Policy regarding OS X on non-Apple Hardware

[Marshalus Veteran]

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 June 3, 2008 by Hurmoth

[Sam]

Cool.

[richardsim7]

Yay!! :D

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

-Rich-

[Brandon]

the change... why?

[+Fahim S. MVC]

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.

[Mathachew Veteran]

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.

[funciona]

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?

[0sit0]

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

[Kenji]

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

[MMaster23]

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

[Hurmoth]

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.

[giga Veteran]

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.

[markwolfe Veteran]

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"?

[+StevoFC MVC]

Hmm whatever.

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

[Mathachew Veteran]

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.

[Hurmoth]

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

Vista copying? OSX86 is "ok" as long as the user has a valid copy of OS X. If s/he doesn't, then it is warez. The same goes for Vista, as long as someone has a valid copy of Vista, then we support here.

The EULA is not a binding contract. The EULA is a contract only between you and the company, the worst they can do is sue the user and considering the 1984 case, Apple will lose.

[CPressland]

I'm going to cry :'(

[+Steve B Subscriber²]

Forgive the dense question but, can you go out and buy the Apple OS and install it without any issues in terms of compatibility? How would that work. I understand Apple may not grant me support but, I would be willing to give it a try if I know it will work.

[giga Veteran]

I'm going to cry :'(

Why? Think positive--people will be a lot more open to OS X now and there are even examples above where they're now buying a mac because of their experience with it.

Forgive the dense question but, can you go out and buy the Apple OS and install it without any issues in terms of compatibility? How would that work. I understand Apple may not grant me support but, I would be willing to give it a try if I know it will work.

There are and always will be issues with compatibility on non-supported hardware. I'm not sure myself what works and doesn't since I don't run osx86.

[+StevoFC MVC]

Vista copying? OSX86 is "ok" as long as the user has a valid copy of OS X. If s/he doesn't, then it is warez. The same goes for Vista, as long as someone has a valid copy of Vista, then we support here.

But owning a valid copy of OS X and installing a hacked version of it on a pc are 2 totally different things.

How is it still valid if you change core files within the OS to get it installed?

[Darran]

Interesting turn of events... I always assumed it was a taboo topic due to fears Apple might take Neowin down.

I'm pretty sure Apple's lawyers still see it as ilegal. But good to see Neowin being less up tight.

[funciona]

Again a section for us OSX on x86 users would be nice :)

[MasterC]

I have to say I disagree with this. I'm willing to say whoever has a Hackintosh has not obtained OS X legally, therefor any discussion of it would fall under the warez category. Like .fahim said, the EULA is a contract that you agree to, and breaking it would be against the law. Personally, I think this is a big step backwards. I'm curious as to what Cara has to say.

Oh and I'm with StevoFC on this. Thanks for telling people they need to put the [OSx86] tag on their post - it's going to be a big help in letting me know which threads to ignore. ;)

[giga Veteran]

Didn't William get banned for linking to a screen with an icon of OSX on it? And now this? Seems a bit two faced.. Would like to know more..

Jesus guys:

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.

We don't publicly discuss bans anyhow.

[markwolfe Veteran]

Vista copying? OSX86 is "ok" as long as the user has a valid copy of OS X. If s/he doesn't, then it is warez. The same goes for Vista, as long as someone has a valid copy of Vista, then we support here.

The EULA is not a binding contract. The EULA is a contract only between you and the company, the worst they can do is sue the user and considering the 1984 case, Apple will lose.

So, a user can violate the Apple EULA, as long as they bought one install media.

Likewise for Vista? If I purchase a boxed copy, I can freely violate the EULA on Neowin and install it on numerous PCs and get support?

Sounds crazy, if true!