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 95638
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 DevL on Tue 14th Feb 2006 23:59 UTC in reply to "The legality of hacking OS X"
DevL
Member since:
2005-07-06

"That said, its true that it is not currently legal to use OS X x86, simply because retail copies of it are not available without the purchase of a Mac. When that happens, though, the legality of OS X on whitebox PCs may very well be upheld."

You say 'when' - I ask why that should EVER happen. Apple has no need to release anything BUT OS upgrades as no Macs come without OS X...

Reply Parent Score: 3

rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

The current retail versions are full versions, not upgrades. IIRC, they don't say anything about requiring an older version of OS X to be installed.

Also, your logic shows its limitations when it comes to second-hand Macs. What happens if you buy an old Mac without a hard drive? What if you assemble one out of used components? Is it impossible for me to now put an OS on that machine? Or are you going to argue about the immorality of buying used hardware and say I should pay $$$ for a new Mac?

Reply Parent Score: 3

somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

The current retail versions are full versions, not upgrades. IIRC, they don't say anything about requiring an older version of OS X to be installed.

Time to start learnig how to read for you. Read the fine print. Requires Apple hardware. You can't buy Apple without OS. So, technicaly, it is upgrade.

But, it doesn't say original version has to be installed.

Also, your logic shows its limitations when it comes to second-hand Macs.

Nope. His logic works. Read warranty, read box label. You got Install CD. Also your invoice is a proof. And it is specified which Mac comes with which OS.

What happens if you buy an old Mac without a hard drive?

Hard driv has nothing with that.

What if you assemble one out of used components?

The one containg the serial number of computer will be valid to transfer your license on. Other licenses go to waste like any OEM license.

Is it impossible for me to now put an OS on that machine?

Nope. As long as you have proof of ownership.

Or are you going to argue about the immorality of buying used hardware and say I should pay $$$ for a new Mac?

Since Apple would like to see that. Yes. Enforcing them to buy 1/9 of the product (just the least profitable part)? No. It is like stealing their profit because you're cheap.

It is Apple product, so why wouldn't Apple decide who and how can use it?

And notice that I dislike both, Apple and OSX. But still own one G5 for my needs.

Reply Parent Score: 3

elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

The current retail versions are full versions, not upgrades. IIRC, they don't say anything about requiring an older version of OS X to be installed.

Upgrade or not, the retail versions are for OS X on PPC. OS X for Intel is an entirely seperate product, there is no grey zone there.

Nor is there a grey zone over the fact that you must purchase a brand spankin' new shiny Mactel to obtain a license for OS X for Intel. The only grey zone is whether Apple can enforce an EULA that only allows it to run on Apple hardware; personally I don't think they can, nor do I think they're entitled to, and really, that's up to the particular jurisdictions to determine. But if the only way to purchase OS X for Intel is to purchase a brand new Mactel, really, why should Apple care? They're laughing all the way to the bank.

Oh, and if one purchases that Mactel to obtain the license so they can hack OS X onto the Intel platform of their choice, they would be required to remove OS X from the brand new Mactel. Otherwise it would still be stealing. No grey zone there, either.

Put another way, just because you purchase a game for the PS/2 doesn't entitle you to a free version of the same game for the XBox. Doesn't work that way. They may look the same, work the same and go by the same name, but they're two different products.

Having said that, if somebody has a legal copy of OS X Intel, wants to turn their Mactel into a doorstop, or worse, a Wintel machine, just for the sake of installing it on their platform of choice, I say all the more power to them.

But any other way is illegal. No grey zones.

Reply Parent Score: 3