OSNews

Maybe that applies to some less fortunate folks out there, lets call them US citizens. Installing OSX on other kit is not a violation of terms elsewhere, so I don't view this as an issue. Installing OSX is perfectly legal, maybe not for you.

Ok so maybe you do not understand that the license for using Mac OS X says that you cannot install Mac OS X on a non Apple computer. I find it immensely ironic, and humorous that a device that allows people to install Mac OS X on non Apple hardware is in fact stolen technology. Did you really think that people who are purposely trying to break Mac OS X EULA and circumvent the fail safes (EFI - which is really the only reason Apple uses it rather than BIOS imho) would in any way be honorable or honest? I also find it interesting that you (especially you Mr. Holwerda) are so willing to disrespect Apple's EULA and at the same time expect LGPL to be adhered to. As if LGPL and other FOSS licenses should have any more merit - legally or ethically, than the Mac OS X EULA. You people are totally crazy. If the license says only install on Apple hardware then that is valid, and should be adhered to. Likewise if LGPL says you must include a copy of it, the source, and the modifications made then that is also valid and should be obeyed as well. Go buy a real Mac for chrissakes!

Of what terms? The only terms that can be violated are the terms of the license you're given, as detailed in the respective software license agreement. And among Mac OS X's terms there is one explicitly stating that the license allows you to install the software only on Apple hardware. Unless you can give a particular reason, say a law explicitly invalidating that term, why this does not apply to you, "more fortunate" folks, your argument is bunk.

Let's be realistic, though - neither my nor, more importantly, Apple's disapproval can stop you, as an individual, from using OSX86 folks' bag of tricks to install Mac OS X on your generic hardware. Bending over backwards to prove that it's all legal and fine and dandy is entirely pointless. It's just like trying to argue that downloading stuff from P2P networks is legally or morally right. And at the end of the day all of us have downloaded one thing or another from P2P, but the honest of us do so fully realizing that they are breaking the rules and in most cases breaking the law.

Where on earth did you get this nonsense from?

The open source community writes its own code. By definition. If the open source community didn't write it, then the code is not open source.

Der.

This article about the EFI-X module is a case of a company stealing open source code, written by the open source community.

It isn't a case of the open source community stealing the code of the EFI-X module at all.

How did you get that so very much backwards?

PS: The Open Source community is indeed very much against software piracy. As a software author, who would advocate that one's wishes for one's software should be wilfully disobeyed?

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html



http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy

Edited 2009-09-21 12:50 UTC

What kind of garbage is this. The open source community exists because of the regards they have for others license. They refuse to be bound by proprietary license so they write their own code and give it away. instead of blatantly using proprietary code and disregarding the license. What kind of buffoonish statement is that. my goodness

The OSS community tends to respect software licenses much more than others. They may not agree with a license but they will respect it with the same fervor that they adhear to there own preferred open licenses with. Copyright infringement and the rare cases of true piracy (resale of stolen software) is deeply frowned upon regardless of what license it happens to be under. This contrary to the public misconception promoted by marketing spin from various closed software development companies.

You'll also find a much higher respect for software licenses, personal privacy and security among true members of the hacker community. Those that violate licenses and people are very deeply frowned upon and considered degenerates not considered part of the hacking community. This contrary to the publicly misconception promoted by mass media.

I include both communities here. The second does not necessarily required interest in security, software or technology at all but within that cross-section, it tends to include much of the FOSS community in a very natural way. In both cases, your demonstrated understanding would be wrong.

You should maybe understand the people in a given community before slamming it blindly.