Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
OS X Businesses Operating Systems Apple

Mac OS X on x86 Videos Get Apple's Attention 758

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the almost-getting-away-with-it dept.
RetrogradeMotion writes "The OSx86 Project is reporting that Apple has served a legal notice to MacBidouille, a French news site that posted videos and instructions on running Mac OS X on x86 hardware . You can find an English translation of the MacBidouille notice on the OSx86Project's forums. This is the first known legal action by Apple regarding the hacked version of OS X and calls into doubt the future of other news sites, similar to the OSx86 Project." Slashdot previously covered the story of hacking Mac OS X onto non-Apple hardware and followed up again a few days later.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mac OS X on x86 Videos Get Apple's Attention

Comments Filter:
  • by SeaFox (739806) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @07:13PM (#13343566)
    it should be noted there is an English translation [hardmac.com]version of MacBidoulille always available. Just go to www.hardmac.com instead of MacBidoulle.
  • English translation (Score:2, Informative)

    by wasted time (891410) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @07:24PM (#13343633)
    Link to their english translation. http://hardmac.com/news/2005-08-17/#4367 [hardmac.com]
  • by jasen666 (88727) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @07:36PM (#13343715)
    will Apple have to shut down sites like this, once there's no more obvious developer NDA's to claim.
    I mean, if people are buying OS X, then modifying their legal copies to work on a generic x86 box, what law have they broken? How will Apple shut down sites describing this process? Will it be a DMCA violation to edit config files in the OS, or patch a binary, to allow your OS to run on another machine?

    To me, it's like modifying Windows to run on a Sparc or something (nearly impossible without recompiling source, I know, but same idea).
  • by jcr (53032) <jcr&mac,com> on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @07:51PM (#13343775) Journal
    you're assuming there's no profit from stamping OSX on a circular piece of polycarbonate plastic and putting it in a cardboard box and selling it for $129.

    You're assuming that people will pay for the OS, instead of pirating it.

    Piracy doesn't dent MS's revenues, since they get the Dells and HPs of the world to pay them for every box they ship. Apple doesn't have that luxury.

    -jcr

  • by Rude Turnip (49495) <valuation@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @08:41PM (#13344096)
    I swear to God we need a "bullshit" tag for moderating /. Your ignorance wrt EULAs, the GPL, licensing, copright law and basic tenets of private property is astounding. That or you are trolling. Please quite while you're ahead.

    1. Software is no different than any other intellectual property like a book or music CD.

    2. You own your copy of OS X, Windows, Linux, *BSD, including the physical media. It is only copyright law and nothing else that prevents you from distributing copies. However, the GPL is the author's public declaration that you may distribute.

    3. There is a whole wealth of information of what consititutes a valid contract, and a EULA is not one. If you press a "button" on your screen that says "I Agree," that does not mean you have agreed to anything in a legal sense.

    4. Apple, Microsoft, Linus own the *copyright* on their respective works. It means they get to dictate the terms of *distribution* and nothing else. Otherwise, you can use the software any way you want.

    5. The GPL only pertains to distribution of code and has nothing to do whatsoever with usage. If you don't agree to the terms of the GPL, you can still use the software.

    Bottom line is that anything you buy in a retail transaction is yours to own and use, although you are restricted from distributing copies per copyright law. There are *real* software contracts out there (ie Microsoft site licenses, Bloomberg feeds, etc), however.
  • Re:Yes but... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Hungus (585181) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @09:14PM (#13344263) Journal
    Actually the G4 holds 8 HDDs unmodified. each of the 3 lower trays can be double stacked and there is the 3.5 under the optical drive and space immediately above the optical drive.
  • Re: question (Score:2, Informative)

    by R3d M3rcury (871886) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @09:37PM (#13344380) Journal
    Back in 1997, Microsoft purchased something like $150 million of non-voting stock in Apple. Thus, they get no votes. Just money.

    That said, I think Microsoft has since divested itself of Apple stock.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @09:50PM (#13344458)
    Why try to control what your customers do with your product after you buy it?

    Erm, I highly doubt any of the people involved with the OS X-on-non-Apple-x86-hardware business could produce a purchase receipt if asked.
  • by PinkX (607183) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @10:15PM (#13344587) Homepage
    DISCLAIMER: I'm both a Mac and Linux/OSS user, a big proponent of OpenSource and Free Software, sometimes developer, own purely Apple machines, use an iPod, etc.

    This is pure pirating. For a lot of reasons. First of all, almost every single site I've seen is either promoting or even directly linking to torrents and other P2P references of the Developer's version of Mac OS X Intel. Second, this is indeed a Developer's version of the software. I'm pretty confident that all developers that have been able to get a hold (legally) of the OS had to do so signing a strict NDA, which (again, with no certainty proof but pretty confident of) would probably prohibites them of using it for any purposes other than the porting and testing of their applications, which of course doesn't include trying to run it on non-Apple hardware (which I guess is explicitly forbidden), or discusing and sharing these methods with other fellow developers.

    Apple trying to pull the plug on these sites comes as no surprise, even if thousands of hundreds of users would love to run OS X on their PCs, as it finally is _their_ (Apple's) product, they hold all the intelectual property to it and anyone wanting to use it will have to agree to their conditions to do so.

    I would expect a similar reaction if there appears some highly publisized websites teaching and offering videos on tax evading practices, of course the IRS (or the equivalent organization on whatever country that happens) would eventually chase them.
  • Re:Unfortunately... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Halfbaked Plan (769830) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @10:17PM (#13344592)
    What else was there for x86 that was competition for Windows in terms of ease of use?

    In the early days, there was the GEM Desktop. In the middle years, OS/2 was superior, and in many regards EASIER to use (for some definitions of the term 'use') than Windows. And there have been other good contenders like BeOS (which mainly lacked 'developer mindshare' and third party apps at it's peak).
  • Re:What the? (Score:3, Informative)

    by michaeldot (751590) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @11:06PM (#13344852)
    In fairness, signs point to the reason having more to do with Apple throwing it's weight around like it was still 1997.

    You mean like expecting a steady supply of chips so that they could sell competitively performing machines without angering customers with long delays?

    I don't know if you're a Mac user but if you are you probably didn't have to wait THREE MONTHS to be shipped a PowerMac G5 like I did last year. Apple couldn't get the chips. IBM couldn't get the yield up to sufficient quantities.

    IBM had also told Apple they could supply a 3GHz part within a year of the initial launch in 2003. It's now 2005 and they still cannot.

    Yes, they announced dual core within weeks of Jobs' bombshell (everyone knew they were coming anyway). But no, they are not shipping. When they finally do, there's every indication someone like me who might want to buy one would experience deja vu with the extreme shipping delays.

    And for the actual reason that prompted the (arguably difficult) Intel transition to start:

    IBM failed to produce a low-power, low-heat variant that wasn't severely reduced in performance. Intel have excellently performing low-power chips. Enough said.

    If that situation is "Apple throwing it's weight" around, like many others, I think you've been doing too much armchair speculation and not enough real world observation.

  • by mstone (8523) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @03:17AM (#13345749)
    Try this: Apple is neither a hardware company nor a software company. Apple sells a service called "vertical integration." The hardware, OS, middleware, userland, and network services all fit together in a single package that Just Works, Right Out Of The Box.

    IBM is in the same business in enterprise space, and it's done pretty well for them. For that matter, Red Hat also sells vertical integration, it just services a shorter stack.. only OS, middleware and userland.

    Yes, Apple makes most of its profits from the hardware, just like Red Hat makes most of its profits from circles of plastic. That doesn't make Apple exclusively a 'hardware' company, though. It does, however, mean that Apple wants to protect the part of its integration stack that brings in the bulk of the money, and supports development across the rest of the stack.

  • by Kjella (173770) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @06:07AM (#13346126) Homepage
    1. Software is no different than any other intellectual property like a book or music CD.

    See 3.

    2. You own your copy of OS X, Windows, Linux, *BSD, including the physical media. It is only copyright law and nothing else that prevents you from distributing copies. However, the GPL is the author's public declaration that you may distribute.

    Copyright law is only the default. An EULA could equally well (and usually does) bind you to not copy, but it wouldn't prevent anyone who hasn't agreed to the license. Think of copyright law as the IP version of recieving stolen goods, you can't have one person steal it and the the rest run free.

    3. There is a whole wealth of information of what consititutes a valid contract, and a EULA is not one. If you press a "button" on your screen that says "I Agree," that does not mean you have agreed to anything in a legal sense.

    Ask a lawyer. Look up the legal precedence. As much as you'd like to claim they aren't valid contracts, that is not the current US legal practise. This has been covered on slashdot several times, but people keep spouting what they think should be, not what is.

    4. Apple, Microsoft, Linus own the *copyright* on their respective works. It means they get to dictate the terms of *distribution* and nothing else. Otherwise, you can use the software any way you want.

    Reproduction, derivative works, distribution and public performance are exclusive rights of the copyright holder. Get your facts straight.

    5. The GPL only pertains to distribution of code and has nothing to do whatsoever with usage. If you don't agree to the terms of the GPL, you can still use the software.

    Actually, the GPL is required to create a derivative work for yourself (unless it would fall under fair use, which is also probable). It simply has no requirements that kick into effect before you distribute it.

    Bottom line is that anything you buy in a retail transaction is yours to own and use, although you are restricted from distributing copies per copyright law. There are *real* software contracts out there (ie Microsoft site licenses, Bloomberg feeds, etc), however.

    Pretty close to my personal philosophy. But again, that is what it should be, not what is. In legal terms EULAs are being upheld, though 99% of the time nobody will ever find out you ever violated it.

    Kjella
  • One word. (Score:1, Informative)

    by ph4te (901242) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @08:45AM (#13346567)
    LICENSING.

    Apple has, in the past, licensed their OS out to clone manufacturers and it failed horribly. Why? Because it was god awful timing.

    Imagine the enormous profit Apple could make if it licensed out OSX to Dell/HP/Etc...

    You guys are all bitching that Apple only makes a profit from their hardware. Ok, fine, that may be, but now that they are actually developing for the dominant platform they have absolutely no reason whatsoever to not milk it. Sure they can still sell their own stuff (to anyone dumb enough to buy it) but the real money for them would be from OEMs.

    Rant aside, Apple is doing what they need to do to protect their IP, so I don't see why people are up in arms over this.
  • by pknoll (215959) <slashdot,pk&grapefish,org> on Thursday August 18, 2005 @09:03AM (#13346644)
    >>They are not intersted in supporting third-party PCs and never have been. Ever.

    >Ever? Seems like you forgot about the clones era.

    ...which nearly drove them out of business? I'm sure Apple remembers that. I doubt they'd be willing to repeat the experiment.

  • by brokeninside (34168) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @10:42AM (#13347483)
    Apple isn't poised to take on Microsoft until they have their own, fully MS Office compatible, office suite. The moment Apple unties OS X from their own hardware, Microsoft will yank Office for OS X.

    The web browser is ready. The presentation software is almost ready. The word processor has started. The biggest pieces missing are the spreadsheet and the Exchange client. (And note that last is an Exchange client and not an email program.) The database, however, doesn't seem to be on the drawing board. 'Tis a real pity that Apple didn't keep Hypercard up to date. Hypercard could have been the Access killer.

    Apple might be ready to do this down the road. But for the immediately foreseeable future, OS X will remain tied to Apple hardware, even if for no other reason than Microsoft is still the 800lb gorilla in the market. Which also raises another point. Apple may have other reasons not to do this aside from pressure from Microsoft. Recall that Apple's last experiment with cloning didn't fare so well for Apple.

The Tao doesn't take sides; it gives birth to both wins and losses. The Guru doesn't take sides; she welcomes both hackers and lusers.

Working...