To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: That damn EULA argument again:
That analgy makes no sense. If you break and enter then you are clearly breaking the law.
Installing OS X on non-Apple hardware isn't a breach of copyright, data protection, nor any other IT law that springs to mind. The EULA simply isn't law. It's just a licence agreement in much the same way that a "void warrenty" sticker is if you open up some bits of hardware. You're not breaking the law by breaking the sticker but you're voiding your licence with the manufacturer should your hardware break.
So it comes back to my "non-support for non-Apple hardware" argument. Apple have every right not to offer you refunds nor technical support, but I fail to see how they can issue legal warnings to those who choose to run their software (which has still been legally purchased) on non-Apple hardware.
Edited 2008-04-14 23:00 UTC
It's like this. You buy a lock-picking tool set that can open any door. Then you argue that because you bought the lock-pick, you can live in anyone's house without their permission. Just because you bought it doesn't mean the EULA can go to hell.
Until a judge deems it so it's nothing like that.
"But can the EULA legally uphold such a restriction of use if the user legally purchased an OS X licence? "
The only thing that will happen is that you void the warranty for OSX.
It's not a lease so if you bought it you own it and can do pretty much whatever you want with it, within the laws of copyright.
You said "license". That's precisely what users buy when they bring home a nice box of Leopard. What's a license? Official or legal permission to do or own a specified thing. It is not analogous to buying a product - where contract merely governs the *sale* but not *use* of the product.
In the pro-leagues, just because a team bought a player (in effect, a contract), doesn't mean that said player is a slave. The team is still bound to a contract. Likewise with EULA.




Member since:
2007-03-26
At issue is Section 2A of the Mac OS X End User License Agreement (EULA), which stipulates that users are allowed "to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time." As such, the OpenMac (and any other Mac system based on non-Apple hardware) would appear to stand in direct violation of Apple's terms.
But can the EULA legally uphold such a restriction of use if the user legally purchased an OS X licence?
Sure Apple can argue about a "non-support policy for non-apple hardware", but I really can't see how court could uphold such an EULA if the end user does legally pay for their OS X licence in the first place.