Jump to content



Photo

Policy regarding OS X on non-Apple Hardware


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
318 replies to this topic

#1 vetMichael Stanclift

Michael Stanclift

    Virtually Benevolent

  • 11,057 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 01
  • Location: Kansas City
  • OS: OS X 10.9
  • Phone: iPhone 5

Posted 28 May 2008 - 18:56

Discussion of OS X on non-Apple hardware is allowed on Neowin. The amendment to the rules was conclusively made after much discussion among our staff. The primary reasoning behind this is a 1984 Federal Court ruling specifically makes it illegal for a company to force their users to install the OS on specific hardware. Which is ultimately the reason we're now allowing this discussion.

Note: Be aware though that Apple has a right to deny you support and service for OS X with a breach of the EULA. Neowin will not be held responsible in the event you void your warranty or support contracts.

Also please be mindful that Neowin still has a strong policy against warez of any kind and thus any discussion on illegally obtained copies of Mac OS X and such will be dealt with accordingly.

In order to differentiate new support threads in the forums, tagging your thread title with [OSx86] is now necessary.

Example: [OSx86] Can't get wireless card to be recognized

We do not intend to remove or amend warnings or other restrictions on accounts for previous violations of this rule because at the time the warning was placed on the account, these were the rules of Neowin.

Thank you for your understanding and patience.

Edited by Hurmoth, 03 June 2008 - 23:34.



#2 Sam

Sam

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,456 posts
  • Joined: 31-December 03

Posted 28 May 2008 - 19:05

Cool.

#3 richardsim7

richardsim7

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,642 posts
  • Joined: 26-January 05
  • Location: London - UK

Posted 28 May 2008 - 19:09

Yay!! :D

However, this would have been more useful 7 months ago before I got a mac :p

-Rich-

#4 Brandon

Brandon

    Neowin RUNNER

  • 13,022 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 03
  • Location: USA USA!

Posted 28 May 2008 - 19:11

the change... why?

#5 Fahim S.

Fahim S.

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,950 posts
  • Joined: 15-April 02
  • OS: Windows 8 - OG
  • Phone: Google Nexus 4 16GB by LG

Posted 28 May 2008 - 19:12

hmm - not sure I agree with this. The EULA is contract and hence a binding agreement, so it is against the law to do this, to install it is circumvention. Just my opinion.

#6 vetMathachew

Mathachew

    Wise beyond my youth... that's what she said!

  • 11,251 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 04
  • Location: Spring, TX
  • OS: Windows 7

Posted 28 May 2008 - 19:14

I think the big question would be, how do you discuss OSX on non-Apple hardware without it being warez? Aren't the OSX install discs setup with a mechanism to identify if the system is an Apple one? Bypassing this would violate the EULA, wouldn't it?

Call me crazy, but it seems that any method of getting OSX on non-Apple hardware would be illegal. I'm no expert on legal matters, so I admit I may not be considering something, but it seems that OSX running on non-Apple hardware and it being illegal are mutually inclusive.

#7 funciona

funciona

    Neowinian

  • 311 posts
  • Joined: 02-May 08

Posted 28 May 2008 - 19:16

Great news! I think alot more people are going to the Mac section.

Everyone please stop complaining; Why wouldn't you want OSX on PCs? Stop being selfish :)

That being said, why doesnt OSx86 get its own section?

#8 0sit0

0sit0

    Live and let live

  • 4,312 posts
  • Joined: 24-October 01

Posted 28 May 2008 - 19:17

Ive been running OSX on my Dell laptop :)... thanks to this I've decided to get a macbook pro soon... very soon :)

#9 Kenji

Kenji

    Rather Fruity..

  • 1,197 posts
  • Joined: 15-November 06
  • Location: .uk

Posted 28 May 2008 - 19:19

Ive been running OSX on my Dell laptop :)... thanks to this I've decided to get a macbook pro soon... very soon :)

Same here, But on my ThinkPad. Im going to get a Mac mini soon. :D

#10 MMaster23

MMaster23

    Neowinian

  • 1,097 posts
  • Joined: 02-October 03
  • Location: Netherlands

Posted 28 May 2008 - 19:19

Wow ... it's getting chilly in hell I guess

#11 Hurmoth

Hurmoth

    Neowinian Senior

  • 20,983 posts
  • Joined: 09-March 03
  • Location: Virginia

Posted 28 May 2008 - 19:20

the change... why?

Simply put, "a 1984 U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision held that a software publisher can't require consumers to run an operating system on a specific type of hardware." The US Supreme Court has refused to hear the case, so at this point it is legal for anyone who owns a copy of OS X (Leopard) to install it on any other hardware. The only thing Apple can do is refuse you support. That's where we come in.

I think the big question would be, how do you discuss OSX on non-Apple hardware without it being warez?

The install, as far as I've read, requires some films to be altered, but that isn't illegal, only against the EULA with Apple.

#12 vetgiga

giga

    Neowinian Senior

  • 19,567 posts
  • Joined: 09-October 02

Posted 28 May 2008 - 19:20

1. The Mac OS X EULA is an agreement between the end-user and Apple.
2. A violation of the EULA is not illegal, as it's not breaking any US laws.

Apple has a right to deny you support for running OS X not on one of their machines, but they can't literally "sue" you for it. There are no chips or anything to identify a computer as a Mac or non-Mac on the OS X disc--supposedly people have done vanilla installs through EFI emulation.

Again: Please be mindful that Neowin still has a strong policy against warez of any kind and thus any discussion on illegally obtained copies of Mac OS X and such will be dealt with accordingly.

That means any references or discussions on illegal ways of obtaining OS X will cost you. This is the same for any other commercial software such as Windows.

That being said, why doesnt OSx86 get its own section?

We're trying to simplify the forum. That's why we're asking everyone to use tags for osx86 threads.

#13 vetmarkjensen

markjensen

    Linux noob since Red Hat 5.1

  • 24,502 posts
  • Joined: 02-October 03
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • OS: GNU/Linux
  • Phone: Android and iPhone

Posted 28 May 2008 - 19:21

hmm - not sure I agree with this. The EULA is contract and hence a binding agreement, so it is against the law to do this, to install it is circumvention. Just my opinion.

I seriously agree with you on this, big time!

The reasons given for allowing EULA-violating discussion can also be equally applied to warezing Vista. After all, that agreement is between Microsoft and the end user.

Why is OSX86 "ok", and Vista copying "forbidden"?

#14 +StevoFC

StevoFC

    In Search Of...

  • 8,911 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 02
  • Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 28 May 2008 - 19:23

Hmm whatever.
I just won't help anyone asking questions about this specifically. So it doesn't matter much to me.

#15 vetMathachew

Mathachew

    Wise beyond my youth... that's what she said!

  • 11,251 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 04
  • Location: Spring, TX
  • OS: Windows 7

Posted 28 May 2008 - 19:23

1. The Mac OS X EULA is an agreement between the end-user and Apple.
2. A violation of the EULA is not illegal, as it's not breaking any US laws.

Apple has a right to deny you support for running OS X not on one of their machines, but they can't literally "sue" you for it. There are no chips or anything to identify a computer as a Mac or non-Mac on the OS X disc--supposedly people have done vanilla installs through EFI emulation.

Again: Please be mindful that Neowin still has a strong policy against warez of any kind and thus any discussion on illegally obtained copies of Mac OS X and such will be dealt with accordingly.

That means any references or discussions on illegal ways of obtaining OS X will cost you. This is the same for any other commercial software such as Windows.


We're trying to simplify the forum. That's why we're asking everyone to use tags for osx86 threads.


Gotcha, I'm not against this, I just didn't fully see how this could coincide without warez activity occurring, but obviously I was wrong.