Building a Hackintosh Apple Can't Sue You For(osnews.com)
osnews.com
Building a Hackintosh Apple Can't Sue You For
http://www.osnews.com/story/21564/Building_a_Hackintosh_Apple_Can_t_Sue_You_For
53 comments
You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer,
Did he not cover this by adding the stickers?
Did he not cover this by adding the stickers?
I'm guessing that the interpretation of "Apple-labeled" means "labeled by Apple" and not "labeled WITH Apple labels", but what do I know.
As far as I can tell, it's somewhat vague unless that is accepted legal terminology to denote 'something labeled by Apple', so shame on them for writing a less-than-ironclad TOS (if in fact it isn't.)
As far as I can tell, it's somewhat vague unless that is accepted legal terminology to denote 'something labeled by Apple', so shame on them for writing a less-than-ironclad TOS (if in fact it isn't.)
The Apache Licence for example cares only that you keep the name of the product. So it's not a stretch to interpret it this way.
If anyone actually believes slapping a sticker on their computer will cause Apple to lose a lawsuit... then I have a title and offer to the Golden Gate Bridge I'd like them to consider.
It probably gives the judge the option in a civil case. Or in criminal case it defiantly would get my vote on a jury.
If nothing else it (and actually paying for the software) would probably mitigate the resulting punishment.
If nothing else it (and actually paying for the software) would probably mitigate the resulting punishment.
Right. You don't buy software, you license it. This is no different than buying a poster of some sports star. You can hang it on your wall, but you don't have the legal right to photocopy and redistribute it.
I'm not arguing that one shouldn't build a Hackintosh, and I'm not making any moral arguments against piracy or the DMCA. I'm just pointing out that use of software outside the bounds of the license agreement is at least grounds for a civil suit.
I'm not arguing that one shouldn't build a Hackintosh, and I'm not making any moral arguments against piracy or the DMCA. I'm just pointing out that use of software outside the bounds of the license agreement is at least grounds for a civil suit.
This is no different than buying a poster of some sports star. You can hang it on your wall,...
Except Apple is telling you that you can only hang it on walls painted with Apple branded paint.
Except Apple is telling you that you can only hang it on walls painted with Apple branded paint.
Yes, and that's their right. We can argue that we don't like it, but its no different than me licensing Hanna Montana's likeness for a toothbrush I'm producing (no, I'm not!). I'd have the right to put her pretty face on the toothbrush but not anywhere else. I understand the laws to be well established here. If you don't like it, use Ubuntu. I understand a moral argument, but pragmatic ones are of little use here.
No, ShabbyDoo, it's not their right at all. It's very different if you are selling the toothbrush for profit. And I'd allow that it could be different if you were a professional room designer and licensed the poster as part of your design for a client. But them forbidding me from placing a poster on my own wall with any background paint I choose is absurd.
Things only become "their right" if we weakly sit by and let it. We are allowed to control what is allowed in contracts and licenses. We can legislate that. In fact, it's our responsibility to do so.
Some people have a hard time going from abstract to concrete, so the analogies in discussions like this are actually quite useful. (read: moral/pragmatic).
And anyway, I roll with Fedora.
Things only become "their right" if we weakly sit by and let it. We are allowed to control what is allowed in contracts and licenses. We can legislate that. In fact, it's our responsibility to do so.
Some people have a hard time going from abstract to concrete, so the analogies in discussions like this are actually quite useful. (read: moral/pragmatic).
And anyway, I roll with Fedora.
Good guide, but I don't care if it's legal or not, because I feel it is my duty to break unjust laws.
Hmmm, unjust? Apple's busines model is to use the hardware sales to subsidize software sales. Hence the EULA which prohibits you from using OS X on non-Apple machines.
From the article:
"The only possible problem here is the EULA, which forbids installing Mac OS X on hardware that is not "Apple-labeled". I solved that issue by placing an actual apple on top of my machine"
To which I say - I really don't think you have solved that issue.
From the article:
"The only possible problem here is the EULA, which forbids installing Mac OS X on hardware that is not "Apple-labeled". I solved that issue by placing an actual apple on top of my machine"
To which I say - I really don't think you have solved that issue.
Couldn't you at least try writing your congressman first? Civil disobedience is fine when necessary, but otherwise you just come across as a scofflaw.
I fought against the DMCA at the time, and have been doing such things as writing to my congressman (and woman) since that time, and will continue to do so. EFF donations and other organizations as well.
Meanwhile, I will also ignore laws that attempt to tell me what I can do with products I've legally purchased. And now that the DMCA is being applied to physical products (such as, say, cars) it's even more important to fight against it, and I use all the tools at hand to do so -- including violating that law, and doing so publicly.
The DMCA is one of the most dangerous laws ever passed, because it gives private companies the de facto ability to legislate how you use products you legally own. The First Amendment implications, at the least, should be obvious.
Meanwhile, I will also ignore laws that attempt to tell me what I can do with products I've legally purchased. And now that the DMCA is being applied to physical products (such as, say, cars) it's even more important to fight against it, and I use all the tools at hand to do so -- including violating that law, and doing so publicly.
The DMCA is one of the most dangerous laws ever passed, because it gives private companies the de facto ability to legislate how you use products you legally own. The First Amendment implications, at the least, should be obvious.
I think your key point is and doing so publicly. Many people use similar arguments against copyright laws to explain their illegal downloading of licensed material, but do it in secrecy. Violating potentially unjust laws in secret and for one's explicit benefit strikes me as extremely self-serving with a very small dose of morality if any at all.
If a law can be violated in secret (meaning that there are no public side-effects), and "for one's explicit benefit" (meaning that the private side-effects are entirely positive) then it is most likely a consensual crime. There is already a very good case[1] for not specifically violating, but rather just completely disregarding the existence of, such laws.
[1] http://www.drugsense.org/mcwilliams/www.mcwilliams.com/books...
[1] http://www.drugsense.org/mcwilliams/www.mcwilliams.com/books...
I will also ignore laws that attempt to tell me what I can do with products I've legally purchased.
I take it you also object to laws that prevent you using the gun you've purchased to shoot someone, using the lighter you've bought to start a fire, driving the car you've bought over a pet dog, processing uranium in the reactor you've bought, running off copies of your Stephen King collection on the printing press you've bought, deafening your neighbours with the stereo you've bought ...
I'm not being facetious either. It's a strange notion that took root among hackers that their computers are somehow exempt from the law's regulation of the products we purchase. That someone paid for their computer is utterly irrelevant to the matter, yet continually you hear the cry "how can they tell me what to do with bits in a machine I own!?!"
I take it you also object to laws that prevent you using the gun you've purchased to shoot someone, using the lighter you've bought to start a fire, driving the car you've bought over a pet dog, processing uranium in the reactor you've bought, running off copies of your Stephen King collection on the printing press you've bought, deafening your neighbours with the stereo you've bought ...
I'm not being facetious either. It's a strange notion that took root among hackers that their computers are somehow exempt from the law's regulation of the products we purchase. That someone paid for their computer is utterly irrelevant to the matter, yet continually you hear the cry "how can they tell me what to do with bits in a machine I own!?!"
> I take it you also object to laws that prevent you using the gun you've purchased to shoot someone
Well it depends on the context but your example is wrong in any context. I would object to a law prohibiting me to use a gun I bought (as if I could, seeing how I live in Spain) as a hammer for example. Or to paint it pink (as if I would). All stretched counterexamples, I agree, but there is an underlying trend.
> using the lighter you've bought to start a fire
Wrong kind of analogy again. I object to being forbidden from engraving my zippo. Or braking it to pieces.
> driving the car you've bought over a pet dog
Wrong kind of analogy again. I (would) object to being forbidden from repainting the car. Or cutting it in half. Or reselling it to someone else.
I could go on with the reactor (oh please), the printing press (you're trying to hard), the stereo and so on but it's useless because they are all dishonest analogies. They put the focus on forbidden actions for witch the owned items are mere tools. Objections to DRM are generally focused on forbidden actions to witch the owned items are subjects. Like transposing a DVD to watch it on my PMP. Huge difference. And I think you knew that difference already.
Well it depends on the context but your example is wrong in any context. I would object to a law prohibiting me to use a gun I bought (as if I could, seeing how I live in Spain) as a hammer for example. Or to paint it pink (as if I would). All stretched counterexamples, I agree, but there is an underlying trend.
> using the lighter you've bought to start a fire
Wrong kind of analogy again. I object to being forbidden from engraving my zippo. Or braking it to pieces.
> driving the car you've bought over a pet dog
Wrong kind of analogy again. I (would) object to being forbidden from repainting the car. Or cutting it in half. Or reselling it to someone else.
I could go on with the reactor (oh please), the printing press (you're trying to hard), the stereo and so on but it's useless because they are all dishonest analogies. They put the focus on forbidden actions for witch the owned items are mere tools. Objections to DRM are generally focused on forbidden actions to witch the owned items are subjects. Like transposing a DVD to watch it on my PMP. Huge difference. And I think you knew that difference already.
Also, to generalize the point, All the actions that you cited are actions that are generally forbidden regardless of the means used. That's fine. The problem is that they were cited as counter examples to actions generally permitted but forbidden if done a certain way. Or more precisely only permitted in certain ways. That's not fine. I'm expected to shell the money but only enjoy a movie DVD at home (no transposing please, or else), in the "right" part of the world (no region free players please, or else), with the "right" kind of equipment.
They weren't cited as counterexamples to anything -- the original poster didn't give any examples, just said that he wouldn't hold with laws that limited him over his possessions.
I see the distinction you're now drawing in yr comment above, but I don't think it was there in the original. Even if it were, it's still not valid -- I can't paint my car to look like a police car, can't alter my gun to look like a toy (concealed weapons laws prohibit it), and the printing press analogy is closer than you admit.
But the whole "legally purchased" line is entirely the wrong way to go about this. For example, in the case of Apple, the licence specifically prohibits purchasers from installing on a non-Apple machine. Breaking that means using the software in a way that it isn't purchased for, and the whole argument collapses.
The problem with the DCMA and laws like it aren't that they "limit us doing things with stuff we've legally purchased" -- the transfer of cash does not imbue us with special protections. The problems with those laws are that they infringe upon our other rights, such as fair use.
This distinction matters a lot, because by allowing this to be set in terms of purchases and contracts, we're getting caught up in licences and property law, when the argument should be much larger. Time-shifting recording is legal for TV and Radio -- why isn't it also for Spotify or last.fm radio? There are no purchases there, so the earlier arguments are irrelevant, but the same ultimate principle is at stake.
OS X is Apple's property: there's no outcome of playing with property law that lets you install it on any machine you want, DCMA or no. But cast in other terms that aren't nearly as well explored yet, it might be possible. What does "fair use" mean in the context of software?
IP laws depend on our behaving as if these were physical properties we were talking about. They aren't, it's an analogy that only loosely fits, and by accepting their definitions and playing on their turf we are handicapping ourselves.
I see the distinction you're now drawing in yr comment above, but I don't think it was there in the original. Even if it were, it's still not valid -- I can't paint my car to look like a police car, can't alter my gun to look like a toy (concealed weapons laws prohibit it), and the printing press analogy is closer than you admit.
But the whole "legally purchased" line is entirely the wrong way to go about this. For example, in the case of Apple, the licence specifically prohibits purchasers from installing on a non-Apple machine. Breaking that means using the software in a way that it isn't purchased for, and the whole argument collapses.
The problem with the DCMA and laws like it aren't that they "limit us doing things with stuff we've legally purchased" -- the transfer of cash does not imbue us with special protections. The problems with those laws are that they infringe upon our other rights, such as fair use.
This distinction matters a lot, because by allowing this to be set in terms of purchases and contracts, we're getting caught up in licences and property law, when the argument should be much larger. Time-shifting recording is legal for TV and Radio -- why isn't it also for Spotify or last.fm radio? There are no purchases there, so the earlier arguments are irrelevant, but the same ultimate principle is at stake.
OS X is Apple's property: there's no outcome of playing with property law that lets you install it on any machine you want, DCMA or no. But cast in other terms that aren't nearly as well explored yet, it might be possible. What does "fair use" mean in the context of software?
IP laws depend on our behaving as if these were physical properties we were talking about. They aren't, it's an analogy that only loosely fits, and by accepting their definitions and playing on their turf we are handicapping ourselves.
Reductio ad absurdum.
Without endorsing either of the two opinions, your analogies are invalid because they are examples of the above logical fallacy. You cannot compare using something in a manner that violates a person's right to not be maimed or killed with something that does not voilate the highest universal human rights.
Without endorsing either of the two opinions, your analogies are invalid because they are examples of the above logical fallacy. You cannot compare using something in a manner that violates a person's right to not be maimed or killed with something that does not voilate the highest universal human rights.
They are reductio ad absurdum -- but that isn't a logical fallacy, it's a valid logical form (http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/reductio.htm). By showing that the logical consequence of an argument is absurd, you show that it's flawed.
Either way: the poster I was replying to made no reference to human rights, or the ultimate reasons behind the laws. He simply said he wouldn't hold with laws that limited what he could do with items he had purchased. And this is a nonsense position: many laws limit what we can do with possessions, for a multitude of reasons. Look at the example of the printing press -- it has nothing to do with maiming or killing.
The post's getting a lot of downvotes, so is pretty unpopular, but it's not a fallacy, and certainly wasn't intended as trolling. There are arguments against adhering to copyright and licenses. That they're limitations on "something you purchased" isn't one of them.
Either way: the poster I was replying to made no reference to human rights, or the ultimate reasons behind the laws. He simply said he wouldn't hold with laws that limited what he could do with items he had purchased. And this is a nonsense position: many laws limit what we can do with possessions, for a multitude of reasons. Look at the example of the printing press -- it has nothing to do with maiming or killing.
The post's getting a lot of downvotes, so is pretty unpopular, but it's not a fallacy, and certainly wasn't intended as trolling. There are arguments against adhering to copyright and licenses. That they're limitations on "something you purchased" isn't one of them.
Logically valid, but kind of pedantic though.
What if I don't have one? (This is the problem with assumptions)
Apple hasn't sued anyone for building a Hackintosh.
they did however put some code in their ROM on the first macintosh...
http://folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story...
http://folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story...
I wonder if I could build a clone Mac Pro? Something really giant with 2 processors, 16GB RAM, 4TB disk space, etc. The retail Mac Pro approached $4K for what I want and it'd be cool to do it for less.
You might be able to do it for less, but you'd still be spending thousands of dollars to do it. Plus you don't get support.
I think the sweet spot for hackintoshers is the exact market Apple is avoiding. Basically a cheap version of the Mac Pro but more powerful than an iMac. For just under a grand you can build a sweet quad core machine that blows an iMac out of the water and probably comes close to a base Mac Pro in terms of power. If I had to spend more than a grand, I would probably just buy the real thing.
I think the sweet spot for hackintoshers is the exact market Apple is avoiding. Basically a cheap version of the Mac Pro but more powerful than an iMac. For just under a grand you can build a sweet quad core machine that blows an iMac out of the water and probably comes close to a base Mac Pro in terms of power. If I had to spend more than a grand, I would probably just buy the real thing.
Yeah you may be right. Another option is to go Craiglist or eBay and find someone who wants to upgrade to the latest processor and is selling theirs.
Here's an article that tries to do just that, although it doesn't address the software side of the equation (and it's a bit dated, since it uses Harpertown instead of Nehalem processors):
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=942&tag=nl.e550
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=942&tag=nl.e550
Ok cool, that's pretty close actually.
Note: if you're planning to actually build something based on these instructions, be sure to get a case that supports the Tyan motherboard's CEB mounting holes or be prepared to drill your own. Both of the Coolermaster cases mentioned in the article only have ATX/EATX mounting holes.
(I'm still a little irked at George Ou for writing an article whose premise rests on the existence of a machine that he didn't even try to build.)
(I'm still a little irked at George Ou for writing an article whose premise rests on the existence of a machine that he didn't even try to build.)
Well that, and the fact that it doesn't even run Mac OS X. But beyond that it was exactly what I was looking for. :)
Well, you can build something that has similar specs to a Mac Pro, a lot of people have. Check the insanelymac.com forums, there are a lot of guids and howtos there.
Yeah, but it also doesn't work very well.
excellent. the more people who run OSX outside of Apple hardware may yet convince Apple to release a version of OSX for home builders. why they didn't do this in the beginning I'll never know.
why they didn't do this in the beginning I'll never know.
Why should they? Then they'd be obligated to support all of these homegrown abominations that people come up with. Apple made the correct choice when not supporting the DIY crowd. Not that there's anything wrong with doing it, and heck I might even do it just so I can get my MBP back from my wife.
Why should they? Then they'd be obligated to support all of these homegrown abominations that people come up with. Apple made the correct choice when not supporting the DIY crowd. Not that there's anything wrong with doing it, and heck I might even do it just so I can get my MBP back from my wife.
Apple made the correct choice when not supporting the DIY crowd
Did they? They certainly lost (didn't gain) the bulk of the PC market which you could argue is a good thing, but also relegates Macs to a much smaller (albeit more profitable per machine) niche market.
Did they? They certainly lost (didn't gain) the bulk of the PC market which you could argue is a good thing, but also relegates Macs to a much smaller (albeit more profitable per machine) niche market.
They didn't lose the majority of the PC market; they never had it to begin with. To gain the PC market, you need to make/license/QA drivers—lots and lots (and lots) of high-quality drivers. Microsoft has spent the last 20-odd years doing this, and they still can't guarantee a high enough quality standard that my webcam won't lock up Explorer when I accidentally select it with Preview enabled.
Unless your webcam is made by microsoft specifically for your os (vista/xp/etc) then it is not microsoft who has to supply the correct drivers to integrate well with explorer.
That's exactly the point. The end-user doesn't care who's responsibility that hang is, they bought the hardware and software together and when it hangs, it's Microsoft's fault. Even though we know it's actually J Random driver programmer who wrote the bogus code.
Apple's stranglehold on the hardware and software irks my hacker sensibilities, but it's the key to a much better user experience.
Apple's stranglehold on the hardware and software irks my hacker sensibilities, but it's the key to a much better user experience.
Not everything is about money!
I really hope they don't. Apple is able to spend far more resources on making a great experience because they aren't focusing on supporting unknown hardware of the week. For the most part, OS X is rock solid on Apple hardware as a result of not opening it up.
That said, I also don't see why they can't let the DIY crowd do it. Sell a version of OS X that is licensed to use on any hardware but not supported. I guess that would go against the perfect Apple experience, though.
That said, I also don't see why they can't let the DIY crowd do it. Sell a version of OS X that is licensed to use on any hardware but not supported. I guess that would go against the perfect Apple experience, though.
While part of me wants them to release the OS to all and sundry, I completely understand why they haven't, and won't. At least not any time soon.
Apple probably felt that they got burned by the last time they allowed Mac clones and ended up losing a lot of money. (I don't think that was the cloners' fault, but I wouldn't bother trying to explain that to Jobs.)
The cloners weren't growing the market, they were cannibalizing apple's own hardware sales. Jobs knew that, and canned them as soon as he got back in the big chair.
Another poster says the structure of the program prevented the cloners from providing a sufficiently varied product - that may be true too.
Another poster says the structure of the program prevented the cloners from providing a sufficiently varied product - that may be true too.
It kinda was the cloner's fault, but also the fault of Apple. Apple licensed the clones with the hopes that "apple-certified" clones to grow the market. I.e. figure out new and exciting ways to market macs to windows users, and demographics where it was failing (families, because the PowerPC performas sucked.)
However, Apple failed to certify more powerful clones (i.e. clones that were better/faster/cheaper than their big iron) on a reasonable timeframe. Cloners also contended that Apple was opening up the boxes to steal their trade secrets.
And the cheaper models -- that were often equal or superior to Apple's offerings, were a no-brainer for Apple's customers.
The long and the short of it is: Apple makes something like 30% profit off direct retail of their hardware system. Even on a mini that's pretty good. Compare that to $115 for the sale of OS X, and you realize they couldn't afford to keep the cloners around.
However, Apple failed to certify more powerful clones (i.e. clones that were better/faster/cheaper than their big iron) on a reasonable timeframe. Cloners also contended that Apple was opening up the boxes to steal their trade secrets.
And the cheaper models -- that were often equal or superior to Apple's offerings, were a no-brainer for Apple's customers.
The long and the short of it is: Apple makes something like 30% profit off direct retail of their hardware system. Even on a mini that's pretty good. Compare that to $115 for the sale of OS X, and you realize they couldn't afford to keep the cloners around.
However, Apple failed to certify more powerful clones (i.e. clones that were better/faster/cheaper than their big iron) on a reasonable timeframe.
As I remember it, the opposite happened. Power Computing skimmed the cream off the Mac market because they had faster Macs than Apple.
Cloners also contended that Apple was opening up the boxes to steal their trade secrets.
That's an odd complaint considering that Apple gave them the OS, the ROM, and the chipsets to begin with.
As I remember it, the opposite happened. Power Computing skimmed the cream off the Mac market because they had faster Macs than Apple.
Cloners also contended that Apple was opening up the boxes to steal their trade secrets.
That's an odd complaint considering that Apple gave them the OS, the ROM, and the chipsets to begin with.
Not just faster Macs, but more frequent updates. And they were cheaper. I owned one. And a UMAX.
UMAX complained because their C500 model later served to be the exact hardware loadout of the Performa 6400 Tower. Apple let them do "research" on what chipsets could do what, and then took the result for use in their own hardware designs.
UMAX complained because their C500 model later served to be the exact hardware loadout of the Performa 6400 Tower. Apple let them do "research" on what chipsets could do what, and then took the result for use in their own hardware designs.
2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions. A. Single Use. This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time.
You may not be violating the DMCA, and chances are Apple isn't going to sue you anyway, but you are violating their software licensing agreement.
from http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf