Hackintosh

[Lemur]

Let's clear up some legalities:

You are well within your rights buying OS X 10.6 for $30 even if it's not an upgrade. Apple has admitted publicly that the "upgrade" status is just a suggestion (and the fact that the "upgrade" disc contains a full, clean install of 10.6 should have tipped us off from the beginning).

You are also in the clear if you use either hardware or software to emulate EFI, the crucial element in allowing OS X to run on Wintel (or WinAMD) hardware.

Likewise, if you choose to build a PC out of compatible parts, there is no issue.

Where you run into potential problems is when you put all of these parts together. Apple's EULA for OS X states that you are not allowed to use their software on any non-Apple hardware, but note that this provision is being challenged in court at the moment. So it would be incorrect to state that building a hackintosh is illegal; much more correct to say that it is a potential licensing dispute, and one which Apple has yet to pursue with any individual user. (Their legal team has only been active with Psystar, which is attempting to mass-produce Hackintoshes, and which is counter-suing over the only-use-Apple-hardware clause, claiming that it is a blatant example of product tying.)

So, with all of this laid out, has anyone at the Org attempted a Hackintosh? I have a friend who built one with good results, although he chose outdated hardware for the project. I'd be curious to see how it went with more current equipment.

Anybody thinking about it?

-edit-

For anyone seeking a more in-depth examination of the legal issues surrounding EFI, EULA, and Hackintoshes, here's a pretty decent rundown:

The looming Psystar-Apple battle centers on the licensing agreement that Apple requires Leopard users to accept if they want to use the product, in much the same manner as almost every piece of software sold in the world. The most pertinent line is probably this one: "This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so."

There's little doubt Psystar is installing Apple software on non-Apple-labeled computers, said Richard Vermut, a lawyer with Rogers Towers in Florida who specializes in software licensing and technology patent matters. "Generally speaking, a software developer has the right to sell software with these shrink-wrap licenses, or end-user agreements, and they are enforceable" unless the terms of the license would harm the consumer or otherwise violate existing laws, he said. [...]

Psystar's best shot--albeit a long one--at keeping its doors open for business would be to argue that Apple is illegally tying the purchase of its operating system to the purchase of its hardware because it has a monopoly on the sale of Mac OS X-based computers, said Jim Burdett, an attorney with Venable in Washington, D.C.

Burdett, a lawyer at Compaq during what he jokingly called the "First Clone Wars," said Psystar would have to convince a judge that the relevant market in this case is limited to just Mac OS X-based computers, not personal computers in general. Obviously, Apple has a very small share of the general personal computer operating system market but a rather large share of the Mac OS X market.

"People want Mac clones for the operating system, not the hardware," Burdett said. Apple will try to argue that its hardware is just as important a factor in making a Mac vs. PC buying decision, but Psystar will try to prove that with the response to the Open Computer, there is significant demand for Apple's operating system on non-Apple hardware.

"It would be an interesting situation to argue from the Sherman Act side, if you had the money," Burdett said. "I don't think it's too insurmountable, it's just a very costly issue to raise."

[Tellos Athenaios]

Grub2: http://grub.enbug.org/XNUSupport.

[Xiahou]

That sounds like a lot of mental gymnastics to try to justify doing something that you are not legally supposed to. You call it a licensing dispute, to me it sounds more like a breach of contract. Even the article you excerpted acknowledges that the legal challenge to the EULA is a long shot. Certanily, being challenged in court is definitely not the same as being legally invalidated.

Speaking personally, I don't really care if people want to run OSX on non-Apple hardware. It doesn't effect my life one way or the other. However, I don't care for people's moral justifications for it. People use all kinds of rationalizations for piracy too- but unless you're willing to be the test case and challenge the EULA in court, don't try to pretend that it's perfectly legal.

[Papewaio]

Probably more about quality control then anything else.

[Xiahou]

Probably more about quality control then anything else.

My guess would be that it's about forcing people to pay their inflated prices for hardware.

[naut]

Heck, a hackintosh would be my only choice because I will never pay apple's ridiculous hardware prices.

My guess would be that it's about forcing people to pay their inflated prices for hardware.

Indeed. It's all about being able to price their machines at excessive levels. A competitor would lose them money, but be good for consumers. But, they wouldn't allow that now would they.

[Papewaio]

My guess would be that it's about forcing people to pay their inflated prices for hardware.

There is a 20% plus markup for Australian apple products... over US (after exchange rates).

[Crazed Rabbit]

If they can call putting a free version of IE on Windows illegal, then I can easily see how this would be illegal product tying*. It seems so to me.

Heck, a hackintosh would be my only choice because I will never pay apple's ridiculous hardware prices. Interesting, though I can't say I heard of it before now though.

CR
*I'm well aware that such rulings occurred in different courts, some in different countries.