The hackintoshers accomplish this by using the Darwin kernel source code, which is available under the Apple Public Source License. The Darwin kernel is essentially the UNIX underpinnings of Mac OS X. And it is perfectly legal and legitimate to modify the kernel and make it available in binary form, so long as the developer offers the source code changes to recipients or makes them public. It is also perfectly legal and in the spirit of the APSL to run the Darwin kernel on non-Apple hardware and even ship products containing the original or modified Darwin kernel.

In the particular case of 10.6.2, patch developers say that Apple is doing finer differentiation of processor families in order to optimize some things for some of the Intel processors that are in supported Macs.

Apple gets a great deal of benefit from this arrangement. For starters, many of the security fixes you see streaming out of Apple are possible because outside parties can examine the source code, identify potential flaws or (better) implement actual exploits, and submit them back to Apple. Assuming that the hackintoshers are paying for each copy of Mac OS X they install, the part of the EULA they are violating is the “only install on Apple hardware” part.

“Assuming that the hackintoshers are paying for each copy of Mac OS X they install, the part of the EULA they are violating is the “only install on Apple hardware” part.”

As we well know, that’s assuming a WHOLE lot considering their first action is to install the software on hardware that VIOLATES the EULA.

As we well know, that’s assuming a WHOLE lot considering their first action is to install the software on hardware that VIOLATES the EULA.

You may feel that’s safe to assume. I first learned that Hackintoshing is borderline mainstream among geeks who can do it while helping a guy set up a router for Bosco’s Screen Share a couple months ago. He had an MSI Wind (~$350ish) that he took to DJ gigs because there was always a chance of his laptop getting jacked or dropped and he didn’t see putting his MBP at risk all the time. I take his word that he picked up the $29 SL upgrade to try to be fair to Apple. He had no problem paying me $50 to walk him through some secrets of setting up his LAN. As I’ve investigated the hackintosh web sites and forums, one thing I find quite often is friendly appeals and agreement to buy a legit copy of SL upgrade or Mac Box Set for no better reason than it’s good karma. So I don’t really know about the validity of your conclusion.

I don’t doubt that there are some users legally buying copies of Mac OSX. I would more likely base my assumption on the fact that the first part of the word is HACK. It’s obvious they’re violating the EULA to begin with and having to hack the code to get it to install. So it’s not a real stretch of the imagination to assume that there are many, if not a majority of the copies of the OS being installed on these machines that are probably copies obtained from friends, co-workers, etc., who have a valid set that they can use to install from. If Apple required an OS installation code and authorization to install, they probably could clamp down on this a bit more. But to their credit, they haven’t required that in a LONG time.

They still believe in the honor system. Go figure! Have a great weekend y’all!

I don’t doubt that there are some users legally buying copies of Mac OSX. I would more likely base my assumption on the fact that the first part of the word is HACK.

Tiger, hack does not mean to do something illegal. Hack means to do something successfully. A “hacker” then is anyone who does things successfully.

You’ve conflated “hack” with “crack.”

If Apple required an OS installation code and authorization to install, they probably could clamp down on this a bit more. But to their credit, they haven’t required that in a LONG time.

I wonder what the bottom line on this turns out to be with a niche operating system player like Apple, especially since they have fairly effective hardware tying and a certain amount of customer lock-in (since you can’t move your Mac apps over to Windows). In other words, would it increase sales of Mac OS X upgrades to have that call home authorization? DRM doesn’t necessarily mean more sales than non DRM. The digital music market, for example, didn’t tank in 2009. You’ve got to think about these issues in terms of maximizing profit, not in terms of spanking people more effectively.

It’s obvious they’re violating the EULA

You mean I wasn’t supposed to use iTunes to produce biochemical weapons? Shoot, you caught me!

legit copy

Isn’t this a contradiction? Can any copy be legit?

Why make “friendly appeals”?

Can’t they just buy the stuff they need from Apple - like I do?

I must be missing something here, or worse still, I don’t understand what a “hack” is; or even if an “EULA” is enforceable.  Confused.

Isn’t this a contradiction? Can any copy be legit?

Can’t they just buy the stuff they need from Apple - like I do?

That is what is meant by “legit copy”—bought from Apple. Everybody I know (including myself) who has hacked the OS onto a Netbook has bought Leopard, and done a so-called retail install. The hacks are done, as Bosco pointed out, to the open-source kernel, and to other, non Apple drivers (graphics, sound, etc.) A properly-bought OS (in my case, direct from Apple) is legit? or no?

-Jon

Oh Jon, now you’ve stepped in it . You must have missed the thread where other posters here called me a thief even for giving hackintoshers of any flavor any sense of moral cover. The crimes they will accuse you of are unimaginable!

Can’t they just buy the stuff they need from Apple - like I do?

Again, the hackintoshers that I’ve run into who are doing it for any practical reason are doing it because Apple’s hardware is overspec’d and overpriced for their needs. They do not need the supposed Apple high quality of Apple hardware. Or, in a case I’ve described, they don’t need their laptop to be a $2000 theft target.

I think a lot of you have a problem with this because it violates a shrink wrap contract. And my point all along is that there are enough people who don’t care about violating this term or that term of a shrink wrap contract that it’s counterproductive to be upset about it and more productive to figure out how to sell them something.

Again, the hackintoshers that I’ve run into who are doing it for any practical reason are doing it because Apple’s hardware is overspec’d and overpriced for their needs.

In a previous post Bosco said “one thing I find quite often is friendly appeals and agreement to buy a legit copy of SL upgrade or Mac Box Set”

And I asked ” Can’t they just buy the stuff they need from Apple…”

“Stuff” is an abbreviation for “a legit copy of SL upgrade or Mac Box Set”

JonGI said he bought his stuff direct from Apple - no friendly appeal there.

So where does Apple hardware come into this?
My original question stems from Bosco’s implication that there is a second-hand market for Apple OS/App software .  Even more confused

So where does Apple hardware come into this?
My original question stems from Bosco’s implication that there is a second-hand market for Apple OS/App software .  Even more confused

I’m probably confused about what you’re confused about, but I’ll try not to add to it too much.

According to Apple’s End User License Agreement (EULA), you are not allowed to install Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware. But since Apple made the switch to Intel Architecture hardware, people have been doing just that. These people are called “Hackintoshers” because they often have to do a few more obscure steps than just running the installer and rebooting their machines.

Yes, they just buy the Mac OS X upgrades from Apple. No, they don’t buy Apple hardware for the project. Many critics of hackintoshing say that not buying hardware from Apple makes these people cheap. I guess I misinterpreted your question about “stuff” to be that kind of critique. My bad.

This article, and the subsequent comments, is about hacking non-Apple hardware (in this case, with Intel Atom processors)  so that an Apple OS can be installed - Right?

But Bosco’s comment -“one thing I find quite often is friendly appeals and agreement to buy a legit copy of SL upgrade or Mac Box Set” - confused me.

It occurred to me that someone might obtain the software from a non-Apple source so that they did not feel bound by the EULA. But maybe they don’t care about the EULA - it’s just less expensive that way; either legit copies, or non-legit copies; but then SL is only $29 so why bother ...  etc… etc..
Maybe I’ve got that all wrong. I dunno.

Back to my very first post - Why the “friendly appeals… to buy SL ...”?
But now - one day later-  “they just buy the Mac OS X upgrades from Apple” -says Bosco. 

Maybe we’re all confused.

Maybe we’re all confused.

You definetly are.

You can get OS X either from Apple and other retailers, or you can download a pirated copy of OS X.

The community supports paying Apple for their work on OS X so they encourage everyone to purchase it legally rather than just pirating it. I know of several groups that advocate buying used Macs that come with full OS X licenses and then applying those licenses to their hackintoshes. Course the legal theory behind these actions has never been tested in a court of law to my knowledge. But then, I still don’t see how under a Common Law system a contract of adherence can be upheld and enforced.

It occurred to me that someone might obtain the software from a non-Apple source so that they did not feel bound by the EULA. But maybe they don’t care about the EULA - it’s just less expensive that way;

daemon’s explanation covers it. But you’re on an interesting track here. Every software developer who looks at software as a business, where the goal is to maximize profit, eventually realizes that EULAs are basically unenforceable in any practical sense. It doesn’t matter how big you are, the last thing you want to do is sue your customers. And if you’re small, forget it completely. Even Business Software Alliance (BSA) shakedowns are essentially marketing/sales exercises rather than legal exercises in the scheme of things.

Friedrich von Hayek, a Nobel winning Austrian (both in nationality and in school of thought) economist, popularized the distinction between “legislation” and “law”. “Legislation” are the rules that legislatures write, such as “Thou shalt not drive faster than 55” from 1973 to 1995 (when it was completely repealed). But the “law” of many roads—the speed people were actually driving—was around 65 mph. Or an example from the future… The California Energy Commission just passed a rule that will limit TVs Californians can buy retail starting in 2011. Guess what? They just handed Amazon.com and Crutchfield blank checks and further exacerbated the state budget problem, because nobody with a brain is going to buy an overspec’d, overpriced TV and pay nearly 10% sales tax to boot.

There’s a similar dichotomy with commercial software licenses. The “legislation” is the EULAs, which vary from company to company and contain all sorts of terms ranging from arcane to ridiculous to downright ballsy. Apple’s “Apple hardware only” term falls into the “downright ballsy” category, as it attempts to create a tying arrangement out of legal thin air. The “law” of single user EULAs that most of us follow boils down to 2 simple rules: (1) purchase 1 copy per computer, and (2) don’t distribute. Some licenses grant multi-user or site rights for additional fee, and we all mostly understand those too without having to read 20 pages of legal terms.

When EULA terms stray away from the “law” which has emerged for commercial end-user software, companies like Apple find themselves in messes like with the Hackintoshers. Should Apple crack down? Should Apple marginalize them by writing out processor support? Should Apple change its solid UNIX underpinnings to make it less possible? Should Apple require users to do a call-home activation and add hassle? Should Apple stop dealing with web sites such as MacInTouch and TUAW that dare speak of the Hackintoshers? Or maybe, should Apple bring its EULA into harmony with what the market expects?

I know of several groups that advocate buying used Macs that come with full OS X licenses and then applying those licenses to their hackintoshes.

How do they do that?  And why? Does that make their Hackintosh OS X legit?
This sounds quite different to hacking the Darwin kernel then installing OS X - along the lines described by Bosco & JonGI

I’m only seeking clarification; but some comments only serve to confuse.

It started with Bosco making an assumption about Hackintoshers paying for Mac OS X and Tiger assuming that assumption was wrong. It ended with Bosco asking six more questions. Great!

I’ll try again… According to Apple’s EULA, none of the Hackintoshes are “legit” because they run on non-Apple labeled hardware. So, if you are an IP absolutist, and think that any company can put anything they want in their EULA and you as a customer are legally and morally bound to follow their wishes, stop here.

The hack itself works as I’ve described. It replaces portions of the kernel and may add some drivers that are critical for things like sound, wireless, etc. The hacks are eventually packaged so that non-programmers can execute them. Maybe it’s a script, or maybe it’s a modified installer.

Does that clear up what’s going on? I raised the other questions because Hackintoshing is against Apple’s wishes, even when they sell copies of the Mac OS X upgrade DVDs to customers and because some people who comment on these boards think that Apple should clamp down on Hackintoshers of all types.

Thanks Bosco. That’s cleared that up. I appreciate you patience. I guess some things got lost in Trans-Atlantic translation. (I still don’t understand daemon’s comment about buying used Macs)

As I understand it an EULA is a Contract. Disputes are handled thru the Courts. Not adhering to the terms of an EULA is not a tort. It’s not like breaking the speed limit. You can’t be fined or put in jail. The parties meet in Court and one seeks compensation from the other for (allegedly) breaking the terms of the Contract. It has nothing to do with being legally and morally bound. It’s a contractual dispute. The Judge’s decision could go either way.

(I still don’t understand daemon’s comment about buying used Macs)

The only way to get a full license of OS X is to buy a Mac.

(I still don’t understand daemon’s comment about buying used Macs)

The reason for buying a used MAcintosh is because technically the OS you can buy from Apple is an upgrade, not a full license.  If you buy and upgrade and tehn install it on a computer that does not have a full license of a previous version, you are violating copyright - not just EULA, but copyright by making a new, full copy of the software using an upgrade license.

It would be like buying an upgrade license for Adobe’s CS4 (much cheaper than buying a full version) and installing it using a hack because you have no previous version.

I don’t recognize the EULA. I bought it, I own it. Detroit doesn’t tell me where I can drive my car. Yet.

As for idiot judges who rule EULA’s valid, that’s neither here nor there. The legality of EULA’s were never put to the test - until last week’s ruling - because the proponents of that preposterous “contract” framework could never be sure if they could land a sufficiently pro-business judge to rule in their favor. 27 years of Reagan and Bush appointees have given them those judges.

But I will not honor their pronouncements.

I think you (and probably most people) fail to understand the point of license agreements, and software licenses. The point is simple.

Without your license agreement, you would not have any right to actually use the software. Why? It’s simple—copyright. Copyright means that the owner of the copyright have exclusive right to controlling who gets a copy. It also means that you cannot make a copy—any copy of the work, in any form. period.

This means that you could not install the software on your hard drive, or even load it into RAM to execute it, because even this involves making a copy of the code. I may appear to be going over the top on this, but I remember licenses from the 80s, and they almost all covered this aspect of running the program—and in today’s world of virtualization, and running apps over the network, I bet it is not being overlooked. But in any case, without the license, you have no right to actually _use_ the software.

A license agreement means that the copyright owner actually _surrenders_ some rights to copying the software! In other words, it is they who are giving up something—not you as the user. So, for someone to say “I don’t recognize EULAs” is really rather…. hm… how to put it…. missing the point? Outside the license, you have NO right to the software. You don’t buy the software. You don’t own the code. The copyright owner does. All you own is the medium(or media) on which the code is. Outside the license, you are nothing more than a thief. You as the user NEED the license to actually USE the software. Your arrogance is rather misguided, misjudging and (to be blunt) rather immature.

This is not to say that some licenses don’t go beyond what copyright law allows—some most certainly do, and there is an outside chance that Apple’s SLA _does_ go beyond it. That said, I have my doubts that Apple’s SLA for Leopard or SN would or could be judged to be copyright abuse.

And I love your attempt at a dig at the Bushes. Nothing like going out of your way to discredit yourself… Rather than displaying your ego, why don’t you try doing some learning for a change. I so hate being so blunt, but your pronouncements really left no maneuvering room…

-Jon

Hmmm. Interesting comment JonGI. It makes the point that buying a software Licence is not like buying a car - it’s more like renting a car.  Next time you rent a car, catbeller, try telling the company that you don’t recognise the rental agreement that you just signed and you are now the new owner and you can do what you like.

As for Court cases; it seems the outcome often depends not only which country you are in but which part of which country and even which court.  EULAs (or any Contract for that matter) are rarely judged in total. The Court often decides which clauses shall, or shall not, apply. Courts are sometimes reluctant to approve parts of a contract that negates any rights a licensee would ordinarily enjoy, for example

As for buying a used Mac in order to obtain a full OS X Licence. The purchaser becomes a Licensee at the point of sale - which doesn’t happen when buying new. I’m not sure this helps a potential Hackintosher a whole lot. Maybe someone just wanted to unload a few old Macs!

This is not legal advice - simply my comments on my understanding of Apple’s EULA and how Contract disputes are normally handled in Court (location unspecified) and, as always, I could be confused, or just plain wrong.

As for buying a used Mac in order to obtain a full OS X Licence. The purchaser becomes a Licensee at the point of sale - which doesn’t happen when buying new. I’m not sure this helps a potential Hackintosher a whole lot. Maybe someone just wanted to unload a few old Macs!

The purpose of buying the old Macs is that buying a Mac is the only way to get a full install license of OS X.  The upgrade versions available are just that - upgrades. That means taking an upgrade and installing a full version on a new computer without an older version to upgrade is a direct violation of copyright law that has already been upheld in court.

But having a full version license on and older Mac, the problem of buying an upgrade license goes away, making Apple completely dependent on the untested limitation clause that says their OS can only be installed on Apple brand computers. In short, it puts them somewhat more within the EULA limitations than simply buying an OS X installer and putting it on a non-Apple PC.

Thanks zewazir,  What I’m saying is - at the point someone buys a used Mac they, in effect, take over the Licence that is in force at the point of sale. That licence may be an upgrade Licence.  The only way to be sure you are purchasing a full, single use Licence is to buy a new Mac.
Naturally, I stand to be corrected.

Copyright means that the owner of the copyright have exclusive right to controlling who gets a copy. It also means that you cannot make a copy—any copy of the work, in any form. period

JonGl you are so wrong you are laughable. Copyright does not give the owner exclusive right of control that prevents people from making copies or use of their copyrighted works.

There’s this thing, called “fair use,” that allows people to do crazy things with copyrighted works.

Thanks zewazir,  What I’m saying is - at the point someone buys a used Mac they, in effect, take over the Licence that is in force at the point of sale. That licence may be an upgrade Licence.  The only way to be sure you are purchasing a full, single use Licence is to buy a new Mac.
Naturally, I stand to be corrected.

All Macs come with full licenses, there is no such thing as a Mac that is sold without an operating system.

A Mac sold in 1996 with Mac OS 7 that is subsequently upgraded with OS 8, then OS 9, then OS X 10, then OS X 10.1 thru 10.6 still has a valid full license (OS 7) and has several valid upgrade licenses that build off of each other.

It’s kind of like starting out with Windows 1.0 and then buying nothing but upgrades thru to Windows 7. Completely legal and valid. Course Microsoft doesn’t try to restrict you to what hardware you can use (oddly they never had a problem with Macs emulating Windows).

That licence may be an upgrade Licence.  The only way to be sure you are purchasing a full, single use Licence is to buy a new Mac.

Every MAc, no matter how old, comes with a full OS license. IT may also ave been upgraded, but with the original license, those upgrades legitimate. You might say any MAc was a new Mac at some time.  If it came with 10.2 originally, and was upgraded to 10.3, then 10.4, then 10.5, it leaves an upgrade trail to go with 10.6 next.

Thus, if one buys an older MAc first, the question for Hackintoshes is pointed directly at the “Apple branded only” clause of the EULA.  Is that particular limitation enforceable?

The PsyStar case, which was supposed to address that issue ended up ignoring it because PsyStar was using upgrade licenses to install full versions - a completely different type of violation which is fully enforceable.

JonGl you are so wrong you are laughable. Copyright does not give the owner exclusive right of control that prevents people from making copies or use of their copyrighted works.

There’s this thing, called “fair use,” that allows people to do crazy things with copyrighted works.

Don’t be too proud of your rebuttal there. In the realm of software, JonGl is 100% correct.

While Fair Use does indeed exist, it cannot be applied to software because one of the limitations of Fair Use is a coyprighted work, except certain types of periodical entries, cannot be used in its entirety. (ie: you cannot photo copy an entire childrens’ book for your 2nd grade classroom and call it “fair use”.) If you find a copyrighted work and want to use it in its entirety you must secure written permission first. Otherwise you are limited to fair use of no more than 20% of the copyrighted work - and that only for educational purposes.  You cannot claim fair use for private use.

So, to apply fair use to MAc OS, you’d have to find a way of using only 20% of the OS code, and you would still be limited to using it for educational purposes.

PsyStar was using upgrade licenses to install full versions

That’s not the conclusion that Judge Alsup reached. According to Computerworld, Nov 14,  he said - “Psystar made unauthorized copies of Apple operating system during the computer manufacturing process by imaging a copy of Mac OS X, then installing that on other computers. The clone maker did not install Apple’s OS from the copies it bought at retail…
Previously, Psystar had claimed it purchased a copy of Mac OS X for each machine it sold, buying them from Apple itself, as well as from Amazon.com and Best Buy…..”