Submitted by According to the guys at
www.osx86.classicbeta.com, some intrepid individuals have been able to get OS X running on generic hardware. There is a full explaination and some details on the site.
According to the guys at
www.osx86.classicbeta.com, some intrepid individuals have been able to get OS X running on generic hardware. There is a full explaination and some details on the site.
What this threat is showing is that with the X86 move Apple gets truely connected to the darkside, where stealing software is quite normal, sad. The Mac community will have a hard time to keep herself pure.
japail your dead on the money with the yuppie trophy “zealous” Mac owners comment.
Anonymous (IP: 68.110.94.—) is just a twit.
Piracy doesnt mean stealing:
(1)If you do it for a non-profitable purpose.(That you are not selling pirated software.)
(2)If you feel anything is wrong with the company/product (i.e. it has insanely unreal prices and/or absurd conditions – such as this one).
To give an example WinRAR shareware (costs $30 approx.) does much less than a software called IZArc or 7-Zip. Both these are free and have nothing less than WinRAR (they are both easy to use and have wide support for various archive types.)
The truth is piracy wont mean larger profits for a company as people wouldn’t still have the money to buy the software and
THEY WOULD SIMPLY MOVE TO LINUX.
Piracy doesnt mean stealing:
(1)If you do it for a non-profitable purpose.(That you are not selling pirated software.)
(2)If you feel anything is wrong with the company/product (i.e. it has insanely unreal prices and/or absurd conditions – such as this one).
——————————————————————
Bloody hell, I’d like you to use that defense in a court of law when court stealing something
Reality maybe if you have a criminal mind
THEN SIMPLY MOVE TO LINUX and stop finding excuses for why piracy is not stealing. If you don’t like the product and its conditions, leave it alone.
I bet you didn’t pay for the proprietary Microseft Windows XP piece of shit system you use either. Idiot. It’s imbeciles like you who give PC users a bad name.
Software piracy is not stealing regardless of conditions. It is also not legal regardless of conditions.
All I ask is that if you make an illegal copy of software do not attempt to justify it by ‘I would not have bought it anyway.’ or ‘I cant afford to buy it.’ Use Linux but don’t use a car thiefs justification for your actions.
I am not trying to equate car theft with copyright voilations. The rationalization is the same though.
Kokopelli
while its true that these pirates make some lame excuses for their criminal behavior, its also pretty lame to give a rats hair whether apple loses a sale or not.
apple will sue their grandma for jaywalking…let them defend themselves. Its a tough world…apple gives as good as they get, they are on their own, if you ask me.
a piece of piracy software become, more and more popular software and this make dominate the market…
in the desentralized market incomming’s…
or not…. ?!
im sure apple gain a big part of market share.
MAC OS X = easy and simple to use.
what the big deal is about PURCHASING Apple’s OSX and then running it on a vanilla box.
You don’t see Sun telling anyone what to run Solaris 10 on. In fact they encourage the spread of their operating system, why doesn’t Apple car to do the same?
what the big deal is about PURCHASING Apple’s OSX and then running it on a vanilla box.
The majority of the time, it would run like crap (because of driver support, same problem Linux has) and tarnish Apple’s image of “the BMW of computers.”
“The BMW of computers” is a myth perpetuated by zealots. The vast majority of the components inside a Mac are exactly the same as in a Windows or Linux PC. I can buy the drive Apple calls a “SuperDrive”. With enough work (mostly spent finding the model numbers), I bet I could buy every single component that Apple puts in the PowerMac (beyond the motherboard and CPU, obviously) for a Windows/Linux PC.
And now, with them switching to an Intel processor and chipset (which, with the puny size of Apple, will be the same ones used by everyone else) the only thing distinguishing an Apple computer from a Dell computer will be the OS.
Apple Fanboys are still not giving up, they prided themselves once at PowerPC Procesor. Guess what it seems that Steve Jobs can be referred as person without spine. And all the brouhaha about hacked OSX, well who uses VMWare for normal day to day computing. When there are tons of Linux distros out there that don’t take as much work to get working. We thought Microsoft as an EVIL empire for pushing the DRM SH*T. And beleive me or not it is a big failure. Who cares about OSX when Linux is improving by leaps and bounds daily.
“A lot of recent events leave a clear indication as to why people wanted Macintosh to run on the Intel processor: they simply want to snag a copy of Mac OS X by illicit means.”
The crown jewel of the computer branch of Apple is its Mac OSX. In comparison, its hardware is overpriced compared to the Intel/AMD competition. I would be more than glad to spend ~$150 to purchase a copy of Mac OSX, but would be very reluctant to shell out another $1K to get another computer.
I am happy, though not ecstatic with my current Windows machine, and the conversion cost of the Mac platform is simply too high.
Why go on about piracy, the thing is that they got it to work, i would love this to test osx as i have never used it, i dont see the need to buy an OS that i may not even like, and as for osx i would never be able to test it coz i dont want to spend all that cash on hardware too. Whether or not in your eyes what they did was right, THEY STILL DID IT and well dont to them (even tho the links dead for me).
I’ve seen some people argue that if you “agree” to the EULA, then you are under contract to follow its rules.
In the USA, this is false. First of all, it’s not 100% clear that you are bound by the agreement in the first place. You didn’t sign anything, after all. There is no written contract with your name and your signature, signed likewise by the software company. There are some court decisions about this, but it’s not fleshed out yet.
But let’s forget that. Even so, you aren’t necessarily bound by the agreement. An extremely restrictive provision will not hold up in a court of law. For example, I can sign a contract agreeing to be your slave. However, that isn’t binding: I simply can’t sign away those kinds of rights.
X
For all you folks talking about stealing and copying, I have a question for you:
You buy an avocado at the store. You eat it, and plant the pit in a pot on your balcony. Is that an act of theft?
You eventually end up with another avocado, and no store was reimbursed for it. By the “look at the endpoints” argument, it doesn’t matter how you got it: you now have an item of value, you didn’t have it before, and nobody who sells that item got paid for it.
Just because the results sorta mimic theft doesn’t mean that theft has taken place, or that someone did something wrong.
And for that matter, let’s stop saying “theft.” We’re talking about copyright infringement, which is illegal but not “theft,” any more than tresspassing is “theft” or speeding is “theft.” These are completely different offenses. You can make some monetary argument that speeding costs us money, or that I could have made money by selling you a license to cross my property, which you have negated by tresspassing. But unless you can take me to court for theft, it isn’t theft. Converting harm into dollar amounts doesn’t turn an act into stealing.
X
Excellent!
I always despise the reports about “$xxxx lost due to piracy”. The fact is, they have lost very little money because the vast majority of people who “pirated” the work would never have paid for it at the asking price. Yes, some, but a small percentage. Then again, maybe it *USED* to be that way, thinking of packages like MS Office, AutoCAD, etc… But now people will go out of their way to pirate a $5 shareware app. I guess it has come down to pure unwillingness to fairly compensate those for their work, even if it’s reasonable. I wouldn’t personally pay several hundred dollars for MS Office, so even if I were to obtain a copy for a one-time project, it’s unfair to say that MS has lost money because of that. They wouldn’t have ever gotten that money from me, and if I didn’t find a copy to use online, I would have found someone with a copy and simply borrowed their computer long enough to do the work. No money lost, unless MS wants to enforce a license agreement to not only a computer, but also a specific user on that computer. Hmmmm, they’d probably love that.
You are all liars! Copyright infringement has nothing to do with theft, it is a form of raping!
You are getting something you aren’t supposed to get. This is obviously the same thing as raping. Stop the pirate rapists!
It is also similar to murder in some ways. Software piracy is murder!
Im a Apple Mac Mini owner. Ive used OS X since Jaguar (couple of years ago). I recently switched totally and sold my quite respectable PC AMD Athlon 3200+ Nvidia 6800, 1gb Ram, quite a nice kick for my gaming.
The major diff ive learned about the Apple Community as opposed to the PC one is Trust. Apple dont include protection in their software, you dont need the CD’s inserted to play games.
Apple make most of thier money on hardware, the reason they WILL (remember this is some half-assed developer build) they WILL lock x86 OS X to their hardware is because thats where the revenue lies for them.
From a morale stance, i couldnt give a dam, i will download this X86 build, dig out my older pc and install it.
If i was not a mac-owner, id do the same.
There are too many “do-gooders”, the average person on here is a working induvidual, making ends meet, working a hardjob.
Apple are a multi billion dollar company, why should You care if they would lose money? its not YOUR company.
its a fast world. Think of yourself, not some massive corporation that couldnt give a dam about you.
Shane.
Let us consult our good friend wikipedia, shall we? Three relevant entries I found are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrink_wrap_contract
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Computer_Information_Transacti…
These articles seem to fully support the argument that Rayiner is making: the legality of any given term in an EULA can be questionable. The courts are mixed. Some have held that EULA terms are enforceable, some have not. If you’ll note the third link I posted, it mentions that VA and MD are the only states which have passed such a law. I’m guessing it’s not coincidental that somebody above posted that cases in VA and MD have upheld EULA’s.
As you’ll read from the first link, whether or not all the terms of an EULA can be enforced can depend on where you are. The 7th and 8th circuits of the US appeals court tend to agree with the “licensed, not sold” argument. Most of the others do not. I’m getting the distinct impression from other posters here that the European courts also do not subscribe to the “licensed, not sold” argument.
Let’s also keep in mind that I believe it to be the case that the terms of any given EULA are usually considered individually when the EULA is disputed in court. A company may put the following two terms in their EULA:
– You may not make copies of the software and distribute them.
– You may only use this software on computers with Pentium processors.
The second term may seem very onerous and probably could be struck down in court, but it doesn’t strike down the entire license, invalidate the “no redistribution” term and leave the company with no copyright left on its product. Only the second term is held unenforceable.
Actually, as somebody else posted, the first term is not even necessary in the first place because copyright law grants software authors this right. Software authors are free to waive this right completely, by placing the software in the public domain, or partially, by placing restrictions on how the software can be redistributed.
Copyright law allows the software author to define restrictions on how his software can be redistributed. It’s perfectly acceptable for an EULA to say something like “if you want to redistribute this, you must first fly to Mars and back, allow us to inspect the contents of your computer at our leisure and buy us a lifetime supply of Juan Valdez Columbian coffee.” These may seem very onerous, but they’re perfectly acceptable in a license because by default, you have no right to redistribute at all. This is because of copyright law.
Copyright law does not govern use of software. So if I want to apply patches to NT Workstation 4.0 and thereby turn it into NT Server 4.0, I can assuredly and legally do this. If I can get OSx86 to run on a white box PC, I can assuredly and legally do this. And there’s nothing illegal about this until it’s proven in court that the terms in the respective EULA’s are upheld in court. I have never signed an Apple or M$ EULA and have never verbally consented to either EULA. Thus, it’s up to the courts and where those courts are as to whether or not I can be held liable under the law.
It’s no concidence that the GNU General Public License only governs redistribution and not use. The GPL works by leveraging copyright law, and copyright law does not govern use.
To address the argument of “you agreed to the EULA anyway!” At least in the US, you cannot give up your rights under the law. For instance, you cannot legally sell yourself into slavery. This means that if you agree to an EULA and afterwards it’s determined that certain terms of that EULA were not enforceable under the law, then you are not bound by those terms because you cannot give up your rights granted to you by the law. The company had no right in the first place to take those rights away from you.
To follow in Rayiner’s footsteps and hopefully show the lunacy in thinking that EULA’s are as sacred as the law itself: to disagree with this post and post a response that disagrees with this post (henceforth known as the “Disagreeing Response”), you must track me down and send me 100 beeeeeeellion dollars, I must receive said monies and you may then post your Disagreeing Response. By posting a Disagreeing Response, you implicitly agree to the terms of this contract and indicate your acceptance.
Precisely.
Outside of our topsy-turvy software industry, a “license” is something that gives you more permission to do stuff. That’s what the word “license” means.
A proper and enforceable EULA should grant you some capability you don’t already have. It shouldn’t be a laundry list of new restrictions—or at least, they should stop calling it a “license” agreement.
After you purchased the product and before you agree to any click-through, you already have the right to use the copy which you have just purchased. It probably doesn’t help the EULA’s legality that it prohibits you from using the software until you sign.
X
And yes, this is a “troll-post,” so mod me down, but the correct ordering of the states when you speak of Virginia and Maryland is “MD and VA.” Is is both alphabetically correct and geographically correct. When including DC, it is “MD, DC, and VA.” Happy Marylander, living in SC, here…
DVD Jon ?
I have a feeling everyone is underestimating Steve Jobs.
Yeah he holds a grudge like no other…you think the novak thing on CNN was bad wait till you see Stevie at the end of the month
I think it just shows you the amount of people WHO REALLY want to run OX X.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EULA
—
The enforceability of an EULA depends on several factors, one of them being the court that the case is heard in. Most courts that have addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license have found them to be invalid, characterizing them as contracts of adhesion, unconscionable, and/or unacceptable pursuant to the U.C.C. Step-Saver (939 F.2d 91)—see, for instance, Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd. (at harvard.edu) and Rich, Mass Market Software and the Shrinkwrap License (23 Colo. Law 1321.17). A minority of courts have determined that the shrinkwrap license is valid and enforceable: see ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg (at findlaw.com), Microsoft v. Harmony Computers (846 F. Supp. 208, 212, E.D.N.Y. 1994), and Novell v. Network Trade Center (at harvard.edu).
The 7th Circuit and 8th Circuit subscribe to the “license” and “not sold” arguments, while most other circuits do not. In addition, the contracts’ enforceability depends on whether the state has passed Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) or Anti-UCITA (UCITA Bomb Shelter) laws. In Anti-UCITA states, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) has been amended to either specifically define software as a good (thus making it fall under the UCC), or to disallow contracts which specify that the terms of contract are subject to the laws of a state that’s passed UCITA.
Recently, publishers have begun to encrypt their software packages to make it impossible for a user to install the software without agreeing to the license or violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and foreign counterparts.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrink_wrap_contract
—
Shrink wrap contracts are license agreements or other terms and conditions of a (putatively) contractual nature which can only be read and accepted by the consumer after opening the product. The term describes the shrinkwrap plastic wrapping used to coat software boxes, though these contracts are not limited to the software industry. Web-wrap, click-wrap and browse-wrap are related terms which refer to license agreements in software which is downloaded or used over the internet.
The legal status of shrink wrap contracts in the US is somewhat unclear. One line of cases follows ProCD v. Zeidenberg which held such contracts enforceable (see, e.g., Brower v. Gateway [1]) and the other follows Klocek v. Gateway, Inc., which found them unenforceable (e.g., Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp. [2]). These decisions are split on the question of consent, with the former holding that only objective manifestation of consent is required while the latter require at least the possibility of subjective consent.
I dont care about these liscenses right now, where can i just get the thing
Z
If you want Mac OS X and all it’s state of the art innovations in hardware and software you just have to pay for it.
It’s this cost that covers future R&D.
Even if you get it to run on a generic PC, Apple won’t support it and break the hack of future versions.
Actually if your in the market for $1000 machine and up, Apple is very competitive with Dell. It’s the low margin area Apple doesn’t play, and all the companies that did go there are eiterh dead, dying or left the field.
Only Dell and Apple are making any profit in the PC buisness.
http://www.systemshootouts.org/shootouts/desktop/2005/0430_dt4000.h…
What’s nice is Mac OS X, software and hardware connectability is almost the same across all their offerings. So the consistancy is very nice.
the weird thing about is that the site is down, and guess what, now they are asking for donations, this little game is getting very popular
is there no mirror of this site outside ???
I would love to buy a mac its just i do nt have the money, if i got this so called “leaked version” i would run it VMware, not natively.
Z
Use freebsd its free and fun and you can use it on the hardwdare you want. I was Mac want-a-be. Now I’m not going to be looking to get one. I don’t want to fund a company with the mind of Apple’s.
Its funny how many comments there even though the link has been down since shortly after being posted.
Anyone have a mirror?
Anyone have a mirror of this stuff? Would be nice to validate the truth of this post.
Thom, violating the terms of the Apple license may be illegal in some places. However, in many places, “shrink wrap” licenses such as the ones that cover most off-the-shelf software have not been proven to be enforceable.
Have you ever been to a dry cleaner’s and seen a sign posted that says, something like, “liability for damage to clothing is limited to the price of the cleaning service.” Is this true? Not in most places. If the dry cleaner damages your $50 shirt, they’re usually responsible to pay you the full cost of replacement. And they know it. Why do they put up the sign then? Because they know that many of their customers do not know the intricacies of the law, and will therefore reluctantly accept a $2.50 refund instead of demanding a $50 restitution. Software company lawyers do the same thing. They throw everything but the kitchen sink into their licenses, knowing that nobody ever reads them. On the other hand, nobody ever actually accepts them, either. So in most countries, they’re not valid contracts.
On the other hand, partner contracts, non-disclosure agreements, developer contracts, etc, are actually accepted and signed. So they are enforceable. So whoever put software up on Bittorrent did violate a contract. Whoever downloaded it violated copyright, but they didn’t violate any contracts. And once the software is available for sale, their license agreement will still be in a legal gray area.
In my opinion, once OSX x86 is available to buy, it will neither be illegal nor immoral for people to try to install it on whatever machine they want to try to install it on.
(65.69.81.—) No in my twisted mind I don’t see YOUR warez downloading is the same as your shoplifting habits
(65.69.81.—)Said >Hmm, so I can walk into Best Buy, take whatever I want, and when they call security I’ll just yell out “don’t worry, it’s ok, I know this voids my warranty”.
Now that would be funny, you getting busted knocking off stuff from Best Buy
Maybe I can buy the security video of that, with a warranty.
Apple has far less to fear from theifs like you, just try upgrading that hacked version of OSX on that plain x86 box. Apple support will just laugh at you, like I’m doing right now
Apple has far less to fear from theifs like you, just try upgrading that hacked version of OSX on that plain x86 box. Apple support will just laugh at you, like I’m doing right now
While I certainly don’t think that anyone has an inherent right to run OS X on stock x86 hardware, it *is* pretty hillarious to read the histrionics of Macfans who feel deeply threatened by the very idea. Is it some neurotic fear that such a scenario would lessen the “specialness” of their expensive, “boutique” hardware?
Eventually it was bound to. Well, its pleasing finally that we are all starting to understand it.
1) It has nothing to do with warez or copyright violations. Copyright is enforceable, but copyright does not give anyone the right to restrict use, post sale. People who say the bar is not enforceable in law are not advocating piracy or copyright violation. They are just talking about the enforceability of post sales restraints on use.
2) It has nothing to do with what Apple ‘needs’ to do to make money. How they make money is up to them. Its not protected. People who say the bar is not legally enforceable are not commenting one way or the other about Apple’s future profitability. Its a different problem. I don’t think the closed hardware model will fly, but its a different issue.
3) it doesn’t have much to do with whether the EULA is enforceable or not. The particular provisions of the EULA which make you agree only to install it on particular hardware will not be. The rest, or some of it, may be. If you prove some parts of EULAs are enforceable, that is not enough. You have to prove post sales restrictions on use in EULAs are.
4) It does not have to do with whether linked sales are always unlawful. They are not. As long as you are not a monopoly (=25% share) you may get away with linked sales even in Europe. This just says that Apple could get away legally with making it technically impossible to install on white boxes. Yes, of course. That is one thing they have in their (legal) power. They certainly can prevent white box installations, just not by clauses in the EULA.
5) They will not be able to prevent installation on white boxes just by the EULA. This is because they will not be able to prevent it solely by a condition of sale that, post sale, you will not do this. Any more than MS will be able to prevent you running Office on Wine. Or GM stop you from fitting aftermarket tiress or hubs. No Euro court is going to uphold this one.
The moral of this story probably is, get ready for DRM or product activation, because no management team ever willingly abandons a failing strategy!
Test message
uhm. way off topic?