Hacker News Reader

Comment by hellisothers | Hacker News Reader

What does “never be able to run a legally licensed os” mean in this context? I am an iOS engineer and avid photographer: I work on a Hackintosh, I develop my photos on my Hackintosh. I’ve had 0 problems with this setup and it cost me 1/10th as much as a similarly specced Mac. And my “similar” I’m being generous to the Mac because my machine is faster

View on HN

https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macOS1013.pdf

> 2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions. A. Preinstalled and Single-Copy Apple Software License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, unless you obtained the Apple Software from the Mac App Store, through an automatic download or under a volume license, maintenance or other written agreement from Apple, you are granted a limited, non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at any one time. For example, these single-copy license terms apply to you if you obtained the Apple Software preinstalled on Apple-branded hardware.

(...)

> J. Other Use Restrictions. The grants set forth in this License do not permit you to, and you agree not to, install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-branded computer, or to enable others to do so.

(...)

If you're not going to abide by the license, you're essentially running "pirated" software.

So what? You've paid for the OS you can run it wherever you want.

Depends on your jurisdiction's view of the legality of apple's terms of use

Not seriously, unless you believe Apple is going to start working with cops to kick in doors and inspect homess for non-Apple branded hardware for unsanctioned OS installs.

Even if a judge agreed with Apple's EULA (unlikely, and unlikely to be tested), that's not really enforceable in any practical sense unless you're selling computers with MacOS preinstalled. Then it's a matter of commercial licensing and distribution which they do have an interest in protecting.

So you're saying it's fine to break the law of you don't get found out?

Most people think its ok to break the law if you won't get found out AND they don't think breaking the law presents any moral issue.

Ever noticed how people tend to drive at a speed that seems safe given conditions? Respect for ethics is a virtue respect for the law for its own sake is a disease.

I suppose you just get a license for one cpu core for your database servers and run them on 32-corevservers too?

The license is strange - but it is what Apple is selling.

And AFAIK the latest release is a "free" (gratis) download anyway - so you can't even claim you've paid for it.

I mean sure, you can ignore the license. Maybe Apple won't sue, but they might revoke your developer access, I loud account etc.

[ed: anyway, the thread started with a claim about "moral" obligation, I'm just pointing out that Apple is refusing to give or sell a valid license, so you're in breach of the license. I don't see how it's legally very different from an illegal copy of Microsoft Windows).]

I’m guessing they’re referring to the fact that Apple’s EULA prohibits—or prohibited at one time, I believe it still does—running macOS on anything other than Apple hardware. Hence, a Hackintosh violates the EULA.

Not saying it’s bad or not. I despise EULAs. I think that’s what the parent means, though.

I don't think he's at all concerned about the license. He's just saying most people won't and shouldn't do "real work" on a machine that could break at any point with no possibility for support.

That too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com