3 ms·
I never understood how they could think a business model that circumvents DMCA was going to succeed. Folks, every hackintosh uses a kext called dsmos.kext. It's
by yardie 17y ago
I never understood how they could think a business model that circumvents DMCA was going to succeed. Folks, every hackintosh uses a kext called dsmos.kext. It's purpose is to decrypt Apple encrypted system binaries. It wasn't written or authorized by Apple.
As an avid OSX86 tinkerer I was conflicted about the case. Part of me wanted Psystar to win while the other part wanted the entire thing to go away. If Psystar had prevailed it would only bring difficulties for the hackintosh community. Apple would have taken drastic measures to secure their business at the expense of hackintoshers.
- drewcrawford 17y agoFalse. The new fakesmc.kext replaces dsmos and doesn't perform any decryption. It simply fakes the SMC hardware device and provides the same encryption keys to the software that a real mac has in hardware, allowing Apple-provided code to do all the decryption just like what happens on a real mac. This is still a violation of the DMCA. But it's no more of a DMCA violation than selling software that plays DVDs on Linux, something that, IMHO, should definitely be legal.
- drinian 17y agoUnfortunately, "should be legal" and "is legal" are not the same thing. AFAIK there is, or was, a "legal" DVD player for Linux that pays the CSS patentholders' license fees. The situation is ridiculous. I was hoping that Psystar's case would at least help expose some of the DMCA's problems.