To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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
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.




Member since:
2007-03-04
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.