Installing Linux on a Mac is illegal?

[Shibblet]

Installing Linux on a Mac is Illegal? Like against the law?

Or is it against Macintosh policies, and therefore loses your support?

Something tells me it's not "illegal."

[dca]

Voids warranty, not supported, etc, etc...

I don't think there's any HW DRM on a MAC that would not allow installing alternate OS.... yet....

[Shibblet]

That's what I thought. But why do people have to go to the extreme, and call it "illegal" ?

[Luke has no name]

No, it's not illegal. You will be voiding warranties, I'd bet on that.

Unlike the software on your Apple computer, you do not purchase the rights to use a Macbook, you actually buy the hardware. You 'lease' the OS, or so Mac/Windows/other SW devs will claim.

[dca]

It's illegal to (Steve Jobs says) run Mac OSX on something that is not Apple HW:

http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/

[Xbehave]

That's what I thought. But why do people have to go to the extreme, and call it "illegal" ?
It's probably confusion because running Mac OS X on non apple hardware is against the EULA (and i think that makes doing it illegal)

[The Funkbomb]

Yeah, but that's the same for a lot of windows pre-installed computers too. If you call up a company that doesn't handle linux, they won't support you either.

Also, dca, I really don't like your signature.

[hwttdz]

Not agreeing to the EULA is not illegal, it just means you forfeit the benefits of agreeing to the EULA, in this case support for your hardware. As they say, you own the hardware, hitting it with a sledge hammer isn't illegal, but if their agreement is even semi-reasonable doing so will void their support of said sledge-hammered hardware.

[starcannon]

I thought Boot Camp was built to allow multiple operating systems on a Mac?

[doas777]

it's still a legally gray area: you can be held civilly liable for breach of terms of service, but they have to know that you are violating, and a judge has to rule that the TOS in conscionable.

last year they were trying to make breaches of websites TOSs a criminal offense under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
http://www.law.com/jsp/legaltechnology/pubArticleLT.jsp?id=1202429211620

manufacturers and retailers have been trying for years with some success to force us to only use our property in the ways they say we can. for instance, my computer is allowed to see and process the machine code for MS office, but if I see that code, then I have attempted to disassemble it in breach of the EULA.

basically, no at present, but all it takes is a few court precedents to make it so, and someone has to be the test case. try not to be that person.

[Bunnybugs]

Nice signature DCA:P

But, it's never illegal to install another OS on your system, you only loose warranty on the OS, not the hardware, because you didn't change any of the hardware...

It becomes time that someone starts a big lawsuit against all these crap...

Okay, I get that they can't be responsible for software failures, but the hardware hasn't change, and can't be broken by drivers(at least, if you use it normal)...

Drivers normally don't send destructive data to components (excluding viral infections to harddrives, and worms to other parts) But, that's also highly possible on the home OS, that comes with the hardware;)

It's to bad that they keep crapping with their policies

[t0p]

The DMCA makes it illegal in the USA to mod hardware to make it run something that it "shouldn't". Apple have also claimed that the DMCA makes it illegal to jailbreak an iphone even though jailbreaking is modding software not hardware. The EFF dispute this; but at the end of the day it might all come down to whose pockets are deepest. I can certainly imagine Apple applying this logic to their computers too.

Incidentally: even though the DMCA is a US law, there are similar laws in the EU and (I think) Canada. Also, the USA tries to incorporate the DMCA's provisions in trade agreements it makes with other countries. So the rest of the world is not safe from these crazy laws!

[hwttdz]

So really it's best to only use officially certified sledge hammers ;).

[Shibblet]

Nice signature DCA:P

But, it's never illegal to install another OS on your system, you only loose warranty on the OS, not the hardware, because you didn't change any of the hardware...

It becomes time that someone starts a big lawsuit against all these crap...

Okay, I get that they can't be responsible for software failures, but the hardware hasn't change, and can't be broken by drivers(at least, if you use it normal)...

Drivers normally don't send destructive data to components (excluding viral infections to harddrives, and worms to other parts) But, that's also highly possible on the home OS, that comes with the hardware;)

It's to bad that they keep crapping with their policies

I understand why Mac wants to keep their OS and driver system proprietary. Things like Tech-Support, improper use of drivers, i.e. overclocking and such, but that can be done with any OS. So it does make sense.

The part that confounds me, is that they would assert a civil liability for installing Linux on your Mac. Which I am inclined to not believe. Seeing as how Google searching only turns up Civil suits for installing MacOS on an intel systems.

[doas777]

The DMCA makes it illegal in the USA to mod hardware to make it run something that it "shouldn't". Apple have also claimed that the DMCA makes it illegal to jailbreak an iphone even though jailbreaking is modding software not hardware. The EFF dispute this; but at the end of the day it might all come down to whose pockets are deepest. I can certainly imagine Apple applying this logic to their computers too.

Incidentally: even though the DMCA is a US law, there are similar laws in the EU and (I think) Canada. Also, the USA tries to incorporate the DMCA's provisions in trade agreements it makes with other countries. So the rest of the world is not safe from these crazy laws!

and watch out for the ACTA treaty. it wants to make the DMCA global.
incedentially, it is not the jailbreaking that is illegal (they made that argument and lost), but the tools needed to do it fall under the anti-circumvention clause, so the task is legal but possession/use of the tools to do it is criminal.

[chris200x9]

Voids warranty, not supported, etc, etc...

I don't think there's any HW DRM on a MAC that would not allow installing alternate OS.... yet....

actually I took my macbook in with archlinux for a broken cdrom and they fixed it under apple care, that and yelle at me for somehow getting crumbs in my computer. :o

[doas777]

actually I took my macbook in with archlinux for a broken cdrom and they fixed it under apple care, that and yelle at me for somehow getting crumbs in my computer. :o
had the same with ubu and HP. since it wouldn't post, they had already replaced the mobo by the time they noticed... lol.

[doas777]

I understand why Mac wants to keep their OS and driver system proprietary. Things like Tech-Support, improper use of drivers, i.e. overclocking and such, but that can be done with any OS. So it does make sense.

The part that confounds me, is that they would assert a civil liability for installing Linux on your Mac. Which I am inclined to not believe. Seeing as how Google searching only turns up Civil suits for installing MacOS on an intel systems.
the same reason that securom bans debugger software. it might give people capabilities on the hardware that they don;t want us to have.

it's all about control.

[gn2]

Installing Linux on a Mac should be fine, there's nothing in the warranty to indicate that Apple have a problem with it.

[t0p]

Installing Linux on a Mac should be fine, there's nothing in the warranty to indicate that Apple have a problem with it.

What about the EULA? I've never had anything made by Apple. But if a Mac user could take a look at the EULA, that'd be nice.

Okay, I admit it: I'm too lazy to google up an Apple EULA and read through the thing. EULAs aren't really my favourite reading material. But I am interested in this legal question. Is anyone more interested than me?

[Shibblet]

the same reason that securom bans debugger software. it might give people capabilities on the hardware that they don;t want us to have.

it's all about control.

Control on "your" product is fine, in terms of support. Truly Apple can't be liable for people running Linux, or over-clocking.

But to make that action illegal is ridiculous.


Installing Linux on a Mac should be fine, there's nothing in the warranty to indicate that Apple have a problem with it.

And then theres the fact that it all could be BS to begin with.

[scottuss]

It's illegal to install OS X on non Apple hardware. However, you can install whatever OS you want on Apple hardware. It probably voids your warranty, however.

[KiwiNZ]

You can install other OS's on apple hardware , Apple even provides the means to do so , that is 'Bootcamp'.

[doas777]

Control on "your" product is fine, in terms of support. Truly Apple can't be liable for people running Linux, or over-clocking.

But to make that action illegal is ridiculous.

if it is just about support, not about control, why can;t pystar sell mac clones? they have the ability, and apple has no support or warrenty obligations, so why can;t we do it?

because they want to keep us locked in. besides, I;ve read a few mac eulas over the years. you were not aloow to use them in anything military, or anything that comes near a nuclear reactor, or any number of other things that have nothing to do with support, but about reinforcing their philosophy (no war, no pollution).

http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf

[KiwiNZ]

if it is just about support, not about control, why can;t pystar sell mac clones? they have the ability, and apple has no support or warrenty obligations, so why can;t we do it?

because they want to keep us locked in. besides, I;ve read a few mac eulas over the years. you were not aloow to use them in anything military, or anything that comes near a nuclear reactor, or any number of other things that have nothing to do with support, but about reinforcing their philosophy (no war, no pollution).

http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf

Pystar are leaches they want the profits and don't want to pay the R&D costs , they will now move onto something else to leach off .

[P4man]

2 things:

1. everyone seems to accept installing a non mac os voids warranty. Does someone have any evidence for that? perhaps its different in the US but here you have warranty on the hardware and if the hardware fails, the vendor should honour the warranty and repair/replace it regardless of what software you run on it. You may not expect them to reinstall or fix linux, but if the hardware breaks they should fix it under warranty (lest they can prove user error, so somehow prove installing linux actually broke the machine)

2. installing os-x on non mac hardware violates the EULA, that doesnt mean its illegal. Apple can put whatever they want in the EULA including you promise to honour Steve Jobs birthday but that doesnt necessarily make it a legally binding contract. If you want a legal precedence for that, have a look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Step-Saver_Data_Systems,_Inc._v._Wyse_Technology

What is illegal, as recently ruled by a court in the case against psystar (http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1562203/psystar-loses-apple) is distributing OS_X preinstalled on non apple hardware. Im not convinced Apple would have a case if you installed your own legally purchased copy of OS-X on a hackintosh.

[forrestcupp]

Unlike the software on your Apple computer, you do not purchase the rights to use a Macbook, you actually buy the hardware. You 'lease' the OS, or so Mac/Windows/other SW devs will claim.I think instead of saying you "lease" the OS, they would say that you purchase a license to give you the right to use it.


Is anyone more interested than me?
No. ;)

[alphaniner]

you were not aloow to use them in...

THE APPLE SOFTWARE IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEMS, LIFE SUPPORT MACHINES OR OTHER EQUIPMENT IN WHICH THE FAILURE OF THE APPLE SOFTWARE COULD LEAD TO DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE.
-the EULA (Caps theirs)

So it has nothing to do with military applications, because it says FAILURE, not success.

[P4man]

THE APPLE SOFTWARE IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION...

That doesnt mean you're not allowed to. Sounds fair enough to me for them to say its not intended for such use. You never know some apple fanboy might want to runs his private nuclear power central on leopard macbook which then crashes causing a nuclear meltdown and apple being sued for the damages ;)

[Shibblet]

I just hope this conversation doesn't become silly.


You never know some apple fanboy might want to runs his private nuclear power central on leopard macbook which then crashes causing a nuclear meltdown and apple being sued for the damages ;)

Too late! ;) J/K That was funny.

What's next? I mean, your favorite group puts out an album, and it's only legally playable on "Brand X" player?

The software industry is the only industry that seems to work this way.

[doas777]

big media uses this paradigm. for instance cable companies package channel linups that consumers can subscribe to. ATT wants to do much the same with internet (now wikipedia, exclusively for ATT worldnet platinum subscribers). just look at the way the media houses fragmented over the HDDVD/BD war. heck, DRM formats are a good delimiter. some people release exclusively on itunes, others on zune. some books on sony reader, some on kindle.

[alphaniner]

big media uses this paradigm...


I think it all boils down to non-tangible intellectual property. Anything that can be duplicated at zero or near-zero cost doesn't fit in well with traditional economic models which are based on scarcity. The economics of data is, in effect, a discipline in itself.

[Keyper7]

1. everyone seems to accept installing a non mac os voids warranty. Does someone have any evidence for that?

This is common among non-Apple companies. I remember clearly seeing such a condition on the EULA of an HP I once bought, and if I remember correctly Dell have or had similar constraints depending on the machine. It's very likely that Apple has such restrictions with respect to replacing OSX (i.e. not using bootcamp)

Of course, using the recovery disk/partition to revirginize your machine before sending it to support is usually enough to avoid unconfortable questions. Heck, I once did that and they still didn't ask any questions even though I forgot to remove an Ubuntu sticker blatantly placed near the touchpad.

[Shibblet]

I think it all boils down to non-tangible intellectual property. Anything that can be duplicated at zero or near-zero cost doesn't fit in well with traditional economic models which are based on scarcity. The economics of data is, in effect, a discipline in itself.

But the liability of purchase is on the end-user. Basically, they want to own everything, and charge you to use it, and have you use it their way only.

This is the only business in the world that works that way.

The wound keeps getting deeper and deeper, and all we do is put a band-aid on it.

[alphaniner]

I'm not saying I don't see anything wrong with it.

[doas777]

Pystar are leaches they want the profits and don't want to pay the R&D costs , they will now move onto something else to leach off .

how is any oem any different? these are paid-for copies of mac OS so far as I am aware. I build boxes for people on occasion, and I know that I'm no crook for it.

not that i am a fan of pystar. they're just a good example of apple pruning their ecosystem into a shrub.

[Frak]

Pystar are leaches they want the profits and don't want to pay the R&D costs , they will now move onto something else to leach off .
I agree.

EDIT
@doas777
So they could sell an OS that people REALLY WANT for a fraction of the price. They would have the first step into it and reap more benefits.

[Chronon]

What's next? I mean, your favorite group puts out an album, and it's only legally playable on "Brand X" player?

The software industry is the only industry that seems to work this way.

This was the case with music purchased from iTunes. DRM meant that you could only play it in iTunes or on an iPod.

[doas777]

I agree.

EDIT
@doas777
So they could sell an OS that people REALLY WANT for a fraction of the price. They would have the first step into it and reap more benefits.

you are correct that it would deflate the market, and eventually would likely bring mac os into price competition with whomever market leader is at that point.

some would argue that that effect was exactly how microsoft used the IBM-compatible market to dethrone IBM. overall I would call that a positive development in our computing history.

[Frak]

you are correct that it would deflate the market, and eventually would likely bring mac os into price competition with whomever market leader is at that point.

some would argue that that effect was exactly how microsoft used the IBM-compatible market to dethrone IBM. overall I would call that a positive development in our computing history.
I wrote a long post explaining why that would be bad for Apple. You can find it here (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=8319636&postcount=90).

[doas777]

I wrote a long post explaining why that would be bad for Apple. You can find it here (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=8319636&postcount=90).
i agree it wouldn't be in their best interest. I was thinking (more selfishly) of computer users in general benefiting, but I understand why they would not want to walk this path.

[Regenweald]

If apple were to go the OS only route, they would go bankrupt. Part of the reason that redmond has such a bad rap and every 6 months whining in ubforums increases exponentially is hardware support. You sell an OS only, you have to support everything under the sun and when you cut backwards compatibility people want to kill you.

Now I'll use an arbitrary figure. Apple has 40 products, laptops/desktops. 40 products with a hardware config base of (arbitrary again) 200 components. Now their ease of use and stability comes from the fact that they tightly control and select their components and develop their OS around that. Apple has BSD heritage so hardware support is not exactly plug'n'play. In an OS alone environment, apple would suffer from the worst of both worlds, criticism on lack of hardware support and criticism on driver stability.

[starcannon]

If apple were to go the OS only route, they would go bankrupt. Part of the reason that redmond has such a bad rap and every 6 months whining in ubforums increases exponentially is hardware support. You sell an OS only, you have to support everything under the sun and when you cut backwards compatibility people want to kill you.

Now I'll use an arbitrary figure. Apple has 40 products, laptops/desktops. 40 products with a hardware config base of (arbitrary again) 200 components. Now their ease of use and stability comes from the fact that they tightly control and select their components and develop their OS around that. Apple has BSD heritage so hardware support is not exactly plug'n'play. In an OS alone environment, apple would suffer from the worst of both worlds, criticism on lack of hardware support and criticism on driver stability.
I pretty much agree.
Where Apple loses me is on their zero tolerance stance with their consumers. Jailbreak an Apple device, and Apple will break it or in some cases brick it. Install a copy of your favorite Mac OS onto your netbook so you can have it in that form factor, again, Apple will break it(even though they have come out and said they are never going to do a netbook).
I understand Apples need for tight control, but I do not understand their need to arbitrarily mess with enthusiasts. I don't buy Apple or MS products simply because I do not like their business practices. If I buy a car, I don't want the dealer telling me where, when, how far, or how fast I can drive it; and the same goes for my computers.

[ddarsow]

also, dca, i really don't like your signature.

+1

[sgosnell]

Don't confuse tort with criminal law. Something is illegal only if it is in contradiction of criminal law. There are no criminal laws concerning the installation of software. It may be a tort, or violation of a civil contract, but the only remedy for that is to sue in civil court. I haven't heard of Apple suing any individual persons for violating their licensing contracts, but it's not completely out of the question.

[starcannon]

Don't confuse tort with criminal law. Something is illegal only if it is in contradiction of criminal law. There are no criminal laws concerning the installation of software. It may be a tort, or violation of a civil contract, but the only remedy for that is to sue in civil court. I haven't heard of Apple suing any individual persons for violating their licensing contracts, but it's not completely out of the question.
Apple tends to just lock horns with its end users by patching "unauthorized" activity out of existence; of course this will be a perpetual problem, ...Apple patches, hackers hack, Apple patches, hackers hack...

[Shibblet]

i agree it wouldn't be in their best interest. I was thinking (more selfishly) of computer users in general benefiting, but I understand why they would not want to walk this path.

Anyone ever heard of Mark Cuban?

This was his answer to DRM.


A: The question really is how can the music industry survive with DRM. DRM doesn’t change whether or not people steal music, because all music is already available to those who are willing to steal without DRM. So the music companies spend money on DRM in a futile effort to protect music when that money could be spent finding better ways to sell music, or could be used to reduce the price of music.

The whole article is here. (http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/07/mark-cuban-answers-all-your-questions-part-1/)

But what I am taking away from that statement is the same thing companies like Apple slam into their EULA's. They want you to "buy" (give them money) their product (Media, Hardware, etc.) But they don't want you to use their product the way you want to. So, it's yours, but not really yours...

[hobo14]

Pystar are leaches they want the profits and don't want to pay the R&D costs , they will now move onto something else to leach off .

I assume you're referring to software, not hardware, as Apple don't seem to have taken any legal action against Psystar over hardware, and just about anyone reading this on hardware that isn't IBM or Apple is benefiting from "leeched" IBM clones.

Psystar did pay R&D costs. They paid Apple for every copy of OSX they used.

In fact, they were doing exactly what other OEMs do with Windows...

The problem is that none of us, nor Psystar owns our copies of Windows or OSX, we just have a BS "licence", so we aren't actually legally allowed to do what we want with the copies of those OSs that we "purchased" (eg. selling it to someone else).

If Psystar actually owned the copies of OSX, it would have done nothing illegal, and they could continue doing what they do, no matter what Apple thought. Unfortunately because they technically only own a licence, they are screwed.

It's a good example of a big company using a technicality to stifle competition. Understandable from their point of view, but not good for us consumers.

[Firestem4]

http://macleans.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/illegal_operation2.jpg

Software is so mean =(

SOrry its not constructive, but I always laughed about "legality" and software, thinking of this error.

[lisati]

Interesting discussion.

(/me switches into nostalgia mode, thinking about things not entirely relevant to this discussion) I remember when I first started learning about computers, the term "illegal" was sometimes used to refer to stuff that these days might be referred to as "invalid" or "undefined", as in "illegal instruction", almost as if the computer police would drop by if you did something wrong with a program. (nostalgia mode ends)

EDIT: See above post for an example of the sort of thing I mean, submitted while I was thinking & typing.

[Xbehave]

Pystar are leaches they want the profits and don't want to pay the R&D costs , they will now move onto something else to leach off .
The kernel, userspace tools, shells and web engine apple use are leached then?


The code modifications were fine (turns out if you open source your software, people can modify it :o)
The hardware cloning was fine (IBM precedent)
The Software was legally purchased.

The only thing they got nailed for was violation of EULA, by installing the software on non-apple hardware.

To call pystar leaches is utterly ridiculous, it's the sort of tripe i expect form apple fanbois not here on the UF.

[KiwiNZ]

The kernel, userspace tools, shells and web engine apple use are leached then?


The code modifications were fine (turns out if you open source your software, people can modify it :o)
The hardware cloning was fine (IBM precedent)
The Software was legally purchased.

The only thing they got nailed for was violation of EULA, by installing the software on non-apple hardware.

To call pystar leaches is utterly ridiculous, it's the sort of tripe i expect form apple fanbois not here on the UF.

By breaching the Apple EULA and installing on non Apple hardware they leached off the countless capital Apple invested in the OS to run on Apple hardware. They did this in the full knowledge they were in the wrong .

Also do not use the Fanboy terms on these forums it is contrary to our Code of conduct

[hobo14]

By breaching the Apple EULA and installing on non Apple hardware they leached off the countless capital Apple invested in the OS to run on Apple hardware. They did this in the full knowledge they were in the wrong .

Also do not use the Fanboy terms on these forums it is contrary to our Code of conduct

You seem to be confusing "wrong" and "leach".
Psystar may have done something wrong (depending on your point of view), but they certainly didn't leach anything.
They paid for the copies of OSX that they then sold to their customers.

The only party that should be upset about this is Apple. Consumers should be supporting this sort of action, as they will benefit from it.

[jrusso2]

I have been hearing a rumor or speculation lately that Psystar was funded by a major PC Oem to test the legality of the EUlA to see if it was possible for them to use OS X on their PC's.

[starcannon]

Pystar are leaches they want the profits and don't want to pay the R&D costs , they will now move onto something else to leach off .

Also do not use the Fanboy terms on these forums it is contrary to our Code of conduct

Okies, well, I see an admin may name call, but the community may not. I'll attempt to learn to live with that, or not. Either the shoe fits everyone or no one, which is it?

[KiwiNZ]

Okies, well, I see an admin may name call, but the community may not. I'll attempt to learn to live with that, or not. Either the shoe fits everyone or no one, which is it?

Read again I called no one names . I asked the member NOT to use the term fanboy.

[KiwiNZ]

The only party that should be upset about this is Apple. Consumers should be supporting this sort of action, as they will benefit from it.

Consumers will not benefit.

[Bachstelze]

That's what I thought. But why do people have to go to the extreme, and call it "illegal" ?

Whoever said that is extremely misinformed, that's all.

[P4man]

Consumers will not benefit.

Stating that as a fact doesn't make it one. I happen to think competition benefits customers and therefore apple clones would benefit consumers by lowering prices and increasing choice. Once upon a time Apple even endorsed this and licensed their firmware so other computer builders could sell MacOS machines, but when clone makers became too successful Apple canned the program.

[gn2]

If Apple licensed OS X for use on any box anyone anywhere could build from parts, they would immediately lose their brand identity.

When you buy Apple hardware you are buying a piece of designer bling at a premium price.

Apple must make massive profits from hardware sales, typically their hardware retails for double the price of the equivalent hardware from anyone else.

Why would Apple want to reduce the value of their all-inclusive hardware and software package?

[P4man]

Im not saying they have to. Thats for apple to decide. They dont have to make itunes for linux either, its their business.
However if they would licence the OS to other PC makers or sell it to anyone, even at a nice premium, Im sure many would buy it. A lot of people are interested in the OS but unwilling to buy overpriced hardware to run it on. Apple has <10% marketshare, licensing it would open their product to the other 90% and selling $0.1 CDs at $149 is easy money. But apparently Apple thinks it would cost them too much in hardware sales. Their call, our loss. Lets just not pretend the customer benefits here anymore than we profit from not having iTunes on linux.

[jespdj]

It seems like people are confusing two totally different things here:

Installing Linux on an Apple computer
Using Apple's Mac OS X operating system on a non-Apple computer

The OP's question was about the first. Why are people discussing the second in this thread?

Anyway, no, it is certainly not illegal to install Linux or any other operating system on a Mac.

[amitabhishek]

it seems like people are confusing two totally different things here:

installing linux on an apple computer
using apple's mac os x operating system on a non-apple computer

the op's question was about the first. Why are people discussing the second in this thread?

+1

[forrestcupp]

The problem is that none of us, nor Psystar owns our copies of Windows or OSX, we just have a BS "licence", so we aren't actually legally allowed to do what we want with the copies of those OSs that we "purchased" (eg. selling it to someone else).

It's a good example of a big company using a technicality to stifle competition. Understandable from their point of view, but not good for us consumers.Exactly. This is why Apple's EULA is even more restrictive and arguably "evil" than Microsoft's.


Read again I called no one names . I asked the member NOT to use the term fanboy.Just to clear up confusion for future reference, "Fanboy terms", which is what you originally said, means something completely different than "the term fanboy". I can totally understand the confusion there.

[hobo14]

Consumers will not benefit.

Not benefit? From competition? How on earth do you figure that?

Let me give you an example, say, oh, I don't know, a computer manufacturer who goes from having a virtual monopoly, to a market with dozens of players....

IBM owned a huge chunk of the market with their first PC, and if they'd had it their way, they'd still be the only non-Apple OEM in existence, Wintel would be WiBMtel.

Fortunately for us (consumers) we have a large range of OEMs to choose from, thanks to everyone else cleanroom copying IBM's BIOS and building their own hardware, and the fact that IBM did not manufacture their own OS (they licensed it from MS) made life easier for the cloners.

That's competition, and that lowers prices and forces new products through innovation from OEMs to get ahead/keep up with the pack.

I don't believe you can tell me, with a straight face, that we are not better off for all that competition.

If you've ever owned an HP, or Compaq, or Toshiba, or any other non-IBM "PC", then you've supported and benefited from cloners ("leachers" as you like to put it), just like Psystar.
Only difference is they didn't have to deal with a blood relationship between OS and hardware.

We would benefit in a similar way if Apple had clone competitors.

[starcannon]

Not benefit? From competition? How on earth do you figure that?

Let me give you an example, say, oh, I don't know, a computer manufacturer who goes from having a virtual monopoly, to a market with dozens of players....

IBM owned a huge chunk of the market with their first PC, and if they'd had it their way, they'd be the only non-Apple OEM in existence, Wintel would be WiBMtel.
Fortunately for us (consumers) we have a large range of OEMs to choose from, thanks to everyone else cleanroom copying IBM's BIOS and building their own hardware, and the fact that the hardware manufacturer did not manufacture their own OS (they licensed it from MS) made life easier for the cloners.

That's competition, and that lowers prices and forces new products through innovation from OEMs to get ahead/keep up with the pack.

I don't believe you can tell me, with a straight face, that we are not better off for all that competition.

We would benefit in a similar way if Apple had clone competitors.
Sums up pretty well.
Consumers Benefit, Monopolies Don't.
Monopolies will always use FUD to protect their position, they always have, and there is no indication that they will ever stop using the tactic.
Freedom is worth any price, nothing else works without Freedom at it's foundation.

[darkksyde]

installing linux on a mac is definatly not illegal

[alphaniner]

stating that as a fact doesn't make it one. I happen to think competition benefits customers and therefore apple clones would benefit consumers by lowering prices and increasing choice. Once upon a time apple even endorsed this and licensed their firmware so other computer builders could sell macos machines, but when clone makers became too successful apple canned the program.

+1


not benefit? From competition? How on earth do you figure that?

Let me give you an example, say, oh, i don't know, a computer manufacturer who goes from having a virtual monopoly, to a market with dozens of players....

Ibm owned a huge chunk of the market with their first pc, and if they'd had it their way, they'd still be the only non-apple oem in existence, wintel would be wibmtel.

Fortunately for us (consumers) we have a large range of oems to choose from, thanks to everyone else cleanroom copying ibm's bios and building their own hardware, and the fact that ibm did not manufacture their own os (they licensed it from ms) made life easier for the cloners.

That's competition, and that lowers prices and forces new products through innovation from oems to get ahead/keep up with the pack.

I don't believe you can tell me, with a straight face, that we are not better off for all that competition.

If you've ever owned an hp, or compaq, or toshiba, or any other non-ibm "pc", then you've supported and benefited from cloners ("leachers" as you like to put it), just like psystar.
Only difference is they didn't have to deal with a blood relationship between os and hardware.

We would benefit in a similar way if apple had clone competitors.

+2


freedom is worth any price, nothing else works without freedom at it's foundation.

+3.6e8

[Xbehave]

Pystar got beat by better lawyering it's as simple as that, but they never did anything wrong, let alone "leach".


Also do not use the Fanboy terms on these forums it is contrary to our Code of conduct
sorry


By breaching the Apple EULA and installing on non Apple hardware they leached off the countless capital Apple invested in the OS to run on Apple hardware.
Apple have one of the smallest R&D budgets in IT, so it is hardly "countless capital". For their software apple have no problem using "countless capital" invested by others for most of their system. Pystar pay for the OS X licenses they use so apple still gets money to invest in it's software development, Pystar do not use apple hardware and invest their own time/money in their hardware.


They did this in the full knowledge they were in the wrong.
They attempted to get around legal trickery with more legal trickery, they did not know it was wrong, nor does that make it leaching.


Consumers will not benefit.
There has long been a market for cheaper hardware to run mac os X on, how will consumers not benefit from having their demand met?


I have been hearing a rumor or speculation lately that Psystar was funded by a major PC Oem to test the legality of the EUlA to see if it was possible for them to use OS X on their PC's.
People say we didn't land on the moon and the earth is still flat too. The reality is there is a demand for mac os X on cheap hardware, Pystar saw a gap in the market and tried to fill it, apple sued the crap out of them.


Why would Apple want to reduce the value of their all-inclusive hardware and software package?
Nobody is saying it would benefit apple, but allowing IBM-clones (i.e what people call PCs) didn't benefit IBM either.

[doas777]

Read again I called no one names . I asked the member NOT to use the term fanboy.

leach is a derogatory term. we're the folks you are directing the comment at still in existance, you would find your self actionable for a defamation and slander suit. how is that not a violation of the COC?

[LinuxFanBoi]

anything military, or anything that comes near a nuclear reactor, or any number of other things that have nothing to do with support, but about reinforcing their philosophy (no war, no pollution).

Are coal fired power plants okay? better not plug in your iPod to your car stereo if your car is of the internal combustion variety. Not making fun you the poster, making fun of apple and there paper thin morals.

[KiwiNZ]

leach is a derogatory term. we're the folks you are directing the comment at still in existance, you would find your self actionable for a defamation and slander suit. how is that not a violation of the COC?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leech_%28computing%29

Paystar are not associated with UF

[Xbehave]

leach is a derogatory term. we're the folks you are directing the comment at still in existance, you would find your self actionable for a defamation and slander suit. how is that not a violation of the COC?
TBF I was offensive about his post*, where as he was harsh about a company. I think we should drop this argument before it escalates as slagging of companies is very different that personal attacks / attacks on users comments.

*I have since apologised, especially as it sounded like a personal attack (it was not meant to i just get a bit riled up when people seam to mindlessly defend apple)

[Frak]

leach is a derogatory term. we're the folks you are directing the comment at still in existance, you would find your self actionable for a defamation and slander suit. how is that not a violation of the COC?
We might as well remove every post that bashes Microsoft.

[doas777]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leech_%28computing%29

Paystar are not associated with UF
by the same token
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanboy

[doas777]

We might as well remove every post that bashes Microsoft.
true, but if you bash ms, and then don't yell at someone for bashing ms, then no one will care. if you do though, especially as an admin....

the admins and mods really need to sockpuppet, so that their professional duties are not confused with their personal opinions.

[KiwiNZ]

Back to the original topic please

[Shibblet]

Back to the original topic please

I think the fact that this discussion spawned a whole bunch of other ideas about what is considered "illegal" in the computer world is kind of the idea.

Whereas it started with "Installing Linux on an Mac is illegal?" It has opened our eyes to other things that seem to happen a lot around us.

Let's face it, no one wants to be a criminal. We Linux users pride ourselves on being legit, and our Open Source "Free as in beer" operating system, and programs.

But when you're dealing with companies as large as Apple and Microsoft, and they have all the money in the world to be thrown at litigation and civil suits, you start to realize that these guys are the ones that "make" the rules, and the laws.

But where the computer world differs is the limitation of liability, which might be what Apple and Microsoft are trying to keep contained.

i.e. Alaska State Law states that if an employee of a liquor store (or bar) serves a person a drink that causes that person to be inebriated, and that person goes out and get's into a car accident, the server is the liable party. Mainly for not stopping the customer from becoming inebriated. That's a dumb law, but it does place full responsibility in the hands of the server.

With a PC, numerous crimes are committed on them daily. Cyber-theft, identity-theft, illegal pornography, cyber-predators, software piracy, and many others. But all of this liability lands in the hands of the end-user. Apple and Microsoft are never to blame for "enabling" the user to commit these crimes.

[doas777]

With a PC, numerous crimes are committed on them daily. Cyber-theft, identity-theft, illegal pornography, cyber-predators, software piracy, and many others. But all of this liability lands in the hands of the end-user. Apple and Microsoft are never to blame for "enabling" the user to commit these crimes.

and thank goodness for it. if it were not for "safe harbors" computing would be entirely in the hands of the megacorps. this is much of why i will never trust "trusted computing". the user is the untrusted party.

most network admin tools can be subverted into hacker tools, just by using them in an illegal/unethical manner. Germany banned a large number of legit utilities just to stop people from being able to misuse them.
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/08/new_german_hack.html

[Shibblet]

and thank goodness for it. if it were not for "safe harbors" computing would be entirely in the hands of the megacorps. this is much of why i will never trust "trusted computing". the user is the untrusted party.

I completely agree. Thank goodness for that.

But it seems as if they are using the EULA to not only limit liability, but to force specific usage.

And no one reads those things completely anyway. For all we know Microsoft and Apple could write...


3. At the beginning of each month, end-users are required to sacrifice a chicken in a pentagram, and mail in the head to our claims department at this address.

Obviously that's pretty extreme, but think about the simple things that could be in there like...


5. Periodically this software will send private information to a publicly used web-site.

And if you agree, you'll have your information all over some website. So you better start raising some chickens.

[Audiosears]

There is no illegality to running other OSes on apple hardware, as previously stated in other posts, because yes, you own the hardware when you purchase it. As far as the user agreements, there could possibly be something in there that may invalidate a warranty or service agreement. I would think this would really only happen under third-party circumstances, however (i.e. you buy a computer from a retail store and have a service agreement with THEM, rather than with Apple).

If it were illegal, Apple would not provide you with tools to Bootcamp (dual or multi boot) your mac hardware alongside OSX. They certainly aren't responsible if those other OSes are what caused your machine to brick, or your actions in setting it up. However, the only downside here is that your actions simply may not be covered under a service agreement, and you might have to pay to have someone correct it if you can't fix it yourself.

Modding a gaming system like Xbox 360, PS3, etc in itself is not illegal, but if the USE of said firmware is to play pirated games, then yes, it is not only warranty-voiding but also illegal. This is one reason Hackintoshes (hacked OSX builds made to run on PC hardware) are a grey area - Even if you buy a copy of OSX and simply use a hackintosh build, it's legal because you paid for a license of the base software, but it will never be supported by Apple until the day they officially release a version of OSX that is designed by them to run on hardware other than Mac hardware.

Installing / running Linux on anything is not illegal, as nearly all distros are freely available at no cost. However, your use of that software can then be illegal depending on what you do with it. Lockpicks by themselves are not illegal, even if you just use them to get back in your own house or car when you lock yourself out. But Breaking and Entering is in fact illegal, lockpicks or no.

All this being said, in case anyone was looking to bootcamp or otherwise multiboot on a Mac involving Linux, check out this (http://www.maganti.info/2009/11/triple-boot-on-macbook-mac-osx-1061.html) site. Mainly this is for triple booting, but you can skip the windows part if desired.

[alphaniner]

so the task is legal but possession/use of the tools to do it is criminal.

I know this is old, but I thought this kind of methodology was found unconstitutional after Timothy Leary's crusade against the early marijuana laws.

[Shibblet]

I know this is old, but I thought this kind of methodology was found unconstitutional after Timothy Leary's crusade against the early marijuana laws.

Didn't Tommy Chong go to jail (http://www.post-gazette.com/localnews/20030912chong0912p5.asp) for selling paraphernalia?

I'm not arguing the marijuana laws, but I am stating that sometimes possession of just the tools is illegal.

And what about possessing tools like this? (http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=28224&tag=trunk;content)

[handy]

I had to have the optical drive replaced on my iMac, under warranty.

It was booting with rEFIt which made it quite clear that Linux was installed on the machine.

I had no problems at all in the entire process.

Which leads me to draw the conclusion that there is no problem booting other systems on the Mac computers.

If I had of only had Linux or some other non-Apple system on the machine, I may have got myself into trouble seeking warranty under those circumstances I think.