5 ms·

It's right there in section 2B of the EULA that you're only permitted to install it on Apple computers. Why would they put that in there if they didn't care? h

It's right there in section 2B of the EULA that you're only permitted to install it on Apple computers. Why would they put that in there if they didn't care? https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macOS1013.pdf https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macOS1013.pdf

Hamuko 8y ago
Why would they not implement a license key to macOS installation if they did care? iTunes EULA forbids users from developing missile weapons with iTunes, but I sincerely doubt that Apple actually cares about this fine point. Also, as a document, macOS EULA is worth to me as much as a piece of toilet paper.
- wilsonnb 8y ago
  So your stance is that companies have no legal right to decide how their software is used by those who license it? Their only option is to make such uses impossible? That seems like a strange stance to take. Why shouldn't companies have legal protection over how their software is used? I can lease a car. Why not software?
  - tylerflick 8y ago
    Lease a car yes, but Ford has no right to tell you how to drive once you have purchased one of their cars.
    - wilsonnb 8y ago
      If I purchase a car from Ford, then yes, they have no right to tell me how to drive it. If I lease a car from Ford, then they absolutely have a right to tell me how I can drive it. It's not my car - it's their car. Most car leases do stipulate how you can drive it. At the very least they have a restriction on the number of miles you can drive. If someone has purchased a copy of MacOS from Apple, then I agree that they can do whatever they want with it. The thing is, no one purchases MacOS from Apple. They only lease it from Apple. That's why Apple has a right to decide how it's used.
      - satsuma 8y ago
        there's a disconnect here though because ford offers you the option of direct purchase. you don't have that with macos. i'd be willing to bet people who use hackintosh would be willing to buy a key and do things the right way if apple offered, but they don't so they find alternatives. it's the same kind of argument used with media piracy: make something easy enough to buy and use legally, and people will spend money on it. make it convoluted and require hoops, and those same people will find workarounds
        wilsonnb 8y ago
        I'd be willing to bet on that too. I think offering a license key to put MacOS on whatever hardware you want would be really popular. I'd probably buy one myself. That said, convenience is a good argument for why things like media piracy and hackintoshes happen but not an argument at all for whether or not those actions are morally justified.
        Hamuko 8y ago
        I don't have a fiber in me that feels bad about having a Hackintosh. I'm an Apple customer. There's two MacBooks in my home. And going by the poll on tonymacx86 [1], >60% of the voters do own a Mac. Why would Apple want to come after these people, apart from legal trademark protection faffing? I'd say I have more of an incentive to buy a Mac if I can run it on all of my computers. If I ran a Linux distribution on my desktop, I'd buy a nice Windows machine and load it with the same OS. The problem is that Apple does not sell the hardware that I and a lot of people want to have. I think I paid around 1000 euros for my computer in raw parts. I think I could pay like 1400 euros for a same kind of machine if it had an Apple logo on the side and had guaranteed updates, which my computer doesn't. But I can't pay that. I can't even pay double to get that kind of a computer. It doesn't exist. [1] https://www.tonymacx86.com/threads/do-you-own-a-real-mac.59/ https://www.tonymacx86.com/threads/do-you-own-a-real-mac.59/
      - abiox 8y ago
        this comparison isn't particularly interesting, because you're comparing dissimilar things. a leased car is a physical item that has inherent costs in manufacturing and distribution. bits have asymptotically zero cost there. a leased car has to be recovered and released or sold. this doesn't apply to bits. etc.
  - abiox 8y ago
    virtual and physical items are rather distinct in nature, and comparing them is often useless.
    - ksk 8y ago
      Why would you ever compare two items if they were identical?
      - abiox 8y ago
        why would you ignore category errors when comparing two items?
        ksk 8y ago
        Because there is no agreed upon basis for you to claim a category error. Or at the very least, two reasonable people can agree that the basis of the classification is an opinion.
        abiox 8y ago
        sure, and understanding the category distinctions and how each person applies them leads being able to address things like wilsonnb's comment "That seems like a strange stance to take."
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

Hamuko 8y ago

Why would they not implement a license key to macOS installation if they did care? iTunes EULA forbids users from developing missile weapons with iTunes, but I sincerely doubt that Apple actually cares about this fine point. Also, as a document, macOS EULA is worth to me as much as a piece of toilet paper.

wilsonnb 8y ago
So your stance is that companies have no legal right to decide how their software is used by those who license it? Their only option is to make such uses impossible? That seems like a strange stance to take. Why shouldn't companies have legal protection over how their software is used? I can lease a car. Why not software?
- tylerflick 8y ago
  Lease a car yes, but Ford has no right to tell you how to drive once you have purchased one of their cars.
  - wilsonnb 8y ago
    If I purchase a car from Ford, then yes, they have no right to tell me how to drive it. If I lease a car from Ford, then they absolutely have a right to tell me how I can drive it. It's not my car - it's their car. Most car leases do stipulate how you can drive it. At the very least they have a restriction on the number of miles you can drive. If someone has purchased a copy of MacOS from Apple, then I agree that they can do whatever they want with it. The thing is, no one purchases MacOS from Apple. They only lease it from Apple. That's why Apple has a right to decide how it's used.
    - satsuma 8y ago
      there's a disconnect here though because ford offers you the option of direct purchase. you don't have that with macos. i'd be willing to bet people who use hackintosh would be willing to buy a key and do things the right way if apple offered, but they don't so they find alternatives. it's the same kind of argument used with media piracy: make something easy enough to buy and use legally, and people will spend money on it. make it convoluted and require hoops, and those same people will find workarounds
      - wilsonnb 8y ago
        I'd be willing to bet on that too. I think offering a license key to put MacOS on whatever hardware you want would be really popular. I'd probably buy one myself. That said, convenience is a good argument for why things like media piracy and hackintoshes happen but not an argument at all for whether or not those actions are morally justified.
        Hamuko 8y ago
        I don't have a fiber in me that feels bad about having a Hackintosh. I'm an Apple customer. There's two MacBooks in my home. And going by the poll on tonymacx86 [1], >60% of the voters do own a Mac. Why would Apple want to come after these people, apart from legal trademark protection faffing? I'd say I have more of an incentive to buy a Mac if I can run it on all of my computers. If I ran a Linux distribution on my desktop, I'd buy a nice Windows machine and load it with the same OS. The problem is that Apple does not sell the hardware that I and a lot of people want to have. I think I paid around 1000 euros for my computer in raw parts. I think I could pay like 1400 euros for a same kind of machine if it had an Apple logo on the side and had guaranteed updates, which my computer doesn't. But I can't pay that. I can't even pay double to get that kind of a computer. It doesn't exist. [1] https://www.tonymacx86.com/threads/do-you-own-a-real-mac.59/ https://www.tonymacx86.com/threads/do-you-own-a-real-mac.59/
    - abiox 8y ago
      this comparison isn't particularly interesting, because you're comparing dissimilar things. a leased car is a physical item that has inherent costs in manufacturing and distribution. bits have asymptotically zero cost there. a leased car has to be recovered and released or sold. this doesn't apply to bits. etc.
- abiox 8y ago
  virtual and physical items are rather distinct in nature, and comparing them is often useless.
  - ksk 8y ago
    Why would you ever compare two items if they were identical?
    - abiox 8y ago
      why would you ignore category errors when comparing two items?
      - ksk 8y ago
        Because there is no agreed upon basis for you to claim a category error. Or at the very least, two reasonable people can agree that the basis of the classification is an opinion.
        abiox 8y ago
        sure, and understanding the category distinctions and how each person applies them leads being able to address things like wilsonnb's comment "That seems like a strange stance to take."

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]