Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 21st Sep 2009 08:44 UTC, submitted by Cytor
Hardware, Embedded Systems There are several options out there if you wan to run Mac OS X on your non-Apple labelled computer, but one of them appears to be in serious trouble. It has been uncovered that the EFI-X module is nothing more than a USB stick with a DRM chip, with code from the hackintosh community on it - without attribution. On top of that, its firmware update utility uses LGPL code - again, without attribution.
Thread beginning with comment 385183
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by lurch_mojoff
by fraterf93 on Mon 21st Sep 2009 10:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by lurch_mojoff"
fraterf93
Member since:
2009-04-23

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!

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by lurch_mojoff
by slight on Mon 21st Sep 2009 10:33 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by lurch_mojoff"
slight Member since:
2006-09-10

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

Reply Parent Score: 9

lurch_mojoff Member since:
2007-05-12

For one that is absolutely not true - there are few, if any, jurisdictions in which software license agreements are explicitly non-binding.

And for two - the exact same can be argued about open source licenses. After all, I can download, compile, incorporate into my project and even modify open source code without ever explicitly agreeing to anything. At least with software license agreements there usually is an unskippable step in the software installer on which the text of the agreement is presented to you and you have to select "I Agree" in order to continue. With source code licenses there isn't even that. By your logic they should be even more insubstantial and nonbinding.

Reply Parent Score: 0

mrhasbean Member since:
2006-04-03

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


Except the conditions are present before the sale - and you make the purchase with the conditions present. Even if presented after the sale you have a choice of returning the product for a refund if you don't like the conditions. Believing it is your right to use the product however you please if you've bought it is believing that your rights override the rights of the companies and individuals who invested their time and money into developing the product. It's a total lack or respect for them. Unfortunately it's consistent with the world today - everyone is interested only in their rights - without accepting that respect and responsibility go along with them. It's the three R's, not just the one we like...

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by lurch_mojoff
by gustl on Mon 21st Sep 2009 10:38 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by lurch_mojoff"
gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

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.

Reply Parent Score: 5

fraterf93 Member since:
2009-04-23

It does say on the box that Mac OS X is to be installed on an Apple computer.

Reply Parent Score: 0

lurch_mojoff Member since:
2007-05-12

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.


I don't know how things are "in your country", but in general in the law around the world that is not true. In
most jurisdictions there is the legal concept of implicit agreement or implicit contract. If there wasn't, as I said in my comment above, things like software licenses would be completely void.

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.


Even if we overlook the fact that you are not buying a CD but rather a license to use the software, and the CD is just a convenient medium thrown in the package, there is no inherent "[way software] usually [is] expected to be used". A good example for that is a volume license, say a "family pack", with which you also receive one CD, but you are given the permission to install the software and use it on up to a certain number of machines. And the thing that makes a "family pack" a "family pack" is the exact same software license, as detailed in the respective license agreement, that you say is bunk.

Reply Parent Score: 2

apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

BTW, Your reasoning is flawed. Appel si not forced to let you install their software on whatever hardware you want. You have plenty of choices, ree or otherwise to run on your hardware. Apple is not obligated to cater to you since you are not their customer, and thus are not part of their ecosystem. again this is also why Psystar's claims are flawed as well. Apple is under no obligation to sell their software to OEM's, there are plenty of choices out there in the market Appel chooses to differentiate itself form the rest of the market by marrying their software to their hardware. Just like a game console differentiates itself from a PC. By marrying the hardware to the software you get added benefits such as more consistency, known hardware configuration and ease of use.

You as techno geek can go do whatever you want with your personal copy of OSx. Apple isn't going to care. You as an Xbox user can hack your console any which way you want, I doubt MS is going to care. Its when you start selling pre-hacked xboxes where the issue arises.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by lurch_mojoff
by clei on Mon 21st Sep 2009 23:33 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by lurch_mojoff"
clei Member since:
2008-10-04

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.

>
>
Bullshit. When you bought the computer, you *KNEW* it didn't come with a copy of OS-X.

When you bought the copy of OS-X, you *KNEW* you didn't have the right to install on the above mentioned-non Apple hardware.

It wasn't like it wasn't widely known that Apple has stated that installing their OS on non-apple hardware is a NO-NO.

So where does that leave you?

Looking like an utter and complete jackass.

Reply Parent Score: 0

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

As if LGPL and other FOSS licenses should have any more merit - legally or ethically, than the Mac OS X EULA.


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.

Reply Parent Score: 16

lurch_mojoff Member since:
2007-05-12

While former grant additional rights on top of normal copyright law, the latter place additional restrictions.

BULLSHIT! Both give you additional right and both place additional restrictions. GPL, for example, gives you the additional right to freely acquire and modify the source code, but places the additional restriction that you have to distribute any code that you add under the same license. The same for software licenses, they give you the additional right to use the piece of software, but add the additional restriction to do so, for example, on only one, and in the case of Apple - Apple branded, machine.

Reply Parent Score: 1

mtzmtulivu Member since:
2006-11-14

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!


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

Reply Parent Score: 3

twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

Go buy a real Mac for chrissakes!


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

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[3]: Comment by lurch_mojoff
by bert64 on Mon 21st Sep 2009 17:10 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by lurch_mojoff"
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

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.

Reply Parent Score: 3