Apple rumored to disable Atom support with Mac OS X 10.6.2 - Page 5

Originally Posted by Rob55

They'll have to do more than buy the $30 upgrade and then they'd still be breaking the EULA.

Originally Posted by tundraboy

I bet if you write Mr. Jobs and promise that you and your three best buddies will buy one each, they'll build it.

Originally Posted by anonymouse

Actually, it says:

"... provided that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner ..."

Given that all copies of OS X are sold either already on an Apple computer, or as an upgrade to an existing installation, this would hardly allow someone to legally obtain a license for some other purpose -- i.e., not an upgrade to an existing installation.

Originally Posted by NasserAE

...However, I don't see how Apple saying that "our software on our hardware only" is a violation of any law. As far as I know there is no constitutional law that say everyone have the right to install Mac OS on any computer

Originally Posted by trboyden

You keep confusing what Copyright covers vs. what the EULA dictates - they are two distinct documents each providing a different set of rights.

Copyright clearly says you can make a copy of a copyrighted work for personal use and that copyright does not extend to methods of operation. Thus violating the EULAs clause that it can only be operated on Apple hardware is not a violation that can be sought under Copyright law. However, the EULA violation can be sought under civil contract law - but Apple is less likely to succeed there given the personal use rights granted by Copyright law.

Originally Posted by trboyden

Copyright clearly says you can make a copy of a copyrighted work for personal use

Originally Posted by rhowarth

Because it's an upgrade - not a full retail copy. You're only allowed to use it to upgrade a machine with an existing licensed copy of Mac OS X on it. If you copy it other than in accordance with the license that's illegal and no different from any other breach of copyright.

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

Actually, Apple could have decided to dop support for that chipset for completely different reasons.

Originally Posted by anonymouse

Copyright law is inexorably bound up in contract law since the licenses granted by copyright holders, licenses that govern the right to make copies and for what purposes, are in fact a kind of contract. So, to say that a violation of a EULA is a license contract violation, it to admit that it is a violation of copyright law. Under United States law, there are both civil and criminal penalties applicable to copyright violations.

Originally Posted by lfmorrison

The exception doesn't say anything about the purposes for which the original copy was distributed or obtained. It only places conditions on the purpose for which the additional copy will be produced.

Originally Posted by trboyden

Copyright clearly says you can make a copy of a copyrighted work for personal use and that copyright does not extend to methods of operation.

Originally Posted by steveH

I'm looking at the $49 Snow Leopard family pack box right now.

"Upgrade" appears nowhere on the package. I have installed it on two Macs here as an upgrade from 10.5, and on two others on freshly-formatted drives (after backing them up with Time Machine).
[...]
Apple have sold upgrade disks in the past. This is not one of them.

Originally Posted by WFKU

The first generation Macbook Air uses the 1.6 GHz P7500 intel processor

Its the atom processor with a different name.
at least according to wiki
the first macbook air uses the P7500 intel processor which is the N270 Chipset which, guess what!

Is code named the intel ATOM processor

So apple does in fact use the processors for their own registered products and will not be discontinuing it anytime soon.

However they will probably discontinue a lot of other functions such as 3rd party wireless cards, computers running the N270 chipset with VGA outputs, etc.,....

Otherwise my dell 9 hackintosh would not think it was a macbook air, or work so well!

Originally Posted by NasserAE

There claus in Apple EULA says "Install" as well. How do you explain Psystar claim that Apple is abusing the copyright law by limiting the installation of Mac OS to Apple's hardware?!

Apple never bothered with individuals installing Mac OS on their hackintosh. The main issue here is sellers like Psystar. Apple need to show that they trying to enforce their EULA especially that someone started a business selling the hack.

Originally Posted by solipsism

Psystar != personal use.

Originally Posted by coolfactor

Yes. The cost of developing and maintaining OS X is covered by the sale of hardware. Apple was overly generous to sell Snow Leopard at such a bargain price.

Originally Posted by Mazda 3s

Or how about fixing the SATA II issue with third-party HDDs and SSDs on the June '09 13" and 15" MacBook Pros.

Originally Posted by anonymouse

Well, but if you fraudulently obtain a copy -- by implicitly representing that you intend to use it as an upgrade when you in fact do not -- you can hardly claim protection under copyright law for your intended use, since you obtained the copy illegally.

Originally Posted by trboyden

I absolutely agree that Psystar is wrong, this debate was purely around the grounds of what Copyright allows and disallows. Psystar has no rights under Copyright because their violation is commercial in nature. So you won't get any argument from me there. What prompted all of this is Apple blocking Atom processors, which has nothing to do with Psystar. This is Apple's attempt to go after Hackintoshes through technical means which is perfectly valid -though very draconian in nature.

I think the interesting aspect of all this, which was mentioned earlier, is the fact that Apple doesn't own all the copyrights to the code base of OS X. I also find interesting that no one has gone after Apple for not providing access to the source code of the Intel kernel, which is, as far as I know, still based on the Mach BSD kernel. It is my understanding that they should have to provide the source code because it is Open Source, however, I'm more familiar with the terms of GPL licensed software and there may be loopholes in the BSD license that give them an out.

Originally Posted by daniel84

Building a hackintosh requires lots of patience and a fair bit of technical know how. Most people wouldn't even bother trying, so why not let the tinkerers tinker.

I know there are lots of downloadable custom build's of OS X out there but if you actually look at a good hackintosh tutorial, a lot of them use a retail disc to install from. I say as long you paid for that disc and only intend to use it privately, why not?

Originally Posted by NasserAE

I think they only need to give access to the code they modified not the code they created. I think they do otherwise we would have heard about it

Originally Posted by trboyden

Again, Copyright covers the actual work of authorship and not what you do with it personally.

Originally Posted by Clive At Five

It's a start...

Out of curiosity, where do you stand on ripping DVDs you've purchased?

Originally Posted by Mazda 3s

If I'm not mistaken, the Dell Mini 9/10 works PERFECTLY as an OS X machine and can be had for under $300. Can't argue with that

Originally Posted by Gwydion

This is a big logic jump

Originally Posted by cheesy mogul

I don't think you can call someone a thief, who takes the effort to figure it out how to run his favorite OS on a computer model category Apple is obviously too lazy to offer!
No matter how thin the MBA is, a 13" screen notebook is NOT a netbook .

Apple thinks they know what people want, but the exploding number of netbook hackintoshs proof them WRONG!

Originally Posted by NasserAE

The debate started regarding whether Mac OS was copyrighted material or not




I think they only need to give access to the code they modified not the code they created. I think they do otherwise we would have heard about it

Originally Posted by trboyden

I think the interesting aspect of all this, which was mentioned earlier, is the fact that Apple doesn't own all the copyrights to the code base of OS X. I also find interesting that no one has gone after Apple for not providing access to the source code of the Intel kernel, which is, as far as I know, still based on the Mach BSD kernel. It is my understanding that they should have to provide the source code because it is Open Source, however, I'm more familiar with the terms of GPL licensed software and there may be loopholes in the BSD license that give them an out.

Copyright (c) <year>, <copyright holder>
All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* Neither the name of the <organization> nor the
names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products
derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY <copyright holder> ''AS IS'' AND ANY
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL <copyright holder> BE LIABLE FOR ANY
DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND
ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

Copyright (c) Year(s), Company or Person's Name <E-mail address>

Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any
purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.

Originally Posted by trboyden

You can copy something for personal use and that is a valid form of Fair Use. If I copy a magazine article to read later at my house, that is a fair use. If I copy it and then send it to a bunch of people, that is not.

Originally Posted by bokuwaomar

BSD style licenses only require that the original authors are attributed. There are no loopholes in those licenses: they explicitly allow that.

Examples:

3 clause BSD license


ISC license


It is unfortunate that many people think all open source code has to be licensed with conditions similar to the GPL. While the GPL certainly serves a purpose, it does not serve every purpose, even when restricted to the domain of free software.

Regarding Apple, even though Apple doesn't have to, most of the BSD licensed code in OSX does have the source publicly available, and GCC and other GPL'd software have the source code and modifications posted in the same place as the source for the BSD code.

Originally Posted by trboyden

Like I said, I wasn't familiar with the specifics with BSD licensing, so I now stand educated. I won't get into a software licensing debate because it is way too religious, however, you can see where companies would like BSD because it allows them to be good community players - when they want to be. GPL on the other hand requires them to be a full-time community player by contributing back source code improvements. Which approach is better I'll leave up to the reader, but there are advantages to both approaches.

Originally Posted by jragosta

However, if you copy the entire magazine in the library and take it home to read later, that is also not fair use. That's probably the closest think to what the Hackintosh people are doing. They're not excerpting a small amount of OS X. They're copying the entire thing for their own use - in violation of Apple's intent and the license agreement (and, in the case of the people using the $30 version of SL, the statement that it's an upgrade , not a full version).

Originally Posted by trboyden

Like I said, I wasn't familiar with the specifics with BSD licensing, so I now stand educated. I won't get into a software licensing debate because it is way too religious, however, you can see where companies would like BSD because it allows them to be good community players - when they want to be. GPL on the other hand requires them to be a full-time community player by contributing back source code improvements. Which approach is better I'll leave up to the reader, but there are advantages to both approaches.

Originally Posted by anonymouse

Clearly the one that encourages them to be a community player is best.

Originally Posted by trboyden

Then you should be as mad as hell with them because they sure didn't pick the GPL. Closing or hiding the source to the Intel kernel isn't exactly being a community player seeing how Open Source allowed you to accomplish what you have so far. I certainly can understand wanting to prevent piracy, but there are lots of more community friendly ways they could of done that. Crippling support for the Atom processor (the point of the story these posts are all attached to) is another poor example of Apple's support of the Open Source community.

Originally Posted by yuusharo

Getting back to the direct topic, could this simply be a matter of Apple setting themselves up for 64-bit on older Macs? Apparently 10.6.2 has new 64-bit drivers for the older intel 945 chipset, something commonly used in netbooks today. Could it be that the kernel has just been modified to run in 64-bit mode, while the Atom is only a 32-bit processor?

http://netkas.org/?p=243

Originally Posted by Gwydion

Thieves?

Originally Posted by Louis_Wheeler

Of course, you seem like the sort of person who's word (your personal integrity) is worthless.

You bought that DVD with conditions attached. Those conditions are that the DVD is to used on only Apple hardware. You had to tell a lie to even install it. Hence, your word is meaningless.

If Apple were selling its operating system to PC owners, it should charge between 500 to a thousand dollars. Perhaps, that is the way to nip this illegality in the bud. Apple should charge an outrageous sum with a rebate attached to people who register their legitimately Apple hardware. Then if the Mac OS is put out on Bit Torrent, then anyone who is using the Mac OS illegitimately can be sued in small claims court for the difference between what they bought the upgrade DVD for and the legal price. Should be a slam dunk case.

Originally Posted by anonymouse

From the Apple Store:

From the Apple Store:

"Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard - Family Pack

Upgrade from Mac OS X Leopard with Snow Leopard [...]

Snow Leopard is an upgrade for Leopard users and requires a Mac with an Intel processor."
\t
"Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard - Family Pack

Upgrade from Mac OS X Leopard with Snow Leopard [...]

Snow Leopard is an upgrade for Leopard users and requires a Mac with an Intel processor."

Originally Posted by camroidv27

So, sell an Atom based netbook for 600 bucks. Margins kept in hand