Replies

I find his desire to build a Mac using pirated OSX software in contravention of the Copyright and Patent holder's explicit OSX license not to mention all the other app licenses that are included with a legitimate Apple Mac to be hypocritical

I gotta disagree with you on this in part. If I buy a copy of OSX I really don't think it is any business of the publisher what I end up doing with it. They don't have to support it, but I really don't believe they have any more say in where it gets installed than what a lumber yard does over wood that I buy from them. I played with a VM of OSX a few years ago just to poke around with it a bit more than anything else. If i want to do OSX proper, I can use my wife's Macbook, but I can see uses for a VM of OSX the same way I can see the use of (non-networked) Windows machines.

I think the whole 'license' vs 'purchase' stuff as it regards software t be a steaming pile created by control freaks who don't really understand the difference between me using a personally purchased product as I will and someone cranking out copies for anyone who wants one. Since, we seem to have the best government that money can buy, they may have the law on their side, but I care about that about as much as I care about laws limiting the capacity of magazines on my handguns.

BTW, loved your previous post. Dead on target. One of my biggest peeves are windows users who make ignorant statements about other types of systems that they have never used or probably even seen.

Zeugma, I respect your viewpoint but it is the law. Apple has put a lot of handwork into developing OS X for the purpose of selling their hardware. It is not for the purpose of selling a general operating system. Microsoft sells a general operating system and they do not care who or what it is installed on. People pay large amounts of money to Microsoft for their OS. People do not pay Apple large amounts of money for their OS because they are NOT in the business of selling an OS for general use. It is there merely to support their hardware.

Apple DOES care where it is installed and under the Constitutional law, Apple gets to determine how their hard work is put to use. They limit where it can be installed in the license. Federal law says that is OK. Apple owns that software and they are merely giving you a limited permission to use it. You are NOT buying the software, just that very constrained, limited permission.

Microsoft makes billions of dollars for selling their OS. . . Apple does not.

Apple was required by accounting laws to charge distribution costs. That is why the $19.95 was charged for the media. It did not provide a profit. Now Apple provides it free because the accounting rules have changed. GAAP no longer requires it for downloadable software. OS X upgrades, even major revisions, are free to Mac owners.

Apple generally does not go after hobbyists who make Frankentoshes. . . but they are within their rights to do so. They have found over the years that most find the exercise frustrating and generally eventually buy a legitimate Mac.They only go after those who try to monetize the practice.

I did think as you thought at one time. . . but then I rethought it after a friend of mine spent $30,000 and ten months of his time developing a classroom management tool for the old Apple II. It was the most popular tool of that type. He sold exactly 347 copies. Why? Because school districts bought one, copied and distributed to their classroom teachers without buying licenses! Whole STATES did that! An Apple magazine picked it up and sent it out on a disk free of charge as freeware, without attribution! It got passed around from teacher to teacher. What was he charging? $20. He lost his shirt!

Again, someone has to take a stand for what is right. Laws about how many rounds in a magazine are wrong. This is not like that.