Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 14th Apr 2008 21:44 UTC
Apple The website of a Miami-based networking and security solutions reseller became inaccessible Monday, shortly after the company began advertising an unauthorized Mac clone for a fraction of the cost of Apple's cheapest system. Dubbed OpenMac, the USD 400 offering from Psystar Corporation is described as 'a low-cost high-performance computing platform' based on the ongoing OSX86Project - a hacker-based initiative aimed at maintaining a version of the Mac OS X operating system for everyday PCs. The website is back online now, and the machine has been renamed to Open Computer. Update: Psystar says they will continue to sell the Open Computer system, despite the fact that it appears to violate Apple's EULA. "We're not breaking any laws," they insisted.
Thread beginning with comment 309546
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
sultanqasim
Member since:
2006-10-28

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.

Reply Parent Score: -4

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

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.


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

Reply Parent Score: 13

droidix Member since:
2008-03-13

I agree, the analogy is way off in left field. It might be more relevant if it was compared to taking a retail disc of OS X and installing it on someone else's computer without their permission.

But give me a break, you have every right to pick your own lock with said lock-pick, just like you have every right to install OS X on your own PC. And if you want to play to the letter of the EULA, do what the parent suggests and slap an official Apple sticker on the side of the case.

Reply Parent Score: 2

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

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.


Actually, when you purchase and install the software you are signing an agreement (electronic signing in the form of 'I Agree' is also considered one) where by under the conditions set down by the licence agreement (you don't own the software, you licence it off the company) you agree to a certain set of conditions - in the case of Apple, you are not allowed to (or hack the software to) run it on non-Apple hardware.

Does upholind this matters? yes it does, I wish people would spend a little time thinking the impact of what dismissing EULA's would mean; the EULA is a licence contract, your are essentially saying that licence contracts me NOTHING - then what about all those companies who purchase IP off one and another? what about companies who licence software and use it as part of their own.

I wish people here would think about the issue a little more in depth and realise that a precedent set in one area of the industry *COULD* creep through and affect everyone else. Its not just a matter of 'the EULA screws over users' as people here like to claim - its a matter of whether licence contracts (or even contracts!) are even able to be up held in court!

Again, you DON'T purchase software, you LICENCE it, and when you agree to the EULA, you are SIGNING a contract with the software company under what conditions the software is being licensed to you for!

Reply Parent Score: 2

exigentsky Member since:
2005-07-09

Maybe this is a better analogy. You buy some pepper and it has only one legal use according to the EULA - for soup. When you try to add the pepper to steak, Apple's legal team barges in and takes you to court. They're controlling how you use what you are supposed to own.

Of course, this doesn't apply only to Apple. Microsoft, the music, gaming and movie industries, etc. all do this to some extent.

Edited 2008-04-15 04:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

Al2001 Member since:
2005-07-06

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.

Reply Parent Score: 1

neowolf Member since:
2005-07-06

That analogy.. doesn't fit too well. A better one, using the same basic example would be that you buy a set of lockpicks and upon opening the box you're greeted with a letter informing you that you can only legally use this set of lockpicks on kitchen doors.

Reply Parent Score: 1