Policy regarding OS X on non-Apple Hardware

[The.Clinton]

Is creating a new subforum for this a good idea if Neowin is going to allow this discussion? (I know, Neowin is looking to simplify its forum structure) - but I think it's reasonable to say that it will annoy genuine Mac users in having the Apple General Discussion forum full of [OSx86] threads. I'm not a Mac user (yet!), but I can imagine having these topics in this forum would annoy those who have Macs.

I'm already annoyed with it - I'm a mac user, trying to read genuine mac threads and I've already had to bypass one... where's the ignore button?

I agree with the previous poster about the origin of the media (as i've seen in other threads)... when someone has to say that they are using genuine media, do we assume they are not? How many OSx86 users would go out and buy it legally just to try it to see if it works?

Those shipped with a mac are only allowed to be used with that mac are they not? Similar to how Windows licenses OEM software...

[1WayJonny]

the OSX EULA doesn't explain why neowin wont let threads exist on OSx86 before this thread...

i will not applaud this sorry should have been this way from the beginning... you can buy OSX! piracy was the issue not because you feel like installing it on your own hardware....

anyone who defends OSX or apple on the "is must be sold with a mac and used on a mac" is a tart

[Marshalus Veteran]

So, the policy is "don't ask, don't tell"? That a "wink" about the media origin is OK? I guess that the same assumptions are made about Vista and Photoshop in the forums. Only direct admitting to warez copies is acted on. So being evasive about the source of your OSX is the way for pirates to go.

If this was all based on that ruling, then why did not anyone say so at the beginning announcement?

If it is of any consolation, I now accept this not only as a staff decision, but I understand the reasoning behind it. I won't be posting any more questions on this. :yes:

(I still am strongly opposed to "wink warez", though) :p

I've added that to the first post if that makes you feel better :)

[Angel Blue01]

So then, I can plan to buy myself a copy of OS X, and come to Neowin for help on installing it?

I'm against it, Apple needs to see the light, not you guys (I don't want Neowin to get cease and desist orders).

[Darran]

And since when Cara speak for Neowin or Apple? Never, she speaks for herself.

Didn't say that, I was just offering a different relevant perspective...

Regardless, it should certainly get its own forum rather than pollute the existing forums.

[MasterC]

I'm not saying I believe or disbelieve her to be an Apple employee. That wasn't my point. My point was we're not here to cater to Apple, we're here to help the community.

I don't understand this. You're not here to cater to Apple, so you're willing to let people discuss how to violate their EULA. By this reasoning, you're not here to cater to Microsoft, so why aren't users allowed to discuss how to bypass Windows registration? I mean, you're here for the community, right?

[fevoldj2]

LOL You all get so whiny about stupid stuff. Why are so many of you so passionate of buying a Mac? Do you all get commission for every Mac Apple sells?

[funciona]

So if the mods allowed discussion and distribution of warez or bomb manufacturing we shouldn't have the right to discuss whether they may have made a terrible mistake?

Nope. Its the owner's server. They can post whatever they want on it. Don't like it? Leave.

I for one, will not help anyone I am even suspicious of using OSX86.

But you will help someone installing Windows on their Mac right? Wrong direction :(

For members like StevoFC is the reason I think x86 should have its own section :)

[Hurmoth]

So, the policy is "don't ask, don't tell"? That a "wink" about the media origin is OK? I guess that the same assumptions are made about Vista and Photoshop in the forums. Only direct admitting to warez copies is acted on. So being evasive about the source of your OSX is the way for pirates to go.

Neowin does not condone warez, but this has really the way it has always been. Neowin is not the internet police. We can't know where software comes from unless you clearly make it obvious that it is warez. It isn't "don't ask, don't tell", we firmly believe users should purchase legit copies of software, which is why we're not allowing discussion of downloading Hackintosh from the internet, someone must have their own legit copy of it.

[Lee G. Veteran]

I don't understand this. You're not here to cater to Apple, so you're willing to let people discuss how to violate their EULA. By this reasoning, you're not here to cater to Microsoft, so why aren't users allowed to discuss how to bypass Windows registration? I mean, you're here for the community, right?

That's different as that's covered by US law. Neowin, as Timdorr has mentioned, allows the discussion of uxtheme.dll, for example, and allows users to post links to patches and modified .dlls. This violates Microsoft's EULA, but does not violate US law.

[Rudy]

I don't understand this. You're not here to cater to Apple, so you're willing to let people discuss how to violate their EULA. By this reasoning, you're not here to cater to Microsoft, so why aren't users allowed to discuss how to bypass Windows registration? I mean, you're here for the community, right?

patching windows (uxtheme.dll, icon packs (the ones that replace system files)) is against the EULA yet it's allowed, I think that's what they're referring to

[Darran]

Nope. Its the owner's server. They can post whatever they want on it. Don't like it? Leave.

Unfortunately that's not the way the law courts operate.

[Hurmoth]

I don't understand this. You're not here to cater to Apple, so you're willing to let people discuss how to violate their EULA. By this reasoning, you're not here to cater to Microsoft, so why aren't users allowed to discuss how to bypass Windows registration? I mean, you're here for the community, right?

"'Cracking' is circumventing a copy protection of some sort. There is no copy protection with OS X. There isn't even a CD key at all. What's being done by people is they are modifying the software in a way that violates their EULA. But a EULA is just an agreement between the user and Apple. It's nothing illegal to violate it, since it's not a law that you're breaking. The most Apple can do for violating it is to deny you support."

We allow users to discuss breaking the EULA for Windows. It has already been stated in this thread that by installing the uxtheme.dll file that breaks the MS EULA.

[MasterC]

That's different as that's covered by US law. Neowin, as Timdorr has mentioned, allows the discussion of uxtheme.dll, for example, and allows users to post links to patches and modified .dlls. This violates Microsoft's EULA, but does not violate US law.

patching windows (uxtheme.dll, icon packs (the ones that replace system files)) is against the EULA yet it's allowed, I think that's what they're referring to

Ok, thank for clearing that bit up. (Y)

[Hurmoth]

That's different as that's covered by US law. Neowin, as Timdorr has mentioned, allows the discussion of uxtheme.dll, for example, and allows users to post links to patches and modified .dlls. This violates Microsoft's EULA, but does not violate US law.

Exactly.

[BajiRav]

LOL You all get so whiny about stupid stuff. Why are so many of you so passionate of buying a Mac? Do you all get commission for every Mac Apple sells?

Nope. Its the owner's server. They can post whatever they want on it. Don't like it? Leave.

But you will help someone installing Windows on their Mac right? Wrong direction :(

For members like StevoFC is the reason I think x86 should have its own section :)

+1

I am willing to bet $10 that at least 50% of NeoMac users run either pirated XP or Vista on their Macs. So why should we treat OS X any different? Neowin sure doesn't condone piracy and I am not advocating it either. Just can't figure out all the Mac users on their high horses.

[funciona]

Another think: Maybe make a thread sticky with this announcment.

The Mac forums are going wilding posting "Neowin doesnt allow this"

[Lee G. Veteran]

Sorry, I meant 'allows the discussion of patching uxtheme.dll' (although you knew what I meant, I wanted to clear that up). Microsoft's EULA allows us to discuss uxtheme.dll, haha :p

[Rudy]

+1

I am willing to bet $10 that at least 50% of NeoMac users run either pirated XP or Vista on their Macs. So why should we treat OS X any different? Neowin sure doesn't condone piracy and I am not advocating it either. Just can't figure out all the Mac users on their high horses.

I actually use the copy I had purchased for my Macbook Pro, when I sold it I restored it back to 10.4 and kept my Leopard box

[Chad]

Neowin does not condone warez, but this has really the way it has always been. Neowin is not the internet police. We can't know where software comes from unless you clearly make it obvious that it is warez. It isn't "don't ask, don't tell", we firmly believe users should purchase legit copies of software, which is why we're not allowing discussion of downloading Hackintosh from the internet, someone must have their own legit copy of it.

That's just it. Neowin has always had a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy with warez. If the member doesn't specifically come out and say it, the assumption is that they are asking about legally obtained software.

That stance has never really sat well with me, but ah well. I really doubt many people will go out and buy a copy to install on their Dell, Gateway, custom-built computer. That action really doesn't jive with the intent of the Hackintosh community. Perhaps things are different now, but previously the only way to install OS X on a non-Mac was to download a hacked copy from P2P sites. Either that or be the one doing the hacking.

While I agree that the EULA has no legal binding, and therefore the discussion and action of installing OS X on non-Mac computers is not illegal, I can see where Mark is coming from. The Windows EULA would seem to be treated differently than the Apple EULA

Edited May 28, 2008 by Chad

[Darran]

Contracts, such as EULAs are protected by law, that's why they are written by lawyers and in lawyer speak. So they are protected by US and international laws.

Whether Neowin chooses to abide by specific things in those contracts is up to them and at their own risk to support the breaking of these clauses. I wouldn't be convinced by Neowin pulling out cases that back them up as I'm sure Apple would be more than willing to drag someone into court to prove that case wrong one of these days.

Anyway, I've got nothing particular against it, but as I said, seperate forum please, this will really **** off those who are avoiding this grey area or typical mac users who would not have OSX86's many issues.

[Cara Veteran]

Hey everyone, I know some people have been wondering when I'd chime in here.

Just for the record at no time do I officially speak for Apple in any correspondence here on Neowin, all thoughts or material posted here is done as my own thoughts, observations, or so forth.

I would hope that people will respect the decisions of the Neowin Administration in their decision to open this topic up. Though many of us do not agree that it is appropriate, or legal as the case may be, Neowin is free to do as they please in this matter until such a time as Apple (as a corporate entity) were to serve a Cease and Desist order to them regarding a specific topic. With that said, I do sincerely hope this DOES NOT HAPPEN as I know all of us enjoy and love the Neowin Community.

My concern is the (potential) flood of x86 posts clogging up the Apple Forums. x86 is not Apple related, it is different hardware and software from official distributions of Mac OS from Apple. People can argue this all they way, if you are required to use an EFI Emulator then you are not running the software Native and thus it is not the official method of running it.

I feel that in order to best serve the Apple community here on Neowin, if this topic is going to be allowed there does indeed need to be a x86 forum created for simplicity. How does adding a forum make things more simple? It keeps these threads out of the way of Apple users and allows the x86 community to have their own identity away from Apple users. I feel that many real Apple owners will refuse to aid x86 users, as is their right, and I feel that moving those threads into their own section will cut down on the potential for flame or hostile posting as a result.

These are my thoughts, I do plan to draft up these thoughts into something more solid to send off to the Admins when I get home but until then I hope that the Apple Community here on Neowin is adult enough to handle these x86 threads and not start flames/hostility over them.

We are all Neowinners guys, regardless of the OS being used.

Edited May 28, 2008 by Cara

[Tim Dorr Veteran]

You can run Vista for 30-days per install. Will that rule forbidding this be removed now? After all, less circumvention is being done reinstalling than there is in making OSX work on beige box hardware.

That isn't an issue of just an EULA with Vista, it's also a copyright issue. Microsoft, through the 30 day trial program, has implicitly granted you 30 days to make use of the copy of the product. Circumventing that system is breaking copyright law, not just the EULA. That is a US law and is therefore illegal where the servers for this site are housed.

Didn't Vista have some absurd clause in the EULA stating that it couldn't be run in a VM for certain editions? It's the same thing. As long as you obtained the copy of Vista legally or are using it under the copyright of Microsoft, then it doesn't matter with the US courts if you violate the EULA. Microsoft might be able to sue you individually, but that's a (very minor) risk you'd have to take.

[BajiRav]

Flood? There are like 3 threads? :blink:

[Hurmoth]

Contracts, such as EULAs are protected by law, that's why they are written by lawyers and in lawyer speak. So they are protected by US and international laws.

The law states that Apple cannot force a user to install their OS on specific hardware, that trumps any EULA Apple can come up with, I don't care who wrote it.

Quote from Apple Insider, ""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".