstation 4.0 and thereby turn it into NT Server 4.0, I can assuredly and legally do this. If I can get OSx86 to run on a white box PC, I can assuredly and legally do this. And there's nothing illegal about this until it's proven in court that the terms in the respective EULA's are upheld in court. I have never signed an Apple or M$ EULA and have never verbally consented to either EULA. Thus, it's up to the courts and where those courts are as to whether or not I can be held liable under the law.

It's no concidence that the GNU General Public License only governs redistribution and not use. The GPL works by leveraging copyright law, and copyright law does not govern use.

To address the argument of "you agreed to the EULA anyway!" At least in the US, you cannot give up your rights under the law. For instance, you cannot legally sell yourself into slavery. This means that if you agree to an EULA and afterwards it's determined that certain terms of that EULA were not enforceable under the law, then you are not bound by those terms because you cannot give up your rights granted to you by the law. The company had no right in the first place to take those rights away from you.

To follow in Rayiner's footsteps and hopefully show the lunacy in thinking that EULA's are as sacred as the law itself: to disagree with this post and post a response that disagrees with this post (henceforth known as the "Disagreeing Response"), you must track me down and send me 100 beeeeeeellion dollars, I must receive said monies and you may then post your Disagreeing Response. By posting a Disagreeing Response, you implicitly agree to the terms of this contract and indicate your acceptance.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Legality of the EULA
by on Mon 8th Aug 2005 16:46 in reply to "Legality of the EULA"
Member since:


Outside of our topsy-turvy software industry, a "license" is something that gives you more permission to do stuff. That's what the word "license" means.

A proper and enforceable EULA should grant you some capability you don't already have. It shouldn't be a laundry list of new restrictions---or at least, they should stop calling it a "license" agreement.

After you purchased the product and before you agree to any click-through, you already have the right to use the copy which you have just purchased. It probably doesn't help the EULA's legality that it prohibits you from using the software until you sign.


Reply Parent Score: 0

RE: Legality of the EULA
by on Tue 9th Aug 2005 05:25 in reply to "Legality of the EULA"
Member since:

And yes, this is a "troll-post," so mod me down, but the correct ordering of the states when you speak of Virginia and Maryland is "MD and VA." Is is both alphabetically correct and geographically correct. When including DC, it is "MD, DC, and VA." Happy Marylander, living in SC, here...

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: Legality of the EULA
by on Tue 9th Aug 2005 08:15 in reply to "RE: Legality of the EULA"
Member since:

DVD Jon ?

Reply Parent Score: 0