Policy regarding OS X on non-Apple Hardware

[McSmiggins]

My concern is the flood of x86 posts clogging up the Apple Forums.

QFT (but probably for different reasons)

Install what you want, it's your PC, you mess it up, you fix it, every day there seems to be a new "I've hosed my partitions, help" thread, just gonna start ignoring them all.

[CentralDogma]

Wow. I?m truly shocked by this announcement. A good kind of socked though. I always assumed that Neowin had the policy of, ?best to play it safe and not even go near anything remotely related to warz?. I?m happy to see that was wrong and that Neowin that is willing to embrace discussion of technologies even if there is a chance it could be used for illegal purposes (discussion of bittorrent and hacked uxtheme.dll also comes to mind). I congratulate Neowin on putting what the members want(and are legally allowed) before the interests of large corporations that see no profit in these technologies.

Also, if anyone is interested in reading up on some cases involving the legality of EULA, I happen to have favorited this link a while ago.

[Hurmoth]

Flood? There are like 3 threads? :blink:

Exactly. And if there is a flood of new threads regarding OSx86, that's what the tag is for. If you see the tag and you want nothing to do with the thread, don't go in there. Not that difficult.

[Mathachew Veteran]

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

Quote of the day!

[The.Clinton]

Does anyone know of any mac-only communities that don't allow x86?

[Mathachew Veteran]

Flood? There are like 3 threads? :blink:

Three popped up in less than an hour after the announcement was made. I don't expect Neowin to become inundated with topics, but I sure see that number growing.

[Julius Caro]

The EULA is not a contract you sign, is a contract that it is understood you agree on by just using the software purchased. If the EULA says that you can't install OSX on non-apple hardware and a court ruling says such thing is illegal, well, I'm not sure how law works in the US but.. the eula can say jack, that the parts of it that are not in accordance to the law are completely nullified.

Not to mention that as of today "apple hardware" is not any different than "non-apple hardware" except for the brand.

[BajiRav]

Three popped up in less than an hour after the announcement was made. I don't expect Neowin to become inundated with topics, but I sure see that number growing.

One of them is the announcement thread. The other two - I don't get what exactly Mac user have problems with? Do you (not you specifically Mathachew) own Apple shares or are you Steve Jobs? I mean WTF?

[Darran]

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".

A user can use that case as precedent in their defense if Apple sues them for breach of contract, they still breached the contract.

[Marshalus Veteran]

I'm all for a subforum, if the need arises. :)

[Chad]

A user can use that case as precedent in their defense if Apple sues them for breach of contract, they still breached the contract.

A 'contract' that wasn't lawful in the first place. Apple has no case as the law stands now.

[Darran]

A 'contract' that wasn't lawful in the first place. Apple has no case as the law stands now.

Jeez, someone better tell Apple! :o

[Tim Dorr Veteran]

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.

The EULA is an agreement between the end-user and the company that wrote it. We have nothing to do with it. Our support of installing things this way doesn't violate any law. The only violation is up to the user installing OS X on their PC. That's up to them to decide if they want to risk it.

[Julius Caro]

A user can use that case as precedent in their defense if Apple sues them for breach of contract, they still breached the contract.

Really? Let's say that the EULA said that OS X could only be used by male people. The EULA would be deemed illegal because it's not in accordance to the law, equality and such things. No woman could ever be prosecuted by apple for breach of contract. I believe that court rulings in the US have some sort of "law" rank, unless an actual law is passed by the congress after the court ruling.

[+Fahim S. MVC]

Off topic I know, but even the Microsoft Forums say that Vista has a Trial period:

http://forums.microsoft.com/Genuine/ShowPo...7&SiteID=25

[Julius Caro]

The EULA is an agreement between the end-user and the company that wrote it. We have nothing to do with it. Our support of installing things this way doesn't violate any law. The only violation is up to the user installing OS X on their PC. That's up to them to decide if they want to risk it.

As much as I'm "all for allowing osx86 discussion", what you just said could be applied to cases in which threads have been closed (and maybe people banned?) for the sole mentioning of having an illegal windows installation.

[Darran]

Really? Let's say that the EULA said that OS X could only be used by male people. The EULA would be deemed illegal because it's not in accordance to the law, equality and such things. No woman could ever be prosecuted by apple for breach of contract. I believe that court rulings in the US have some sort of "law" rank, unless an actual law is passed by the congress after the court ruling.

In that case I presume the contract would not be legally binding as the company is clearly breaking some equality laws, lol.

[Julius Caro]

Off topic I know, but even the Microsoft Forums say that Vista has a Trial period:

http://forums.microsoft.com/Genuine/ShowPo...7&SiteID=25

Funny. Certain windows-license-freak here on neowin would argue what is stated on that forum, since, well, that would mean that someone broke some sort of divine law by lending you that copy in the first place.

[Chad]

Jeez, someone better tell Apple! :o

No doubt they are aware. However with that wording in the EULA, it would allow them to challenge the law if so desired.

Don't believe it's been updated since this story

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/27/ap...es_safari_eula/

At one point and perhaps still does, the Vista EULA stated that the Home and Home Premium versions were not to be run virtually. You had to buy Business or Ultimate versions.

I have no doubt that many other companies have items in their EULA that wouldn't hold up in court, yet they add them to cover their bases.

[Julius Caro]

In that case I presume the contract would not be legally binding as the company is clearly breaking some equality laws, lol.

Which is the case here, as it is to my understanding that court rulings in the US are like written law until an actual law is passed.

[Darran]

The EULA is an agreement between the end-user and the company that wrote it. We have nothing to do with it. Our support of installing things this way doesn't violate any law. The only violation is up to the user installing OS X on their PC. That's up to them to decide if they want to risk it.

Yeah I only brought it up as it seemed there were some misleading statements coming out in the conversation.

[markwolfe Veteran]

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.

Any 30-day re-imaging has nothing to do with copyright. If I take one DVD and install it every 30 days on the same computer to avoid WGA, that is a EULA issue, not a copyright one.

I do not question the direction, only the claim that re-installing Vista every 30 days violates copyright.

[evo_spook]

The reason that Mac users are so against this I think is the fear that Apple will think, right, we will have to start strengthening its security and start using sometype of validation on OSX

all these OSX86 hackingtosh folks are in danger of killing the golden goose of having a OS without any activation.

[Richard Hammond]

One of them is the announcement thread. The other two - I don't get what exactly Mac user have problems with? Do you (not you specifically Mathachew) own Apple shares or are you Steve Jobs? I mean WTF?

They are just annoyed that they have paid over the odds for basic pc hardware and now people can spend ?150 on leopard and run it on their own PCs.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

The original rule was put in place to protect Neowin. It was a possibility that Apple would aggressively pursue any site that supported "Hackintosh" systems.

Not only has Apple not done this to our competitors but they do not even remove references from their own servers: http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1282871

Neowin is a computer enthusiast community. Many of our members would like to run Hackintosh systems just for bragging rights. It isn't that different from our members who overclock their hardware. An overclocked Hackintosh box with integrated fish tank may be the ultimate geek experience. When it comes right down to it, we are here to serve our members. We are here to provide them with what they want.

Loyal Macintosh fans need not worry. Anyone who wants a production OS/X computer should be purchasing a real Macintosh computer.