[baw]

I do not understand this. From Engadget to Digg.com. Both have front page stories about how the latest 10.4.4 for x86 has been cracked. The latest copy of 10.4.4 is based of an iMac restore CD because there is not yet a retail OS X x86 package. So all the people using OS X on their beige boxes are using pirated copies.

But whenever "Maxxuss" cracks Apple's latest security features, all these websites hoot and holler like it is the next best thing since sliced bread. Why the advocating of the use of pirated software? Why are mainstream websites encouraging the use of OS X the way it is not intended to be? It seems it is almost like Apple is in the wrong for locking down their OS. "Maxxuss" is on some conquest to free the reins of OS X from under the dictatorship of Apple Computer, Inc. Like some child fleeing an abusive home.

All this is going to end up doing is send Apple further down the DRM path and impose stricter restrictions on the OS and any multimedia content.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/14/a...ready-cracked/
http://digg.com/apple/Apple_s_OSx86_...ecurity_Broken

[jasonsRX7]

Is it illegal try to get it to boot off another system if you own the x86 iMac and the restore cd that came with it?

Is Apple's license agreement the same as a Windows OEM license agreement, where the software license lives and dies with the hardware that it came with?

[Dork.]

It would be one thing if these sites were actively distributing hacked copies of the iMac restore CD. But they're all simply reporting that someone may have gotten it to work on non-Apple hardware. In that respect, it's more of a news story than an "encouraging piracy" story. Especially considering that some people have taken the Official Position that it would be technically impossible for Apple to prevent people from booting OS X on non-Apple hardware.

As far as the licensing agreement is concerned, companies put all sorts of clauses in there that are not enforceable. This case is slightly different, since there are no retail OSX86 CD's available. But eventually, there will be. Can Apple really restrain you from installing a retail copy of OS X that you've legally bought on hardware that you legally own just because you didn't buy the hardware from Apple? I'm no lawyer, but I believe that this wouldn't ever hold water.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by jasonsRX7

Is it illegal try to get it to boot off another system if you own the x86 iMac and the restore cd that came with it?

Is Apple's license agreement the same as a Windows OEM license agreement, where the software license lives and dies with the hardware that it came with?

The license forbids you from using the operating system on non-Apple hardware. Always has.

[jasonsRX7]

Originally Posted by Person Man

The license forbids you from using the operating system on non-Apple hardware. Always has.

Ok, just curious... I didn't know. But it makes me wonder what exactly constitutes Apple hardware. Windows OEM licenses can be sold with $0.99 power splitters. They could be trying to get around it on a technicality like that, saying "well I've got an Apple hard drive" or they've installed a non-Apple motherboard into a PowerMac case.

[mduell]

It's disingenuous at best to equate breaking the terms of an EULA to theft. These sites aren't advocating breaking into Apple Stores and taking copies of OS X.
Please change your thread title.

Is a EULA even legally enforceable? I haven't been keeping up with the court cases.
If not, Apple can write whatever they want about the non-transferability of the software and it doesn't mean anything.

I think the "crowds" cheer for Maxxus because he's enabling them to buy a copy of OS X and run it on their hardware, something Apple is unwilling to provide.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by mduell

Is a EULA even legally enforceable? I haven't been keeping up with the court cases. If not, Apple can write whatever they want about the non-transferability of the software and it doesn't mean anything.

In this case, Apple could argue that the ability to install OS X on non-Apple hardware will hurt sales of their machines.

[baw]

Originally Posted by mduell

I think the "crowds" cheer for Maxxus because he's enabling them to buy a copy of OS X and run it on their hardware, something Apple is unwilling to provide.

I missed that product launch.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Person Man

In this case, Apple could argue that the ability to install OS X on non-Apple hardware will hurt sales of their machines.

In that case, Crest could attempt to license their toothpaste to only be used with their toothbrushes. After all, even if you've already bought their toothpaste, using it with a competitor's toothbrush would hurt their brush sales!

[baw]

Originally Posted by mduell

Please change your thread title.

[Dork.]

Well, baw, coyright infringement is not theft, legally or morally. That doesn't make it right, it just makes it not theft.

[baw]

Downloading a commercially available OS via bittorrent does not equal theft?

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by baw

Downloading a commercially available OS via bittorrent does not equal theft?

No, theft involves the taking of a physical object from someone, leaving him without that object.
If someone breaks into an Apple Store and steals 10 copies of OS X, that's theft. Apple has 10 fewer copies to sell.

If someone downloads a torrent of OS X, nothing is taken away from Apple. Apple still has just as many copies of OS X to sell as they did before. The downloader is still breaking the law, since the right to make copies of OS X is reserved to Apple alone, but he just isn't stealing anything. There's a difference.

[11011001]

Originally Posted by mduell

I think the "crowds" cheer for Maxxus because he's enabling them to buy a copy of OS X and run it on their hardware, something Apple is unwilling to provide.

As someone pointed out, Apple does not sell a copy of OS X to run on their Intel machines (yet).

[mduell]

Originally Posted by baw

I missed that product launch.

Buy an Intel Mac, remove the OS, and transfer your copy of OSX86 to another box.

Originally Posted by baw

Downloading a commercially available OS via bittorrent does not equal theft?

Nope; just like downloading music, it's copyright infringement.

[baw]

So theft only involves physical items?

[wdlove]

Theft is wrong. It should be purchased legally from Apple like the rest of us. The money helps Apple to continue R & D.

[alphasubzero949]

This thread is a joke, right?

Do you all really think that 0.0001% of the user base that has hacked OSx86 (along with the knowhow) are going to cannibalize Apple's Mac revenue stream?

OSx86 is locked down "good enough" so that Joe User doesn't know how to install it on his old Dell. Nothing will ever prevent OS X from being "stolen."

The real question that should be asked is if Steve is planning a roadmap for OS X along the lines of NeXTSTEP (sell on overpriced mediocre boxes, move to x86, kill off the hardware, sell as standalone, get swallowed up by another company who wants the OS).

[baw]

This thread is a joke, right?

You took the bait.

[Person Man]

The patch distribution includes "decrypted system files." (i.e. Apple encrypted them as part of the protection).

This is 1. distribution of Apple code without a license, and 2. violation of the DMCA. Apple is within their rights to request a cease and desist order for this one...

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by baw

So theft only involves physical items?

Yes, theft only involves physical items. People may use the terms "theft" and "stealing" loosely to describe copyright infringement, and "intellectual property" to describe an idea someone has like its a piece of land, but legally, they're totally different.

Again (and I stress this in each post in case intelliTXT comes along and links my words to something like allofmp3.com) that doesn't make copyright infringement any better or worse than outright theft, it just makes it a different way to break the law.

(Although you might want to compare the punishment of someone who is found to be illegally distributing a single CD on the Internet to someone who breaks into a record store and steals 100 CD's, or someone who sold 100 pirated copies of a physical CD. The second will be punished based on the value of the property he stole or illegally distributed, the first will be punished based on the number of illegal copies that might have been made while the file was available. Since there are eleventy billion people on the Internet, the first person will be punished far more harshly.)

[Big Mac]

Apple made this mess for itself, and I predicted it would come back to haunt the company. Apple wanted to manufacture Intel PCs, and it will be forced to recognize the costs associated with that choice.

[ndptal85]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Apple made this mess for itself, and I predicted it would come back to haunt the company. Apple wanted to manufacture Intel PCs, and it will be forced to recognize the costs associated with that choice.

Still bitter about the switch to faster Intel chips huh?

There's a very small number of people willing to go through all the obstacles it takes to get OS X running on a generic PC. Its not going to cost Apple anything because the number of people is so small it will have no negative affect whatsoever on Apple's bottom line.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by ndptal85

There's a very small number of people willing to go through all the obstacles it takes to get OS X running on a generic PC. Its not going to cost Apple anything because the number of people is so small it will have no negative affect whatsoever on Apple's bottom line.

We shall see. Seems like they've easily beaten Apple's current best attempt to thwart the effort:

What this means is that Apple’s best attempts to secure their OS have, ultimately, failed. For its best efforts, the company is unable to lock OS X to their hardware. Without doubt, this will have profound impacts on the company’s future as running OSx86 on a PC becomes less a hacker’s trick and more mainstream. When all it requires is the downloading of a DVD, that’s certainly the future we’re looking at.

Even Apple fanboys have to stand back and realize the company has opened a can of worms by becoming little more than an Intel PC customized box stuffer.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

We shall see. Seems like they've easily beaten Apple's current best attempt to thwart the effort

Yes, and they have to break the law by doing it.

Apple included encrypted code in the OS and they are distributing that code, unencrypted, which violates the DMCA.

[baw]

And it begins.

OSx86 Project forum halted after DMCA violation claim