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 95700
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: hmm..
by rayiner on Wed 15th Feb 2006 02:22 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: hmm.."
rayiner
Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah, but if it combines with OEM, retail/upgrade trick. Talk is about Apple and legal restriction of putting OSX on some other PC than Apple. Stick to the point.

I really can't parse this. My point simply was that hacking a legally-obtained copy of OS X to run on a PC is completely different than copying your friend's software without a license.

1. Legaly one can't modify his CD player and not break the patent law

Sure you can. Patent law has nothing to do with this.

If you don't break the law in point 1., you can't use that CD anyway.

You can modify the CD too. DMCA doesn't apply because you're not modifying it for the purposes of breaking a copy protection mechanism, and you're not redistributing the modified work.

Resale is legal agreement too, you know? And usualy it is in combination with EULA.

It's a circular argument. You're arguing about the validity of the EULA while assuming the EULA is valid!

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: hmm..
by Jesuspower on Wed 15th Feb 2006 03:39 in reply to "RE[8]: hmm.."
Jesuspower Member since:
2006-01-28

The EULA is valid because the vendor says, pay me money, and promise not to use my product like this, and I'll let you use it.
And you agree.

Now, if you don't like what that vendor is saying, don't use the product.
Return it.
No one does this, because they want to have what they want, their way.
You cant.
If more people disagreed, then the EULAs would become more fair.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[10]: hmm..
by rayiner on Wed 15th Feb 2006 04:06 in reply to "RE[9]: hmm.."
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

he EULA is valid because the vendor says, pay me money, and promise not to use my product like this, and I'll let you use it.
And you agree.


What the hell kind of legal argument is that? What's the legal definition of "promise". What law gives the vendor the power to demand promises from the buyer?

Edited 2006-02-15 04:09

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[10]: hmm..
by cerbie on Wed 15th Feb 2006 04:14 in reply to "RE[9]: hmm.."
cerbie Member since:
2006-01-02

Most of us don't care about EULAs, because they are fundamentally flawed. They are required after the sale, on items which cannot be returned.

EULAs need to pass the common sense test before they even think about fairness.

Reply Parent Score: 4