Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 14th Feb 2006 22:49 UTC, submitted by jayson.knight
Mac OS X It seems like flee-in-Apple's-fur, cracker 'Maxxuss', has succeeded in cracking Mac OS 10.4.4 for Intel. "We were just about to hunker down and wait through the cold winter and a wet spring until we saw some results on the OS X 10.4.4 for Intel hacking efforts, but it looks like we're getting a little Valentines present from 'Maxxuss' who has already broken through Apple's heightened security that is present in their shipping version of the OS. It's just a preliminary release, not all hardware is supported and it requires a bit of futzing around to get it to work, but seeing as we weren't expecting this kind of breakthrough this early, we really can't complain."
Thread beginning with comment 95636
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: The legality of hacking OS X
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 14th Feb 2006 23:54 UTC in reply to "The legality of hacking OS X"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

I don't care whether or not the EULA is enforcable, Rayiner. For me, it's something personal. I see an EULA as a contract, and as such, when I agree with it, I'll have to adhere by it. You may claim that EULAs are unethical, and I respect that viewpoint.

However, then I also expect you, and others, to respect my viewpoint: I clicked 'agree', and as such, I will not break it. Same as I will not break my rental contract on my house. Same as I will not break someone's rules while staying in their house.

Both viewpoints are valid, in my opinion. However, I'm getting pretty annoyed over people calling me names just because I happen to want to adhere to a contract I agreed to.

Reply Parent Score: 5

rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't care whether or not the EULA is enforcable, Rayiner. For me, it's something personal. I see an EULA as a contract, and as such, when I agree with it, I'll have to adhere by it. You may claim that EULAs are unethical, and I respect that viewpoint.

I'm not claiming that EULA's are unethical (though I think most are), but rather that EULA's do not have enough legal foundation to be able to say that breaking them is illegal. Most EULA's are full of clauses that likely would not stand up in a court of law. Microsoft's Windows EULA says the license is only transferable a single time. That means if you're the third owner of a used computer, you're violating the EULA. If Microsoft sued you for that, do you think they'd win? Companies put all sorts of crap in EULAs that they know they likely cannot enforce, just because they know most people will not challenge them. It's fine if you want to voluntarily play that game, but don't attack people who call it as being the bullshit it is.

However, I'm getting pretty annoyed over people calling me names just because I happen to want to adhere to a contract I agreed to.

You were the one who lashed out at the people who cracked OS X. It's fine if you want to follow the EULA because you like Apple. However, don't confuse "being nice" to Apple with fulfilling your legal obligations to Apple.

Reply Parent Score: 5

somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

I'm not claiming that EULA's are unethical (though I think most are), but rather that EULA's do not have enough legal foundation to be able to say that breaking them is illegal. Most EULA's are full of clauses that likely would not stand up in a court of law. Microsoft's Windows EULA says the license is only transferable a single time. That means if you're the third owner of a used computer, you're violating the EULA. If Microsoft sued you for that, do you think they'd win? Companies put all sorts of crap in EULAs that they know they likely cannot enforce, just because they know most people will not challenge them. It's fine if you want to voluntarily play that game, but don't attack people who call it as being the bullshit it is.

What you've described is that some EULA licenses are stupid and contain discriminatory measures, which is agreed. Such licenses must be corrected.

But, for author not to be possible to have anything to say basic things about how and what is allowed conduct with his product? Why do you use his product then, if you disrespect him so much? Sometimes licenses for commercial software are like marriage, take it or leave it.

Edited 2006-02-15 01:07

Reply Parent Score: 1

Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

That's an interesting comment there Thom, but I take my principles over the tyranny of some rich guy just looking to shovel more cash into his bank account.

As an example I absolutely had to use Microsoft Office 2003 to do my school work a year ago, there was no way out of it. The school had computers in the library but that was just so they could say students had no excuse for not having their homework done if it required a computer. The computers were always taken up no matter how early you got there, and most of the people on them were either checking e-mail, forums, or porn when the librarians weren't looking so you HAD to have a computer and the required software at home.

There was no alternative for the software we had to use, it was Microsoft Excel or nothing because OO.o wouldn't do the graphs the way the teachers wanted them. Microsoft got the schools to use their proprietary software with closed standards by offering them the software cheap (in several cases bribery of the deciding individual(s) is also involved), knowing full well students would have to pay $200 for the software in order to get their homework done and not fail. In my opinion what Microsoft was doing was malicious, there's no two ways about it and frankly whoever decided to standardize the entire district on their software was no better. Had my parents not bought MS Office I would have pirated it wouthout feeling even slightly guilty, what goes around comes around and Microsoft picked the fight.

As far as Apple software is concerned I wouldn't pirate that because they don't force me to use it, Apple plays nice with me so I play nice with them.

The point is that a rock solid stance to obey whatever contract a company throws at you isn't a good policy when that company starts abusing you.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Jesuspower Member since:
2006-01-28

Its the vendor saying, if you want to use my product, you must promise to do such and such.
I applaud the fact that you are a man of your word. Most people are not. They also blame shift everything. (ex: "it's the vendors fault I broke my promise!")

However, both viewpoints cannot be valid. They are opposing viewpoints that cannot logically be equal.
One involves keeping a promise. The oter involves breaking a promise.

Speaking of which, if everyone that bought the software broke the agreement, the vendor might get angry enough to start enforcing the agreement.
If people were more honest, and kept their word, and did not use software that they were going have to make a bad agreement on, then the venor could not enforce it, because you did not agree to it and they would have to make a new license.

Reply Parent Score: 1

alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

Thom, you are missing something. It is legally possible in Europe to impose some kinds of conditions on use in a Eula. But the kind of conditions on use which prevent you from running bought software on the hardware of your choice are not among them.

This is because in general, post sales restrictions on use, imposed by conditions of sale, are unlawful in the EC. There are a variety of reasons. One is they lead to anti competitive linked sales. Two is they violate the EC regulations which are embodied in the UK consumer protection and sales of goods acts - you can't as a manufacturer impose unreasonable conditions, or use your greater power in the market with respect to consumers to impose conditions of sale.

This is why MS cannot stop you, by Eula, from running Office under Wine or Crossover.

Now, do you have a moral obligation to only run software on the systems specified in the Eula, and as specified? I would have thought exactly the reverse. The supplier has the moral, as well as the legal obligation to respect the culture and laws of the region he is selling in. If the law prohibits certain kinds of restrictions on use, he is quite wrong to try to incorporate them in a Eula. Effectively this borders on fraud. It leads the buyer to believe he has assented to binding conditions which are not in fact binding, and which no EC court would enforce.

You have no more a moral or legal obligation to only run your bought copy of OSX on a Mac, than you do to refrain from reading the latest novel you bought in the bath - no matter what the Eula says, in either case.

Of course, Apple is not obliged to support you. That's a different matter entirely. You can limit your support obligations to some conditions of use, to some extent at least, in a Eula.

Reply Parent Score: 4

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Whether you click "agree" or not doesn't matter in any legal way.

You might say "I agree" to a gangster, but that doesn't bind you legally when forced to accept a law-breaking deal.

You might say "I agree" to an EULA for some software, but that doesn't bind you legally when forced to accept a law-breaking EULA.

However, I like the fact you won't break the someone's rules while staying in their house. That's a nice side of your personality ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

First a small nitpick: there is no such thing as 'Holland'. My country is called the Netherlands. There are two provinces with the name 'Holland' in them-- Northern-Holland and Southern-Holland. But anyway.

Whether you click "agree" or not doesn't matter in any legal way.

As I already said about 2894291 times, to me it does not matter whether or not it is legal or not. I'm getting tired of typing the same over and over again, so here is a c/p:

"You are not getting it. I *understand* all this might be allowed by law. But, as I already said, I don't care. Do you do everything just because the law allows you to?

When I'm throwing a party, I might come to an agreement with my neighbour that my friends are allowed to park their cars on his driveway. Now, I'd be pretty pissed off if in the middle of the party he starts kicking all the cars off of his driveway-- even though he is legally perfectly allowed to do so. Apparantlly, people like yourself would not be pissed off at all- you neighbour has done nothing illegal, so why care?

When I use an Apple, Microsoft, or any other product which comes with a contract, then I have an agreement with that company. And as such, I will try my best to adhere to that agreement, whether the law forces me to or not. It's not because I like those companies; it's because I have an agreement. Just like I had with my neighbour.

And I'd be pretty pissed off if everyone were to just break agreements because they are not legally binding. What a world we'd live in."


There.

Reply Parent Score: 5