Hackintoshes: A Tight Rope of Legality. [Public Poll]

[handymanshandle]

For starters, I don't want this to become a flame war, I'm OS Agnostic. I like Linux, Windows and OS X... You might be a religious Linux or WIndows user (or maybe even OS X user) to be fair all three have their benefits and their drawbacks. Though that's not what this is about. 

 

So personally I think Hackintoshes are perfectly find as long as you're not selling something pre-installed with OS X or openly stating that the PC is OS X compatible. 

 

Next year I plan on building a hackintosh inside of a Modified Mac Pro, because it sounds like a bit of a challenge but yet a fun one. I admire Apple's brilliant hardware design and OS design. I know Windows can do as much as OS X and even more but personally for what I want OS X serves that well.

Honestly it's a shame that Apple doesn't sell anything that sits between an iMac and a Mac Pro...

That's where I think a hackintosh is beneficial. Apple doesn't sell anything that is using more prosumer/enthusiast grade stuff.

Either they have mainstream consumer grade stuff or workstation/server grade. Nothing in between.

 

 

 That being said, what do you think of Hackintoshing, and do you think Apple should accept it or crack down on it? 

[Guest Kloaked]

Never understood how it can be illegal. Maybe I'm missing something?

[Wferr]

I have one i like it. Apple shouldnt care.

[Syntaxvgm]

A TOS violation isn't illegal. George hotz is the only one ot ever have legal action taken against him for breaking a TOS by sony, and their suit was based off of his reverse engineering leading to game bootlegging, and he settled out of court to avoid the legal battles and got hired big time after. 

Remember, a TOS is generally protecting a company who for example wishes to not provide serve to people who broke the TOS/do certian things/ect

 

Just don't sell hackintoshes. THAT is where it would not be legal with 100% certainty. 

[rmac52]

The legality is not an opinion unless you sit on the supreme court. A Hackintosh is a violation of the TOS for the os. This is a crime in the US because of the 1984 computer fraud and abuse act.

If you think it should be a crime is an opinion. Personally I think it should be fine. But as of right not its a crime in the US.

[handymanshandle]

Never understood how it can be illegal. Maybe I'm missing something?

In the EULA Apple mentions a couple times that OS X can only be installed on Apple branded computer but later says stuff about Apple branded hardware. Of course this can be taken two ways. Either a.) The computer running OS X has to have some sort of Apple branding on it. Or b.) The whole system has to be Apple branded or licensed. It's not exactly clear if say I were to make a hackintosh in a Mac Pro chassis if it were to technically be legal since the case is Apple branded. Or if the internal hardware has to be Apple branded too. Legal Professionals will say that everything has to be by Apple for an OS X installation to be considered a valid installation . Of course this it would seem not exactly clear.

 

@rmac52 Sure Apple the EULA does say it needs to be Apple branded... That could be a two way street. 

[rmac52]

A TOS violation isn't illegal. George hotz is the only one ot ever have legal action taken against him for breaking a TOS by sony, and he settled out of court to avoid the legal battles and got hired big time after. 

 

Just don't sell hackintoshes.

Aaron Shwartz might disagree with that statement if he was still alive. But sadly he killed himself because he was facing decades in jail. All for violating the TOS of an online journal. This was a case of malicious prosecution but he did still technically comit a crime.

[Syntaxvgm]

Aaron Shwartz might disagree with that statement if he was still alive. But sadly he killed himself because he was facing decades in jail. All for violating the TOS of an online journal. This was a case of malicious prosecution but he did still technically comit a crime.

He was arrested for MANY things, not a TOS violation. That is not true at ALL

Don't lie. 

Breaking and entering. 

Wire fraud. 

Unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer

Property damage 

grand larceny 

 

yes, he was targeted for his beliefs and overproscecuted and attacked, but that is different by miles 

George Hotz was the only one ever targetd for  TOS violation, and sony's claims were outside of that, implying financial damage. Sony probably would not have won in any just system, but we all know how computer related trails go in america, especially one guy vs huge company, and MR Hotz took the 250k settlement option over fighting the 65 mil suit and cut his losses. Got scooped up by facebook or something

[SIGSEGV]

I don't think Apple should ever accept hackintoshes, but they shouldn't crack down either because they're cool.

[JAKEBAB]

I really don't understand why people care if it's legal or not, if you wanna do it do it, if not don't simple.

[rmac52]

He was arrested for MANY things, not a TOS violation. That is not true at ALL

He was charged with violations of the CFAA for his downloading of the journals. He had every right to download them. The only thing wrong he did was download them with a script. This was a violation of there TOS.

[Syntaxvgm]

He was charged with violations of the CFAA for his downloading of the journals. He had every right to download them. The only thing wrong he did was download them with a script. This was a violation of there TOS.

 

 

He was arrested for MANY things, not a TOS violation. That is not true at ALL

Don't lie. 

Breaking and entering. 

Wire fraud. 

Unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer

Property damage 

grand larceny 

 

yes, he was targeted for his beliefs and overproscecuted and attacked, but that is different by miles 

George Hotz was the only one ever targetd for  TOS violation, and sony's claims were outside of that, implying financial damage. Sony probably would not have won in any just system, but we all know how computer related trails go in america, especially one guy vs huge company, and MR Hotz took the 250k settlement option over fighting the 65 mil suit and cut his losses. Got scooped up by facebook or something

It certainly was a miscarriage of justice, and he was target and attacked, but it has nothing to do with this

[rmac52]

He was charged with 2 counts of wire fraud and 11 violations of the CFAA. He was allowed on MITs campus and he had acsess to JSTOR from his role with harvard. So the downloading of the articles in and of it self was not a crime.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz

[handymanshandle]

I really don't understand why people care if it's legal or not, if you wanna do it do it, if not don't simple.

Well technically if 100% illegal and Apple found out. Apple would have the grounds to sue someone. Though I don't think an individual has been sued for the use/ownership of a system not by Apple running OS X. Partially because that would sort of make Apple look bad. (Which for some the fact that Apple continues to use Foxconn and that Mac's do cost a fair bit more than most PC counter parts.)

[Syntaxvgm]

He was charged with 2 counts of wire fraud and 11 violations of the CFAA. He was allowed on MITs campus and he had acsess to JSTOR from his role with harvard. So the downloading of the articles in and of it self was not a crime.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz

He had trumped up fake charges not a TOS violation.

[Speedbird]

Never understood how it can be illegal. Maybe I'm missing something?

The OSX licence agreement only allows use on Apple hardware, or virtualisation on Apple hardware.

[Guest Kloaked]

In the EULA Apple mentions a couple times that OS X can only be installed on Apple branded computer but later says stuff about Apple branded hardware. Of course this can be taken two ways. Either a.) The computer running OS X has to have some sort of Apple branding on it. Or b.) The whole system has to be Apple branded or licensed. It's not exactly clear if say I were to make a hackintosh in a Mac Pro chassis if it were to technically be legal since the case is Apple branded. Or if the internal hardware has to be Apple branded too. Legal Professionals will say that everything has to be by Apple for an OS X installation to be considered a valid installation . Of course this it would seem not exactly clear.

 

@rmac52 Sure Apple the EULA does say it needs to be Apple branded... That could be a two way street. 

 

 

The OSX licence agreement only allows use on Apple hardware, or virtualisation on Apple hardware.

 

Still doesn't make sense to me. If you own something you should be able to do what you want with it, technically speaking.

[Guest]

Still doesn't make sense to me. If you own something you should be able to do what you want with it, technically speaking.

 

Technically speaking, you don't own the operating system, you own the right to use the operating system. 

 

EDIT: By 'use', it's broader than that, I just cba to explain what i mean... 

[Speedbird]

Still doesn't make sense to me. If you own something you should be able to do what you want with it, technically speaking.

You don't own the OS, you are allowed to use the OS according to the EULA.

[Guest Kloaked]

Technically speaking, you don't own the operating system, you own the right to use the operating system. 

 

I own a license to use it, yes. I didn't create it or buy the original, therefore I don't own it.

 

But I do own a license and I should be able to do with the license what I want with it, even if that means installing it on my Gameboy if I wanted to.

[Guest]

I own a license to use it, yes. I didn't create it or buy the original, therefore I don't own it.

 

But I do own a license and I should be able to do with the license what I want with it, even if that means installing it on my Gameboy if I wanted to.

 

Not if the terms of your license do not allow you to, no. That would be like saying 'i own a license to a car therefore i should be able to drive how i like, where i like, how fast i like etc.'

[Guest Kloaked]

Not if the terms of your license do not allow you to, no. That would be like saying 'i own a license to a car therefore i should be able to drive how i like, where i like, how fast i like etc.'

 

No it's not like saying that.

 

If I own an OSX license somehow, I should be able to install it on whatever system I choose.

[Guest]

No it's not like saying that.

 

If I own an OSX license somehow, I should be able to install it on whatever system I choose.

 

No you shouldn't, because the terms of your license would state that it can only be used on Apple Mac products; installing it on any other system would be in breach of your license agreement and therefore illegal. 

[Guest Kloaked]

No you shouldn't, because the terms of your license would state that it can only be used on Apple Mac products; installing it on any other system would be in breach of your license agreement and therefore illegal. 

 

Yes, I should be able to. It shouldn't matter what Apple says, which is my point. It's not doing any harm to anything.

[Guest]

Technically Apple gives you OS X as an open-source (though certainly with closed-source elements) OS, but to modify it and insert custom kexts and tools isn't technically illegal as far as I know... Otherwise sites like Tonymacx86 would have been sued and shut down a long time ago.

 

I think Apple kinda just lets it go on, and they don't worry about it - one in a million Macs is probably a hackintosh.