‘Don’t steal Mac OS’
p2p news / p2pnet: "Welcome! 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 …"
That’s the message posted on the OSx86 Project forum today and, "Apple is moving to prevent further discussion of running its Mac OS X operating system on generic Intel-based machines," says MacNN. "Apple’s legal team has notified OSx86 Project – a site dedicated to getting Mac OS X running on machines not non-Apple-branded machines – that it is in violation of the US DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act), forcing the site to close down its user forms and post notice.
Apple has done its best to thwart efforts to run Mac OS X on computers other than Macs. But, "hackers have been able to successfully work around many of the security mechanisms in the operating system and recently posted instructions and discussion of how to alter Mac OS X 10.4.4 to run on generic Intel’s," says MacNN, going on:
"Earlier this week, the OSx86 website noted a secret poem from Apple that urged hackers not to work around Mac OS X security mechanisms.
Here’s the poem, from the OSx86 Project site.
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.
As OSx86 says, Milton or Wordsworth it ain’t. But Apple it is, as Yoda would say.
It seems the attempt at rhyme was a follow-up to an earlier hidden message to hackers within the hardware restrictions of OS X.
"It wasn’t much," says OSx86, but ‘Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext’ was, "a shot across the bow of would-be hackers. (Perhaps it should have had the extension .kthnks?)"
Also See:
MacNN – Apple serves DMCA notice to OSx86, February 17, 2006
OSx86 Project – Apple Seeks (Poetic) Justice, February 14, 2006
February 19th, 2006 at 4:21 am
Meh, I got OS X working great
DMCA is a law I don’t agree with so screw that. Be like Thoreau and do what you believe is right, not what the law says.
February 19th, 2006 at 8:25 am
Stealing Mac OS X is definately not the right thing to do though. If you want to use Mac OS X, then buy an Apple computer. Apple should be rewarded for their work; not stolen from.
February 19th, 2006 at 11:49 am
Maybe having more people using the stuff you made is the only reward that really counts? Seriously, I would never buy an Apple PC, but I would certainly consider running OSX as a dual boot.
February 19th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
Anyone who buys anything should not be bound by the selle’s prohibition. Imagine if a seller of a car in one country prohibiting it’s resale in another country.
Once a seller parts with a product, the seller has no right over the product.
Anyone buying a Mac computer that is no longer usable (or lost or stolen) should be able to use the working monitor on an Dell computer if the monotor is compatible or is adaptable. The same logic should apply to the operating system. Neither Apple nor Dell can object to a buyer using a purchased product as he/she sees fit.
I read somewhere that Microsoft is claiming that a copy of their OS, Windows, cannot be used on a new motherboard. It is absurd to say that if your computer breaks down you cannot get a new computer and use the old OS software you paid for. Apparently MS also does not understand that once you sell a product, the buyer can do with the product whatever is allowed by law.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
February 19th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
microsoft doesn’t believe you bought the product, just the right to do with it what they tell you to do.
February 20th, 2006 at 12:48 am
Apple stole the gui from Xerox Parc so you’d be buying stolen merchandise if you paid for their crapple hardware.
apple is playing the commonize cost / privatize profit game. just like disney when they remake aesop fables and claim them as original works.
Just don’t obey illegal laws.
February 20th, 2006 at 1:00 am
I thought when you buy most softwares, you’re just paying for the license to use it. You don’t really own it.
February 20th, 2006 at 5:03 am
“Apple stole the gui from Xerox Parc”
Hey jerk go read some computer history, you don’t know what you are talking about, just repeating some myth you heard somewhere… You are the brainwashed sheep here.
February 20th, 2006 at 7:58 am
Acually, Steve Jobs did visit the Xerox Labs and saw the working ‘mouse’ and visual users interface, well before he came up with the Mac O/S interface. It is a fact, included in Mac history as well as Xerox’s visitors book! Dont forget, Apple used to be a command line driven interface, till the days of Macs, post Xerox Visist!!
February 20th, 2006 at 8:07 am
Correct, you dont own the Software, just a licence to use it, which you agree to by opening the packet and/or installing said software, even if you haven’t yet read the agreement which is inside the packet you have to open to get at the disks! So, you agree to terms you have not yet read, to a product that in its terms, has no warranty as to usage and suitablity for which is was designed and futher more, you agree that the product may not accually do what is says it can and/or will do as said on the packaging. In ecsence, they can put nothing but garbage on a disk and it is legal for them to do so because you agree to that when you open the packaging and you agree without having yet read the agreement. Read most end user licencing and see what I mean! Software is the only product it seems that can get away with being outside of common law and consumer law.
February 20th, 2006 at 5:11 pm
I agree with your opinions regarding software, but this part is not correct IMHO.
“Software is the only product it seems that can get away with being outside of common law and consumer law.”
(unless you are referring to music and video as “software” which would be technically correct)
DVDs, DRM “protected” music downloads, and copy protected CDs all run afoul of this same “outside of common law and consumer law” concept you mention. You are purchasing “permission” to see/hear the content ONLY in ways permitted by the EULA. ALL other uses are strictly proscribed criminal acts. This big pile of steaming evil brought to you by the DMCA.