6 ms·

Needless to say, this is a gross EULA violation (clarification: if you do it on non-Apple hardware, that is).

by csvan 11y ago

kuschku 11y ago
If you are in the US. In other countries, these parts of the EULA might not have a legal meaning at all.
- chii 11y ago
  in other countries, the US can activate and kill with drones, their laws have little to legal meaning at all.
  - jlt 11y ago
    Sure, I live in the UK and I live in constant fear of the mighty US drone army. Our laws (a great deal of which predate the existence of the US) have no meaning.
    - ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
      Congratulations, England is an old country.
      - pluma 11y ago
        Not that old. The US is just an infant by comparison, that is all. If you want an old country, look at China.
        chrisBob 11y ago
        The Republic of China is only about 100 years old.
        pluma 11y ago
        The PRC, yes. China, no. That's like saying Germany is only 70 years old because the Federal Republic was only created after WW2.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
legulere 11y ago
It's not, you're allowed to install OS X in virtual machines granted it is on a apple device.
- josteink 11y ago
  > It's not, you're allowed to install OS X in virtual machines granted it is on a apple device. I was with you until you said something about restrictions. No court of law anywhere has said that you running standard X86 code in a standard X86 environment is illegal.
  - anon1385 11y ago
    Somehow I imagine you take a rather different stance when it comes to the many aspects of the GPL or AGPL that haven't been tested in court. On those issues the position of the FSF is very much 'illegal till proven otherwise' (that's if you actually succeed in getting Eben Moglen to give a straight answer).
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      That's one of the most often repeated bits of nonsense regarding the GPL, the FSF has always been more than willing to test these aspects in court it's just that nobody has felt sure enough they would prevail in such a lawsuit that they bothered to follow through on it. Effectively this is testimony to how well the GPL has been put together from a legal point of view, it is bad contracts, agreements and licenses that are tested in court.
      - anon1385 11y ago
        So you think the FSF/SFLC wanted to go to court over this case, where Moglen was giving private legal advice to linux developers that was very much in conflict with copyright law[1]? I don't. Uncertainty over what adaption means serves their purposes. Uncertainty about the legality of taking somebody else's code and just relicensing it as GPL also serves their purpose. As does uncertainly over what results in a combined or derivative work with GPL binaries. The more solidly those lines are drawn then the less risk people face when calling GPL code from GPL incompatible code. That means people are more likely to do all the kinds of things that RMS fears (e.g. proprietary IDEs that call out to gcc and all that kind of thing, which RMS was talking about recently in relation to emacs interfacing with gcc). The problem they face is that ultimately they can't create a license that prevents interoperation with proprietary code without also violating freedom zero. The only real way they have to discourage people from doing that is legal uncertainty. That is why it's very difficult to get a straight answer from the FSF or SFLC about what constitutes a combined work (other than them just claiming everything in the world is a combined work, which is the usual nonsense reply you will get). If they answer the question then it's them flagging up the best way to get around the GPL. For example the FSF claim that distributing FooApp that links to a user chosen library at runtime and calls frobulate() requires FooApp to be GPL licensed, even if the developer of FooApp doesn't distribute the library with the app (or at all), so long as there exists a library implementing frobulate() that is GPL licensed. If you really press them on this point then they will argue that it depends if other non-GPL libraries also implement frobulate(). Of course that creates a large loophole - just create a very basic crappy implementation of the API and make it available, with the expectation that users will actually use the superior GPL library. So it's worth noting that the FSF doesn't actually accept that argument when it comes the readline and editline. Distributing a binary containing the symbols for the readline API [2] is a GPL violation as far as they are concerned. Yet they have not taken anybody to court over this yet even though the FSF owns the copyright for readline. You can easily find people with quite different views on what the linking clauses in the GPL mean[3], so it's clear that there is a great deal of confusion out there. Nobody really knows what it means till it gets tested in court and the FSF have no interest in getting this cleared up because there is a non-zero chance that the courts don't agree with the FSF's interpretation of title 17. Once the red line is drawn over what is and isn't a combined work then people will be free to work around the GPL with minimal legal risk. That much legal uncertainty is not the sign of a well written license, if you think the aim of a license is to clearly enumerate what rights people have. If you think a software license is a political weapon then you probably don't care that some people are being scared away from doing things they have a legal right to do with your code (but that you don't like). [1] http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118963284332223 http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118963284332223 [2] e.g http://tuomov.bitcheese.net/b/archives/2005/12/23/T22_53_01 http://tuomov.bitcheese.net/b/archives/2005/12/23/T22_53_01 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1877926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1877926
josteink 11y ago
Yes. Those legally binding EULAs with the associated EULA-violations we've constantly heard people getting jailed over. How about you Mac-heads come to terms with Macs being bog standard X86 hardware and OSX being a bog standard X86 OS, and that running a bog standard X86 OS on bog standard X86 hardware is absolutely within everyone's legal right to do? There's nothing special about your hardware nor OS. Get over it. In the meantime I will virtualize OSX to get the Mac-specific parts of my build and tests running, and leave everything else on proper Linux.
- antimagic 11y ago
  Yes, because all "mac heads" are responsible for the choices made by Apple </s>
- supercoder 11y ago
  As the Apple hardware & software combo is so beautiful, I prefer to run OSX and virtualize Linux when necessary.
  - PopeOfNope 11y ago
    At the very least, it's less hassle than linux thanks largely to well supported hardware. As for the beauty of the hardware and software, it becomes less so with every passing year.
    - josteink 11y ago
      On the contrary I find OSX's hardware support very poor compared to Linux. I can buy any Thinkpad and boot Ubuntu with all hardware detected and functional. I cannot do the same with OSX.
      - PopeOfNope 11y ago
        > I can buy any Thinkpad and boot Ubuntu with all hardware detected and functional. Until you try to hook up an external screen, then all bets are off. I know because I recently attempted to do just that (w530, ubuntu 14.04 LTS). Compare that to buying a macbook pro and it's no contest. The hardware is simply better supported.
nathankunicki 11y ago
Virtualization is expressly permitted by the Mac OS X 10.10.3 (Yosemite) SLA (Section 2B III) - http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/OSX10103.pdf http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/OSX10103.pdf (iii) to install, use and run up to two (2) additional copies or instances of the Apple Software within virtual operating system environments on each Mac Computer you own or control that is already running the Apple Software, for purposes of: (a) software development; (b) testing during software development; (c) using OS X Server; or (d) personal, non-commercial use. Unless you are talking about the modification of the installation media. That, I am unclear on.
- michaelt 11y ago
  What I don't understand is: If Apple allows people to visualise OS X, why do they make doing so such a pain in the ass? I looked into virtualising OS X so I could test an installer on a clean machine image, but the instructions always involve downloading patched ISOs from torrent sites. Seemed to me testing like that would make me less professional, not more professional :)
  - mschuster91 11y ago
    I managed to install OS X Yosemite on Windows VMWare Workstation 10 using a commonly available VMWare patch and a USB stick for the installation, created using the standard createinstallmedia command.
  - jakobegger 11y ago
    Installing OSX 10.7 and later in VMWare Fusion on OSX is trivial. If I recall correctly, VMWare does it automatically if you just pass it the Installer from the app store. Installing 10.6 requires a bit of hackery unless you have a copy of the server version. I have a bunch of VMs for testing my OS X apps on older versions of the OS.
  - JohnTHaller 11y ago
    Apple only permits you to virtualize their OS on Mac hardware. They make it purposely difficult on everything else as they want every developer to have to buy into the hardware ecosystem to be able to build software for OS X and iOS.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

Needless to say, this is a gross EULA violation (clarification: if you do it on non-Apple hardware, that is).

by csvan 11y ago

Needless to say, this is a gross EULA violation (clarification: if you do it on non-Apple hardware, that is).

kuschku 11y ago

If you are in the US. In other countries, these parts of the EULA might not have a legal meaning at all.

chii 11y ago
in other countries, the US can activate and kill with drones, their laws have little to legal meaning at all.
- jlt 11y ago
  Sure, I live in the UK and I live in constant fear of the mighty US drone army. Our laws (a great deal of which predate the existence of the US) have no meaning.
  - ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
    Congratulations, England is an old country.
    - pluma 11y ago
      Not that old. The US is just an infant by comparison, that is all. If you want an old country, look at China.
      - chrisBob 11y ago
        The Republic of China is only about 100 years old.
        pluma 11y ago
        The PRC, yes. China, no. That's like saying Germany is only 70 years old because the Federal Republic was only created after WW2.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

legulere 11y ago

It's not, you're allowed to install OS X in virtual machines granted it is on a apple device.

josteink 11y ago
> It's not, you're allowed to install OS X in virtual machines granted it is on a apple device. I was with you until you said something about restrictions. No court of law anywhere has said that you running standard X86 code in a standard X86 environment is illegal.
- anon1385 11y ago
  Somehow I imagine you take a rather different stance when it comes to the many aspects of the GPL or AGPL that haven't been tested in court. On those issues the position of the FSF is very much 'illegal till proven otherwise' (that's if you actually succeed in getting Eben Moglen to give a straight answer).
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    That's one of the most often repeated bits of nonsense regarding the GPL, the FSF has always been more than willing to test these aspects in court it's just that nobody has felt sure enough they would prevail in such a lawsuit that they bothered to follow through on it. Effectively this is testimony to how well the GPL has been put together from a legal point of view, it is bad contracts, agreements and licenses that are tested in court.
    - anon1385 11y ago
      So you think the FSF/SFLC wanted to go to court over this case, where Moglen was giving private legal advice to linux developers that was very much in conflict with copyright law[1]? I don't. Uncertainty over what adaption means serves their purposes. Uncertainty about the legality of taking somebody else's code and just relicensing it as GPL also serves their purpose. As does uncertainly over what results in a combined or derivative work with GPL binaries. The more solidly those lines are drawn then the less risk people face when calling GPL code from GPL incompatible code. That means people are more likely to do all the kinds of things that RMS fears (e.g. proprietary IDEs that call out to gcc and all that kind of thing, which RMS was talking about recently in relation to emacs interfacing with gcc). The problem they face is that ultimately they can't create a license that prevents interoperation with proprietary code without also violating freedom zero. The only real way they have to discourage people from doing that is legal uncertainty. That is why it's very difficult to get a straight answer from the FSF or SFLC about what constitutes a combined work (other than them just claiming everything in the world is a combined work, which is the usual nonsense reply you will get). If they answer the question then it's them flagging up the best way to get around the GPL. For example the FSF claim that distributing FooApp that links to a user chosen library at runtime and calls frobulate() requires FooApp to be GPL licensed, even if the developer of FooApp doesn't distribute the library with the app (or at all), so long as there exists a library implementing frobulate() that is GPL licensed. If you really press them on this point then they will argue that it depends if other non-GPL libraries also implement frobulate(). Of course that creates a large loophole - just create a very basic crappy implementation of the API and make it available, with the expectation that users will actually use the superior GPL library. So it's worth noting that the FSF doesn't actually accept that argument when it comes the readline and editline. Distributing a binary containing the symbols for the readline API [2] is a GPL violation as far as they are concerned. Yet they have not taken anybody to court over this yet even though the FSF owns the copyright for readline. You can easily find people with quite different views on what the linking clauses in the GPL mean[3], so it's clear that there is a great deal of confusion out there. Nobody really knows what it means till it gets tested in court and the FSF have no interest in getting this cleared up because there is a non-zero chance that the courts don't agree with the FSF's interpretation of title 17. Once the red line is drawn over what is and isn't a combined work then people will be free to work around the GPL with minimal legal risk. That much legal uncertainty is not the sign of a well written license, if you think the aim of a license is to clearly enumerate what rights people have. If you think a software license is a political weapon then you probably don't care that some people are being scared away from doing things they have a legal right to do with your code (but that you don't like). [1] http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118963284332223 http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118963284332223 [2] e.g http://tuomov.bitcheese.net/b/archives/2005/12/23/T22_53_01 http://tuomov.bitcheese.net/b/archives/2005/12/23/T22_53_01 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1877926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1877926

josteink 11y ago

Yes. Those legally binding EULAs with the associated EULA-violations we've constantly heard people getting jailed over. How about you Mac-heads come to terms with Macs being bog standard X86 hardware and OSX being a bog standard X86 OS, and that running a bog standard X86 OS on bog standard X86 hardware is absolutely within everyone's legal right to do? There's nothing special about your hardware nor OS. Get over it. In the meantime I will virtualize OSX to get the Mac-specific parts of my build and tests running, and leave everything else on proper Linux.

antimagic 11y ago
Yes, because all "mac heads" are responsible for the choices made by Apple </s>
supercoder 11y ago
As the Apple hardware & software combo is so beautiful, I prefer to run OSX and virtualize Linux when necessary.
- PopeOfNope 11y ago
  At the very least, it's less hassle than linux thanks largely to well supported hardware. As for the beauty of the hardware and software, it becomes less so with every passing year.
  - josteink 11y ago
    On the contrary I find OSX's hardware support very poor compared to Linux. I can buy any Thinkpad and boot Ubuntu with all hardware detected and functional. I cannot do the same with OSX.
    - PopeOfNope 11y ago
      > I can buy any Thinkpad and boot Ubuntu with all hardware detected and functional. Until you try to hook up an external screen, then all bets are off. I know because I recently attempted to do just that (w530, ubuntu 14.04 LTS). Compare that to buying a macbook pro and it's no contest. The hardware is simply better supported.

nathankunicki 11y ago

Virtualization is expressly permitted by the Mac OS X 10.10.3 (Yosemite) SLA (Section 2B III) - http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/OSX10103.pdf http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/OSX10103.pdf (iii) to install, use and run up to two (2) additional copies or instances of the Apple Software within virtual operating system environments on each Mac Computer you own or control that is already running the Apple Software, for purposes of: (a) software development; (b) testing during software development; (c) using OS X Server; or (d) personal, non-commercial use. Unless you are talking about the modification of the installation media. That, I am unclear on.

michaelt 11y ago
What I don't understand is: If Apple allows people to visualise OS X, why do they make doing so such a pain in the ass? I looked into virtualising OS X so I could test an installer on a clean machine image, but the instructions always involve downloading patched ISOs from torrent sites. Seemed to me testing like that would make me less professional, not more professional :)
- mschuster91 11y ago
  I managed to install OS X Yosemite on Windows VMWare Workstation 10 using a commonly available VMWare patch and a USB stick for the installation, created using the standard createinstallmedia command.
- jakobegger 11y ago
  Installing OSX 10.7 and later in VMWare Fusion on OSX is trivial. If I recall correctly, VMWare does it automatically if you just pass it the Installer from the app store. Installing 10.6 requires a bit of hackery unless you have a copy of the server version. I have a bunch of VMs for testing my OS X apps on older versions of the OS.
- JohnTHaller 11y ago
  Apple only permits you to virtualize their OS on Mac hardware. They make it purposely difficult on everything else as they want every developer to have to buy into the hardware ecosystem to be able to build software for OS X and iOS.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]