OSNews

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!

EULAs try to impose conditions post-sale, they're not legally binding in most places.

Your thinking is a little bit too US-centric I think.

In my country it is VERY doubtful if an EULA is a contract.

A contract has to be agreed on, before a deal is done.
Later one-sided changes to a contract only are lawful, if the either the not-changing party benifits from this change, or if a change of laws demands this change.

What is the agreed on contract when I go to the shop, and buy a OS-X CD?
Well, I agree that may use the OS-X CD as Software CDs usually are expected to be used: Install it, and use it, on one computer.

Imagine, I bought a copy of OS-X at the apple store, and I got a computer from store XYZ without any operating system pre-installed. I got this computer because it was cheaper but equally powerful to the computer sold by the apple store. My reasoning was: I buy the software I want from store A and the Hardware from Store B, because that is cheaper.

After doing my purchases, I install OS-X on the computer, and find out that I am supposedly not allowed to install OS-X on this computer. By revealing this unexpected limitation so late in the game, I have the right to give back the OS-X CD. But what about the computer I bought? According to Apple I would have to give it back (and I would even get my money back), and buy a computer from Apple. But I do not get my money back from the store I bought the hardware from, as it is a perfectly working computer.

This late surprise "contract" effectively would cost me money, therefore it is likely not enforceable.

Please quit that nonsense. FOSS licenses have nothing to do with end user licenses. The GPL and BSD licenses are distribution licenses, whereas Apple's or Microsoft's EULAs are end user licenses. While former grant additional rights on top of normal copyright law, the latter place additional restrictions.

This is a crucial difference. In fact, the GPL has been held up consistently in court a number of times, whereas EULAs have often been challenged successfully.

There is a difference btw FOSS licenses and EULAs. EULAs imposes their restrictions at the point of usage and interfere with an individuals fair use rights. FOSS licenses imposes their restrictions at the point of (re)distribution and do not interfere with fair use rights.

Thinking that EULAS and FOSS licenses are equal shows you dont really understand what FOSS licenses are all about about.To start with, EULAs forces you to be the end user and FOSS licenses protects your right to redistribute the works(under the terms of the license)

A FOSS user could ethically feel justified in ignoring EULAs but not justified in ignoring FOSS licenses because nobody should tell you how to use a product in your own private space after you bought it ...giving it or sell it to others falls outside the boundary of fair terms of the license should be applied then

And pay double only for the pleasure to install it on a real Mac.

There are other reasons to use EFI than just trying to make it harder to copy the OS...
For one thing, Intel have been pushing EFI for years, but virtually no motherboards support it because MS don't support it.

The BIOS is pretty old and crufty, replacing it with more modern firmware is actually a very good thing...

Apple are not constrained by what MS choose to support, and don't like legacy cruft (they were one of if not the first to do away with serial, parallel, floppies etc), it makes perfect sense that they would use EFI.

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.

Incidentally, the OSX license is only presented to you after you have purchased the software and may not be binding at all, depending where you live, which would thus default back to copyright laws which place no restriction on how you can personally use a copyrighted work that you have acquired legally.

The LGPL on the other hand, does not attempt to impose additional restrictions other than those already imposed by copyright law, but what it does do is grant additional rights that you wouldn't have had under plain copyright. You are free to reject the terms of the LGPL and continue using the software, however by rejecting the LGPL you have rejected the right to redistribute copies of the code and doing so would become a copyright infringement.

As far as morals go, i think that having legally acquired something, i should be free to use or modify it in any way i see fit. So if i purchase a copy of OSX, i should be able to try and install it on anything i choose. I don't expect Apple to support me doing this, or do anything to help me, but i don't like the idea of anything done specifically to prevent me (ie actions designed to prevent install on other hardware but which serve no benefit to their intended target audience... requiring efi instead of a kludgy old bios and simply not shipping with drivers for non apple hardware are one thing, but extra code that explicitly checks for non apple hardware and refuses to run are another).

"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."

Spot on dude, spot on. Yes, that, as a matter of fact, and a matter of law to be precise, is what sets better places in the wolrd apart from the US of A. The law says so. Only because someone puts crap into their EULA does not mean it has any merit, weight or validity whatsoever. Awesome stuff, isn't it?

So this being the way it is, what I said is not bunk. The US is not the world, and the world doesn't care about what the US does. So yes, installing OSX on any hardware is perfectly legal, even though it might not be for YOU. Btw, this does not only apply to EULA, but all sorts of T+Cs. Only because someone stuffs a clause in there doesn't mean it is valid/can be enforced. Just sign it and then ignore it. That is also what MS had to learn the hard way when they tried to pull their bull off saying you cannot resell OEM versions - guess what - you can, no matter what it says in the copy/paste bullshit US EULA for Europe. The power and reach of the US legal system ends at the US border, didn't you know? Now you know.