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.