Hacker News Reader

Comment by TheDong | Hacker News Reader

This is likely illegal. The psystar case[0] was a very clear ruling that attempts to circumvent apple's restrictions on hardware are a violation of the DMCA.

Apple checks a certain devicekey while booting, so that key is an anti-circumvention techniques. Any use of that string in a form where apple's software may read it is probably a violation of the DMCA. This script uses that string[1] in order to circumvent apple's checks, and thus is legally dubious at best.

There are numerous other likely DMCA violations as well, from copying GUIDs with the intent to circumvent checks to downloading copyrighted material from apple's servers which they only give you license to download for an actual mac machine.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psystar_Corporation#Legal_issu...

[1]: https://github.com/myspaghetti/macos-virtualbox/blob/44a21f7...

View on HN

This is definitely not legal, but the fact that the apple ecosysten is still stuck in the pre-vm era in 2020 for the purely stupid business model of jailling developers in an apple ecosystem as soon as they need to create an ios app (which should never require an apple computer in the first place) is an absolute ridiculous waste of time and resources.

Any company that deals with cross platform products has to build a modern CI/CD and a medieval stuff on the side to deal with apple.

Sorry for the rant, just had to get this out.

I hope we'll get some VM-friendly features as a byproduct of x86-ARM transition.

I think you can run Mac OS in a VM as long as the VM runs on Apple hardware.

The problem is that there is no way to run proper infrastructure that involves Macs since removal of Xserve platform, and even that wasn't particularly great when it came to lights out operation from what I heard.

Even if you pay ridiculous amounts of money for latest Mac Pro in a rack, it's stil the kind of joke machine that I chortled over in 2008 for being the cause for crash carts to be present in server room, when every serious machine had you in the comfort of nice office.

Enterprises have two choices: a closet full of mac minis (or similar) or violating the letter (but not necessarily the spirit) of the EULA. At the last Big Tech Company You've Definitely Heard Of I worked at, our Mac build farm was deemed noncompliant by everyone including Apple and our legal team, but nobody actually told us to stop using it. Quite the opposite actually.

It may the EULA, but it is not illegal. Contract violations are the same as breaking the law. I'm not trying to be a pedant, but it's important to push back against the corporate effort to change language to benefit them. Copyright violations are violating the law, illegal, but violating a contract is not illegal.

> Contract violations are the same as breaking the law.

Just noting a likely typo here - from the context I think you meant "are not the same".

(If you make the edit I will delete this message to reduce clutter.)

No, you're 100% correct. I should have proofread it!

In what way is making an unauthorized copy of software not copyright violation?

Where does it argue that you have to make an unauthorized copy of software?

You are allowed to run OSX in a VM if you're on a Mac. It's running that VM on an OS that isn't MacOS that's the EULA violation. It's not necessarily an unauthorized copy, it's unauthorized operation of a VM.

Any use of that string in a form where apple's software may read it is probably a violation of the DMCA.

That reminds me of these cases, which ruled in the opposite direction:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexmark_International,_Inc._v.....

downloading copyrighted material from apple's servers which they only give you license to download for an actual mac machine.

I guess the CFAA could apply, but Apple's servers don't actually do any authentication. You also don't need to have agreed to anything to access the URLs.

For both of those cases, that's controlling access to a piece of hardware, not unlocking access to a copyrighted work. That's the big difference as far as the DMCA is concerned.

This script can be used to set up a macOS VM using Virtual Box running on a macOS Host. Running macOS guest on Apple-branded hardware is explicitly permitted by the EULA. I wonder if using the "secret" string still violates anything here.

Looking through the issues for words like “legal”, “illegal” and “DMCA”, it looks to me as though it goes to some length to avoid including probably‐illegal content, only telling you how to get the necessary values to make it work on a real Mac, where it would I believe be acceptable under Apple’s EULA to install it.

https://github.com/myspaghetti/macos-virtualbox/issues/192#i...

https://github.com/myspaghetti/macos-virtualbox/issues/134#i...

I believe there's a proviso in the apple license agreements that allow you to virtualize macos - if you run on apple hardware.

(iii) to install, use and run up to two (2) additional copies or instances of the Apple Software within virtual operating system environments on each Mac Computer you own or control that is already running the Apple Software, for purposes of: (a) software development; (b) testing during software development; (c) using macOS Server; or (d) personal, non-commercial use.

A search on that keyword is a good way to find other similar repos: https://github.com/search?q=ourhardworkbythesewordsguardedpl...

Great, now Hacker News is going to get a DMCA takedown request as a result of your URL being here.

Bahahaha, really? This DMCA nonsense sounds ridiculous!

I wonder if a user maliciously posted URLs that were later editable and linked to pirated content would yield a significant amount of DMCA requests to be sent. Seems easy to abuse or troll and highlight how insane the DMCA is.

As a victim of an act of stealing a few years ago, I am deeply offended by people using the verb "steal" when there is no actual stealing, just sharing information.

Would it be legal for this script to accept that "secret" string and GUID as configuration parameters rather than hardcoded values? That way end user would be responsible for actual violation and Apple is unlikely to pursue end users.

If the primary purpose of something is for circumvention, the DMCA still applies I think.

In real life, does anyone care?

You mean as a hobbyist? I sure wouldn’t use this at work.

> You mean as a hobbyist?

Yep.

I had a much longer comment about this, then grew tired of writing up the caveats - because HN :).

So, me neither, not if I relied on it for revenue generating work.

As long as it's on Apple hardware, I don't see the issue at work.

Virtual machines on Apple hardware are explicitly allowed in the OSX EULA.

> As long as it's on Apple hardware, I don't see the issue at work.

Sure as long as it's stable and actually supported and doesn't live in Apple's realm of "experimental".

> Virtual machines on Apple hardware are explicitly allowed in the OSX EULA.

Kinda feel you're missing my, admittedly and ashamedly, overly pithy point about "persevering" with this on non-Apple hardware for real life revenue generating work.

you forgot to say where this is illegal. maybe i'm in Mexico or Russia or even somewhere in EU?