Will Mac ever cave on EULA anti PC

...And vista....which is a better operating system by far

 

Stop it.

You're not allowed to have those kinds of opinions 'round here. Might hurt someone.

 

Yes, My EEE does

Also I have the drivers to do it on my G50V.

 

No..

If you dont like the laws dont live here.

If you dont like your hours cut dont work here.

If you dont... ect ect.

That is nothing more than an excuse for the weak to give into something they should not have too.

Any great person that has ever had to fight for something (Like me as a Marine) understands that that saying means that you should always just give up and give in.

If you dont like life, dont live anymore, if you dont like the war dont read the paper or watch tv anymore.

There are a lot of things you wont like in life, that doesn't mean avoid them. That doesn't mean agree with them. To many people conform too easy. What ever happened to independence or fighting for something you believe in?

 

The case has been dismissed: http://www.macrumors.com/2008/11/18/judge-dismisses-psystars-anti-trust-counterclaim-against-apple/

Now I really don't want to argue further. NBR does not support or allow discussion of running Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, and we're not going to change that policy anytime soon.

 

I really don't see how using an open source bootloader automatically makes it legal to use any paid, closed source OS you want. The issue is that the Apple EULA only allows the OS to be used on Apple hardware and you are supposed to agree to the EULA on installation of the OS.

To avoid this issue Apple really should make it clear in the EULA that retail copies are explicitly being sold as upgrades to the existing copy of OS X on a Mac and requires an existing license. The EULA for the copy of OS X that ships installed on a Mac should then read that it's an embedded OS that can only be used on the hardware that it ships installed on, and the install DVD is only provided for convenience of reinstalling on the same hardware, which is pretty much the truth anyways, since the OS X that ships with new Mac models are generally custom builds with specific drivers for the new hardware and wouldn't necessarily work with other Macs anyways.

In terms of Open Source, perhaps they weren't as supportive before, but Apple seems to be very reasonable about it right now. I'm pretty sure all Open Source parts of OS X were always made available again in Open Source Darwin. All the Open Source parts of Safari are made available again in WebKit, which seems very generous considering Google is using WebKit in Chrome to compete against Apple's own Safari, and Nokie and Google use WebKit in their phones to compete against the iPhone. Apple's implementation of X11 is also Open Source as XQuartz. Apple also developed OpenCL and pushed it through the Khronos Group as an open standard, royalty free API for use by all parties. And Apple is also supporting the Open Source development of Clang and LLVM as supplements or successors to GCC and seeing GCC is the base compiler for many open source software and operating systems, I can't see you supporting Open Source software at a more fundamental level than that.

 

Um, I think you know this already and so do all other PC fans. It wouldn't matter how it's worded you PC fans would still try to fight it.
I hope Apple has learned from this and "fixes" Snow Leopard to only work on Apple hardware as they do the restore discs that way there's no way to cheat the system.

 

There is no difference between Apples, Dell, HP, etc. in hardware. Apple runs on Intel and Nvidia chipsets, both are used in "PCs." The only difference is the Apple branding and OS X.

Apples are PCs now. OS X, Linux, BeOS, Windows, have your pick. Same hardware. Higher snootiness from Mac users.

 

I don't dispute the commonality of components between Macs and PCs. Although with P.A. Semi, that may change in the future. It's true that Macs and Windows laptops have the same parts. It's just that companies like Dell choose to differentiate themselves based on price, while companies like Lenovo want to distinguish themselves based on reliability and ruggedness. Apple chooses to differentiate themselves based on a custom OS. I don't see how that is a less valid strategy than anyone else uses.

 

Oh of course, I'm disputing that. However, the restore discs (only Mac users know this) can only work on that specific machine. You can't use a Unibody Macbook restore disc on the plastic Macbook, You can't use an early 2008 Macbook restore disc on the new late 2008 Macbook, it's that specific on which hardware it works on. That's what I hope Apple will do with Snow Leopard. And please don't make it out to be so cut and dry, you can't just place a Mac OS X install disc in a common PC and start the install process, in other words, the average joe can't use install it that way.

 

This strategy will not work for people who want to upgrade from OS X 10.2 to Snow Leopard. You can just buy the install disc from the Apple store. Or is Apple only going to sell restore discs at the store?

 

What hes saying is that apple should include similar "protection" thats in the restore discs, onto new snow leopard.

Although, I dont know, as much as apple tries, I can still see people (probably) hacking it, and allowing it to be installed on pcs.

 

I think it should be clarified the differences between the Restore DVDs and Retail DVDs. As I understand it the Restore DVDs are custom builds of OS X that include drivers specifically for the model that it shipped with. This is of course necessary for new models since they use hardware that is different from older models so older builds would not include the necessary drivers. In such a case the Restore DVD may not work on Macs other than what it ships with since it won't have the necessary drivers. I don't believe there are any active checks that prevent the install though, it's just that it probably isn't compatible with the hardware to begin with.

Retail DVDs however, are made to be compatible with all previously shipped Apple systems that meet the system requirements and so shipped with many different drivers and are tested as such.

I really don't think Apple should waste their time on taking active measures to prevent people from using OS X on non-Macs. Someone will always be able to circumvent the protections. Apple just needs to clarify the EULA of Retail DVDs that they are an upgrade and require a previous license of OS X and the only way to obtain a previous license of OS X is to buy a Mac with OS X installed.

Individual users can always ignore it and install it anywhere they want and I don't think Apple really cares about it. The real issue is when a company deliberately tries to make a profit by circumventing the EULA such as Psystar. I think that is a valid concern and should be stopped. Afterall, if people can make money off violating the EULA of other peoples software, I think all software companies should be concerned. Psystar have even gone so far as to call their computers OpeniMac which blatantly infringes on iMac which is a registered trademark.

But other than Psystar and other companies, has Apple actually gone after individual users who may have installed OS X on non-Macs? I don't believe they are actively pursuing them.

 

There are some sort of checks, because I know when the new unibody macs came out, some users were able to hack the restore dvd to work on older macs. I dont remember if they actually gained any functionality, never looked into it much, but I do remember that they got the preference pane from the new unibodies, as they could see the newer trackpad settings.

So yea, the unibody restore dvds have less drivers and so forth, but I'm guessing that people could still hack the restore dvds for pc use, if they were forced to.

The only I guess "real" protection they could put on the install dvds, would be to check that the hardware that the mac has, fits in with the known hardware of previous macs, not the random other stuff that pcs have. But again, I wouldnt be surprised if they found a way around that too.

 

Apple is breaking open source GNU licensing. Apple does release their source code of Darwin to the public. However, Apple breaks the GNU licensing by limiting it to be installed only on Apple hardware. GNU licensing does not allow what Apple writes in their EULA.

If Apple did not want to be bound by GNU licensing, they should not have used BSD as their OS base. Apple should have written their own OS from the ground up instead of stealing all the hard work of professors, universities and volunteers.

Now Apple creates some mish-mash EULA restricting OS X to be installed on only Apple hardware, and at the same time breaking GNU software licensing.

Give me a break!

 

I dunno much about the specifics of what you're talking about, but if what you're saying is true, why hasn't it blown up yet? Or atleast been in the media?

 

Now I'm not an expert on the different qualities of licensing schemes, but I don't think your complaints are valid.

You say that OS X uses BSD as a base which is true, but you assume BSD uses a GNU GPL license which is not true. BSD uses it's own BSD license which is less restrictive than the GNU GPL license. From what I understand, one major difference is that the BSD license deliberately allows BSD to be modified and incorporated into proprietary commercial products with more restrictive proprietary licenses, which is something that GNU GPL does not allow. There isn't anything wrong with the overall OS X product being limited any-which way Apple wants.

Even Microsoft uses some BSD components in their Windows network layers and seeing Microsoft is everyone's favorite tech punching bag, if there was something wrong with using BSD in a proprietary product with a more restrictive license I would think there would have been lawsuits and a huge uproar already.

 

After reading all of this, what I see it boiling down to is the judge says Apple can have a EULA, but the case saying running OS X on a PC is illegal has not been decided.

Simply put, just because it's in a EULA, doesn't make it illegal. The court hasn't decided that yet.

 

Because they have brainwashed a huge majority of people, know how many corrupt politicians and things there are out there that never get there stories in the open. Money and power control too many things.

 

Yes exactly, to my understanding if you violate the UELA the worst case thing is that you violated the license agreement of the OS and Apple has the power to revoke your license. But in no way have you committed any illegal activity or could get in trouble for it.

If you go spend $200 for there OS and they pull your license because you want to use it on your PC instead of a Mac because your computer smart. I do not see that smoothing over well.

 

I dont think it has anything to do with brainwashes people. There are many many people on the internet who could easily publish an article saying that it is true or not. Many tech people who know about licensing.

But it looks like lt_commanderdata knows the opposite side of the story, and it seems reasonable.