Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 26th May 2009 20:56 UTC
Mac OS X Getting Mac OS X up and running on a computer without an Apple label has always been a bit of a hassle. You needed customised Mac OS X disks, updates would ruin all your hard work, and there was lots of fiddling with EFI and the likes. Ever since the release of boot-132, this is no longer the case. Read on for how setting up a "Hack"intosh really is as easy as 1, 3, 2.
Thread beginning with comment 365603
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: missleading title
by alcibiades on Wed 27th May 2009 06:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: missleading title"
Member since:

Crossing what line? It might be actionable in the US to actually break the Eula terms - that is, Apple might be able to sue you for damages and have you cease and desist. Doubtful, but it might be.

However, there is nothing illegal about publishing an article about how you broke a EULA. Under what law or contract are they going to sue you?

Not copyright by the way. US copyright law not only explicitly makes it lawful to modify a copyrighted software work in the cause of interoperability, it also makes it lawful to tell other people how it was done.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: missleading title
by Liquidator on Wed 27th May 2009 06:53 in reply to "RE[3]: missleading title"
Liquidator Member since:

Incentive to circumvent legal-binding terms of use.

It's like those hackers that share .RAR files with a text file inside, containing a serial number to activate proprietary software, with a disclaimer: "If you like the application, please buy it", or "I'm not responsible for the use you make of this serial".

Of course this is illegal in the US.

Reply Parent Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:

No, this article would fall under publishing perfectly legal information. It does not premote theft, violence or cracking in any way. Freedom of the press tends to be taken very seriously.

This is nothing like publishing serial numbers, serial generators or binary cracks that modify the target programs ability to confirm a valid license.

Also, the legality of the EULA as a binding contract is still very much up for debate. The worst Apple could do is refuse to support the OS so you won't be visiting the Genious Bar (tm) with your non-apple hardware.

Edited 2009-05-27 13:46 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: missleading title
by alcibiades on Wed 27th May 2009 19:43 in reply to "RE[4]: missleading title"
alcibiades Member since:

No, you have it wrong. Not inciting but informing. And not legally binding terms of use. Terms of use which have never been tested in court, and on which opinions differ as to whether they are legally binding.

If the court rules against Psystar on the issue of installing on non-Apple branded hardware - and on that specific issue - then, perhaps, Apple might be able to proceed against people who urged others to do it. Maybe, but its a step further, they would be able to proceed against people who told others how to do it.

But no way can they do either one until there is a ruling that the terms are legally binding.

Reply Parent Score: 2