5 ms·

I just built a fairly powerful desktop hackintosh and I'm running OSX 10.7.3. The little bit of research that went into ensuring all the parts were compatible w

I just built a fairly powerful desktop hackintosh and I'm running OSX 10.7.3. The little bit of research that went into ensuring all the parts were compatible was well worth the cash savings.

rurounijones 14y ago
Just to make a slight change: "I just build a fairly powerful desktop hackintosh and I'm running OSX 10.7.3 illegally" Now you might not care about the licensing restrictions on Mac operating systems (I don't) but saying "Oh you can just do this" when it is technically* breaking the law is not an alternative for many people. * Rather up in the air at the moment to be sure, but err on the side of caution
- bombtrack 14y ago
  You are correct and that is unfortunate. For what it's worth, I purchased a copy of Lion.
  - rurounijones 14y ago
    Sorry, I did not mean to imply that the copy was not paid for; just talking about the licensing restrictions.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  Your not breaking "the law" as nobody can come and arrest you for running OSX on your PC. The worst that could happen is that Apple would try to sue you, but have there been any successful cases of this? End user being sued that is , not companies that were selling PCs with OSX on.
  - rurounijones 14y ago
    You're breaking "the law" in that you are (in the US at least) violating the DMCA (Possibly, like I said, grey area). Having said that, I am not interested in arguing pedantic semantics about about what constitutes "the law" and what "breaking" it entails.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - jiggy2011 14y ago
      Would it be a DMCA violation? I'm not really sure of the specifics here. You wouldn't be breaking copyright , since you're not making a copy (assuming you bought a legit copy of the OS). You also aren't circumventing any of the copy protection afaik since OSX doesn't really have any.
      - rurounijones 14y ago
        http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9121798/Apple_adds_DMCA_charge_to_lawsuit_against_Psystar http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9121798/Apple_adds_DM... Basically Apple says there is code in there to lock their OS to their hardware, it doesn't have to be particularly good, as long as it is there and has to be circumvented for a hackintosh (you cannot just pop a DVD in and install, unless things have changed since I last had a look). The Apple statement is in that article if you want their legal definition.
    - itsboring 14y ago
      Whether something is a federal crime (you know, with warrants and handcuffs and all that) or not hardly seems pedantic. You're the one making the assertion here, so do you have any legal sources to cite or are you sticking with the "pedantic semantics" argument when someone challenges your point?
      - rurounijones 14y ago
        Ok, then for me breaking "The law" covers Civil Law and Criminal law. I never made any mention of Federal or not and don't see how that matters. I thought it was well known on HN that Apple used the DMCA ( Digital Millennium Copyright Act, aka, part of "the law" in the US) against the Hackintosh company Psystar, I guess I was wrong. A quick google will bring up the specifics if you want it. (e.g. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/02/apple_psystar_dmca/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/02/apple_psystar_dmca/) The reason I said it was a grey area was that the DMCA supposedly has provisions for compatibilty and personal use. So it could be argued that installing it yourself on your own hackingtosh (not commercially like Psystar did) does not violate the DMCA, but since this has not yet been tested in court (as far as I know) do this at your own risk.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

I just built a fairly powerful desktop hackintosh and I'm running OSX 10.7.3. The little bit of research that went into ensuring all the parts were compatible was well worth the cash savings.

rurounijones 14y ago

Just to make a slight change: "I just build a fairly powerful desktop hackintosh and I'm running OSX 10.7.3 illegally" Now you might not care about the licensing restrictions on Mac operating systems (I don't) but saying "Oh you can just do this" when it is technically* breaking the law is not an alternative for many people. * Rather up in the air at the moment to be sure, but err on the side of caution

bombtrack 14y ago
You are correct and that is unfortunate. For what it's worth, I purchased a copy of Lion.
- rurounijones 14y ago
  Sorry, I did not mean to imply that the copy was not paid for; just talking about the licensing restrictions.
jiggy2011 14y ago
Your not breaking "the law" as nobody can come and arrest you for running OSX on your PC. The worst that could happen is that Apple would try to sue you, but have there been any successful cases of this? End user being sued that is , not companies that were selling PCs with OSX on.
- rurounijones 14y ago
  You're breaking "the law" in that you are (in the US at least) violating the DMCA (Possibly, like I said, grey area). Having said that, I am not interested in arguing pedantic semantics about about what constitutes "the law" and what "breaking" it entails.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    Would it be a DMCA violation? I'm not really sure of the specifics here. You wouldn't be breaking copyright , since you're not making a copy (assuming you bought a legit copy of the OS). You also aren't circumventing any of the copy protection afaik since OSX doesn't really have any.
    - rurounijones 14y ago
      http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9121798/Apple_adds_DMCA_charge_to_lawsuit_against_Psystar http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9121798/Apple_adds_DM... Basically Apple says there is code in there to lock their OS to their hardware, it doesn't have to be particularly good, as long as it is there and has to be circumvented for a hackintosh (you cannot just pop a DVD in and install, unless things have changed since I last had a look). The Apple statement is in that article if you want their legal definition.
  - itsboring 14y ago
    Whether something is a federal crime (you know, with warrants and handcuffs and all that) or not hardly seems pedantic. You're the one making the assertion here, so do you have any legal sources to cite or are you sticking with the "pedantic semantics" argument when someone challenges your point?
    - rurounijones 14y ago
      Ok, then for me breaking "The law" covers Civil Law and Criminal law. I never made any mention of Federal or not and don't see how that matters. I thought it was well known on HN that Apple used the DMCA ( Digital Millennium Copyright Act, aka, part of "the law" in the US) against the Hackintosh company Psystar, I guess I was wrong. A quick google will bring up the specifics if you want it. (e.g. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/02/apple_psystar_dmca/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/02/apple_psystar_dmca/) The reason I said it was a grey area was that the DMCA supposedly has provisions for compatibilty and personal use. So it could be argued that installing it yourself on your own hackingtosh (not commercially like Psystar did) does not violate the DMCA, but since this has not yet been tested in court (as far as I know) do this at your own risk.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]