The Mac Observer

Skip navigational links

Featured Article: TMO Quick Tip - iCal: Better Birthday Syncing

OSx86 Hit with DMCA Threat from Apple

by , 9:10 AM EST, February 17th, 2006

The OSx86 project Web site, which provides a community forum on running Mac OS X 10.4 on non-Mac hardware, has been served with a notice from Apple that it is violating the United State's DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act). OSx86 has temporarily shut down its forums, but the rest of the site is still active.

The forums section on the site now displays this message:

We're sorry to report that despite our best efforts, the OSx86 Project has been served with a DMCA violation notice. The forum will be unavailable while we evaluate its contents to remove any violations present. We thank you for your patience in this matter.

Apple contends that Mac OS X is not licensed to be used on non-Mac hardware, and trying to do so is a violation of the company's terms of use. As a reminder to so called "hackers," Apple even left a poem embedded in its code. OSx86 found the verse and posted that on its site, too.

Your karma check for today:
There once was a user that whined
his existing OS was so blind,
he'd do better to pirate
an OS that ran great
but found his hardware declined.
Please don't steal Mac OS!
Really, that's way uncool.
(C) Apple Computer, Inc.

Although the OSx86 Project feels that it has not violated the DMCA, it has shut down its forums while it evaluates the posts for possible violations.

Representatives from the OSx86 Project were not available for comment.

Observer Comments

Show: Subjects Only | Full Comments
Close Name:madgunde Posts: 66 Joined: 02 Dec 2004
Subject: Good.

If you want to run an OS on your own home-built PC or Dell, use Windows or Linux or any of the other half-dozen operating systems designed to do that.

If you want to run Mac OS X, buy a Mac. Simple as that. Just because you have a legal copy of Mac OS X, you are bound by the license agreement for that software, which DOES NOT permit you to install it on anything but a Mac. If you don't like that, then don't buy it.

If you are pirating it, which is definitely the case, since you can't buy Mac OS X for Intel off the shelf yet, then you were stupid to publicise your endeavors on the web to begin with. You're lucky you lasted this long.

View Name:Guest
Subject: Fair Use
Close Name:Dean Lewis Posts: 156 Joined: 29 Sep 2001
Subject:

I can put cheese in my toaster all I want.

I'll eventually have to go buy some more cheese and a new toaster, though. While I'm out, maybe I'll get something actually designed to heat up the cheese without becoming useless itself or doing the cheese a bad turn.

Or I can get another toaster and keep cramming it full of Wensleydale.

View Name:Guest
Subject: You don't buy the OS, you buy _a license_
View Name:Guest
Subject:
View Name:Guest
Subject: Re: Fair Use
View Name:Guest
Subject: Mac hardware works
Close Name:Juha Posts: 6 Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Subject: re: Mac hardware works.

The anonymous post above feels like it has been written by Apple employee...

But i do agree with the issue. People have bought a license to use Mac OS in a Mac hardware. They have not bought rights to make modifications to it, and to distribute it to 3rd parties...

View Name:Guest
Subject: Re: Re: fair use
Close Name:fultonkbd Posts: 121 Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Subject: come on

I agree, if they stole the OS then they are wrong. But if anybody purchases an OS and gets it to run on any hardware supported or unsupported I don't think it's that big a deal.

What if people install OSX on "unsupported" Mac hardware? Do they get fined or jail time? What if people purchase an processor upgrade? Should they be prosecuted?

Where do you (or Apple, or judge) draw the line? Again, I agree if they pirated a version of OSX then they are in the wrong.

Close Name:macinnerd Posts: 1681 Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Subject:

I agree with those who think that, as long as you legally purchased a copy of the Mac OS™, you have the right to install it on anything you want. And OS X86 was more of an experimental community, discussing the possibilities of installing the much praised Mac OS™ on unsupported hardware. Never did anyone expect the majority of the installed user base to be operating on unsupported hardware, and that would have never become a reality. Apple could have just left that small community alone.

View Name:Guest
Subject: drawing the line
Close Name:mshoaf Posts: 112 Joined: 02 Dec 2002
Subject: ownership

I think a lot of people just don't get the whole issue of just what it is they own when it comes to software or pre-recorded music or video. Normally, if I buy a tangible object, I am free to use it, tinker with it, and maybe eventually sell it at a profit or a loss... but people treat media the same as a tangible object, thinking they have the right to tinker, and copy, and redistribute, etc. as they deem appropriate.

This is not like my friend who recently installed a Buick engine in his Ford car. He owns both the car and the engine, as they are tangible items. Though we can do quite a bit with our hardware (I could paint my G5 purple, or add a different HD or vid card.), only Apple has the right to tinker with OS X.

Close Name:fultonkbd Posts: 121 Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Subject:

Quote
Guest wrote:
in reference to fultonkbd's post:

Where do you draw the line? The line is drawn when the software (operating system) is altered in order to run on x86 machines. Purchasing OS X does not grant you the right to hack the software, you agree to that when you install it or use it for the first time.


So again, what about OWC? They have shareware available for years that allows Mac OS X to run on unsupported hardware. How come Apple isn't threatening them? Is that line drawn because it's still unsupported Apple hardware and if so why does that make a difference?

What about all the processor upgrade companies. Don't they have software that comes with the cards that allow you to run the OS with that chip? I seem to recall installing software with my Sonnet upgrade.

Please don't read into this. I'm not trying to edge anyone on. I'm just curious to see where people stand. Again, if a person is pirating software, I believe it's wrong. I just don't think running OS X on unsupported hardware is all that wrong as long as both the OS and the hardware are legitimate.

Close Name:Biff Posts: 1479 Joined: 08 Apr 2004
Subject:

We don't need to get all philosophical about this. We all know Apple makes the money on the hardware. The virtual powerpc software that let you sort of install OS X and sort of run it was crappy at best and barely functional. Not much of a threat. People installing OS X natively on non-Apple hardware is not crappy and would be a threat. This threatens their profits and that's bad for them. Given that they control OS X and the license agreement, they are doing what is in their best interests.

And running OS X on uncontrolled hardware configurations can and will lead to a less than optimal experience and, while we know that would not be Apple's fault, people would still come away with a negative impression of OS X and Apple. So again this is not in their best interest.

I don't see anything wrong with it personally, but maybe thats just cause I love Apple's hardware and would prefer to see them stay in business.

Close Name:Intruder -   TMO Mac Specialist Posts: 2926 Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Subject:

Quote
fultonkbd wrote:
So again, what about OWC? They have shareware available for years that allows Mac OS X to run on unsupported hardware. How come Apple isn't threatening them? Is that line drawn because it's still unsupported Apple hardware and if so why does that make a difference?

What about all the processor upgrade companies. Don't they have software that comes with the cards that allow you to run the OS with that chip? I seem to recall installing software with my Sonnet upgrade.

Please don't read into this. I'm not trying to edge anyone on. I'm just curious to see where people stand. Again, if a person is pirating software, I believe it's wrong. I just don't think running OS X on unsupported hardware is all that wrong as long as both the OS and the hardware are legitimate.


But it is still running on Apple hardware. Old Apple hardware, but still...

When Apple says OSX is unsupported on a particular Mac configuration, it means that it has not been tested or designed to run well on that hardware, and don't call them if it doesn't work well. But it is still Apple hardware, which is within the EULA (I don't believe the EULA states particular models of hardware is allowed.)

View Name:Guest
Subject: fultonkbd
Close Name:fultonkbd Posts: 121 Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Subject: didn't know

Ok I see your point. I don't know how OWC software works. So taking that you are correct I can see that line. But people are arguing that its wrong because it robs Apple of a hardware sale. So coming from that angle isn't OWC still wrong because you haven't purchased new hardware to run a new OS?

Honestly, I don't think a few people tinkering around getting OS X to run on unsupported hardware isn't going to put Apple out of business. Doing this and documenting it just doesn't seem wrong to me. Is the gentleman who got his car to run on cooking oil running Exxon out of business? To me it's kind of the same thing.

With that said, I don't fault Apple for doing what they did. I just think that the threat that nobody would ever buying Apple hardware again is a far jump.

View Name:Guest
Subject:
Close Name:fultonkbd Posts: 121 Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Subject: Point taken

Quote
Guest wrote:
...yes, hardware enablers were to make sure the cache functioned correctly, not make the OS compatible with the CPU. It would be different if you bought a Pentium 4 chip on a Daughter card designed to fit the Mac, and needed to make fundamental changes to the OS for it to run.


Point taken as with the previous person who posted. From my understanding the OSx86 group altered a possibly pirated copy of Mac OS X designed for Intel chips. I don't necessarily fault Apple for protecting what it feels it needs to protect,.

My point is, if a person has a legit copy of Mac OS X now or in the future, a version that will run on Intel chips or PPC chips where does the fair use line get drawn. Can said person just do it and keep it to themselves? Can said person document how they did it and post it on the internet? Can said person go ahead and sell the info or even sell a computer or two to make an extra buck?

Now I don't agree with my last suggestion but think said person should be able to get away with the other two within fair use. But if you are in disagreement. What do you suggest the punishment for this crime is? A strong letter? A fine? Community service? Jail time?

My reasons are more curiosity. With this and the recent RIAA articles about copying a CD to an iPod doesn't fall within fair use. I'm curious to see just what people think fair use is compared to what companies and lawmakers do.

View Name:Guest
Subject:
View Name:Guest
Subject: ????????????????????????????????????
Close Name:LaurieF -   TMO Forum Mod Posts: 3498 Joined: 15 Jun 2001
Subject:

Why are you writing unintelligible drivel? what are you trying to say? is it relevant will it make sense when you re-word it?

Comment on this Article


You cannot edit your comments.   You cannot delete your comments.
Log in | Register | Having Problems? Reset TMO Cookies & Try Again
Username:   Password:   Log me on automatically each visit   

You are not logged in, and this post will appear as "Guest." Log in with your username and password from the TMO forums. If you do not have a username, you can register here.
Please note that guests are limited to including a maximum of two URLs per post.


Post A Comment
  Subject


  Your Comments



Please enter the word exactly as you see it in the image above. Registered users aren't prompted for this. Having trouble reading the image get a new one.


Recent Headlines - Updated Friday, July 4th, 2008

Fri., 7:30 AM
Happy Fourth of July!
Thu., 4:50 PM
Apple Slashes $400 from SSD Drive in MacBook Air
4:05 PM
It's Official - Firefox Sets Guinness Record for Downloads
3:30 PM
Apple Files Patent for a Multi-touch Gesture Language
2:20 PM
Editorial - Mac's Market Share and the Cascade Failure of Windows
1:35 PM
iPodObserver - Apple Slurps Up Samsung's NAND Flash for iPhone 3G
1:05 PM
WSJ: Tips for Switching from Windows to Mac
12:05 PM
iPodObserver - Google Intros Google Talk for iPhone
11:35 AM
iPO Just a Thought - iPod nano Versus iPhone: Decisons, Decisions...
10:55 AM
YouTube Ordered to Turn Over All User Records to Viacom
10:10 AM
Hot Forum Topic - Apple vs. Cell Carriers: Who's Winning the Game
9:25 AM
iPodObserver - Rumor: Best Buy, Radio Shack to Sell iPhone 3G
8:45 AM
.Mac Bookmark Sync Deadline Extended to July 6
8:10 AM
Adobe Reader 9 Hits the Streets
 

The Mac Observer Reader Specials

  • Special Report: WWDC 2008
  • Special Report: iPhone
  • __________
  • Help TMO Grow
  • Podcast: Mac Geek Gab
  • Podcast: Apple Weekly Report
  • TMO on Twitter!
  • New Media Expo 2008

Apple Stock Quote

  • AAPL: $170.12. Change Today: +1.94.
  • (Prices delayed up to 20 minutes.)
  • Discuss in our Apple Finance Board

Hot Topics

Apple iTunes

Top Deals From DealsOnTheWeb