Hi. I am a happy MorphOS user. Alas I need some clarification.

I read on some Amiga forum that installing MorphOS on one's Mac mini is breaking Apple's EULA. Is that so?

I mean I see no much evil in it, man, I would steal a car for Amiga (but I wouldn't steal a program, movie dunno )

Actually I see this fact, if valid, as some morbid marketing potential.

BTW if it breaks EULA, what about PPC Linuxes?

[ Edited by DiskDoctor on 2009/12/20 22:42 ]

THE WORLD IS A FLAT DISC

See, now that you read that on an Amiga-Forum you have to ask somewhere else wether it's true .....

The EULA is no law, and if there is a clause about installing alien OSes it's just there to protect Apple from being sued after you broke you Mini whilst installing Moana

Short answer:-

Who care?

Slighty longer answer, where is this EULA anyway? If it's some place on the OSX install, if so Don't agree to it and don't have a Dual boot, just a MorphOS install. Actually I can't be bothered, if Apple want to 'arrest me' for running alternative OS on my mac, let em. Bring it on baby!


"Breakin' the Law! Breakin' the Law!!"

[ Edited by stephen_robinson on 2009/12/20 15:07 ]

Quote:
I checked and could not find any EULA that would limit the use of the hardware.

There are EULAs for the Mac OS X. However, since we're not trying to run Mac OS X on unauthorized hardware, I don't see any problem.

The software license agreement for Mac OS X does mention this:
Quote:
(Copyright Apple, Inc. Reproduced in part here for illustration purposes)

While hardware is mentioned, it is only mentioned in the context of the refund. Note that while you must return both software and hardware to obtain refund, you may choose not to.

[ Edited by Piru on 2009/12/20 18:01 ]

I read on some Amiga forum

Was it exec.pl maybe?

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 15.05.2011 - 08:57 ]

I didnt receive EULA with my Mac. Can I sue Apple now?

[ Edited by itix on 2009/12/20 17:19 ]

[ Edited by itix on 2009/12/20 17:25 ]

I highly doubt Apple has in their EULA that you cannot install other operating systems on your Mac. Now they do have a EULA about the legalities of installing Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware but that's about the extent of it.

[ Edited by AmigaMac on 2009/12/20 15:39 ]

Quote:

I think he is. I remember him from aw.net; gees, that guy is so dumb, no wonder he got banned.

@ Kronos

I just needed a clarification on it for a particular reason (see: the bottom of my original post)

Quote:

EULA is some obligation between parties, a license in common law or license agreement in EU. By breaking law I meant either law or any agreements should apply. Because laws exists on the other hand, to enforce or penalize license violations, violating licenses becomes thus illegal in a narrow sense.

@stephen_robinson

Quote:

I just wanted to know the answer. I wrote this post while being on a course from my IP PG studies anyway But seriously I heard some case in the class that Apple sued its authorized UK dealer for selling Mac+OSX in some unfidel config. And they won recently in EU court (trademark violation!!!). So I concluded, Apple might also be legitimated to force such restrictions on their HW.

@Piru

Quote:

Thank you so much for clarifying. This makes both PPC Linuxes or MorphOSes perfectly Legal. Which in turn, has some implications, different than that one of deemed EULA breaking though.

@krashan

Quote:

No, I suppose it was awnet

I seldom visit local sites, mostly checking out for some party.

@Velcro_SP

That is why I posted this statement on this very forum. I wasn't expecting that much engagement in clarifying it elsewhere. The said post(s) was made pretty long ago, say 3-5 months ago I suppose.

@itix

Quote:

You can sue the salesman And actually, Apple could. Dunno, I ain't a lawyer, those issues are delicate. EULA should be delivered along with the product I suppose.

> I read on some Amiga forum that installing MorphOS on one's Mac mini is
> breaking Apple's EULA.

Bollocks. EULA is a licence agreement. There is no licence with a Mac mini. If you buy hardware, you OWN it. You don't licence hardware.

> EULA should be delivered along with the product I suppose.

Mac mini is hardware, not software.


BTW, subject had already been discussed:
https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=6237&forum=3&start=280#64087
See answers to that.

Quote:

You can have EULA in HW since HW has patents in it. You don't OWN it, you license it. I had this topic on a today's class. If there's some IP involved, in many cases you don't own stuff (see: CD/DVDS - you cannot sell or rent them, there are exceptions though...)

Quote:

Thanks, I'm switching to it right away.

Don't believe pathetic FUD like this...

Quote:

It isn't a FUD to me, just an issue. Same as Linux kernel violates GPL (because has binary-only modules), there are thousands of such stories in IT. I threat this thread as a mean to summarize eventual facts.

Regardless of those facts, Apple would not do any legal actions because it would most likely be a MorphOS marketing... Same as in Linux case... I wrote this theory some two or three days ago in this very site and now just want to repeat it.

I think that article title "MorphOS cracked Apple Mac mini" would be a cheap MorphOS ad. Call me insane but effective also. That's the reason of my curiousity - "free lunch" vision.

> You can have EULA in HW since HW has patents in it.

EULA means *End User* Licence Agreement. As a customer who purchases *a piece of* hardware I don't need to care about patents. The manufacturer should care, but not me.

> You don't OWN it, you license it.

Not true. I OWN every piece of hardware I purchased. I didn't licence any of that. True is that I don't own the *technology* that piece of hardware is based on. That's what patents are for. I am an end user and I don't need to have a patent or a patent licence to buy and to my own will use hardware that uses patented technology.

I repeat: The Mac mini DOES NOT come with any licence at all. No hardware does. So the claims you are referring to in your initial posting are pure nonsense.

> I had this topic on a today's class.

Obviously, that didn't have anything to do with our discussion. You're confusing non-patentable and non-licencable (pieces of) hardware with the patentable and licencable technologies behind them.

> If there's some IP involved, in many cases you don't own stuff (see: CD/DVDS - you
> cannot sell or rent them, there are exceptions though...)

Huh? Care to elaborate on that? Maybe you're confusing hardware and software now?

@Andreas_Wolf

OK, that settles it

http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/

NO hardware mentioning at all, only software bound to hw. So as long as openfirmware is open...

That's fine. Case dismissed. I was thinking of MorphOS articles claiming that Mac has been hacked - that would bring attention, sure, especially since those issues aren't that obvious

>> Was it the same guy who said the MorphOS version for
>> PPC Mac potentially was MorphOS "slow demise?"

> I think he is. I remember him from aw.net; gees, that guy
> is so dumb, no wonder he got banned.

That would be Chris "ChrisH" Handley who is also a MZ member:

https://morph.zone/userinfo.php?uid=2903

And no, he didn't get banned on AW.net.

"Mac Mini - the saviour or slow demise of MOS?" thread:

http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=29754&forum=28

Quote:

No, Linux doesnt have binary only modules, that it allows use of third party binary modules, such as NDIS drivers from windows and firmware drivers from hardware manufactorers is someting completely different, and doesn't violate GPL2 in any way.

You are a very confused person.

Quote:

So you claim that one can find a Linux distribution that is 100% open sourced? (as assumed in GPL) Or else - is Ubuntu possible to be obtained as a lightweight no-extras version, purely in a source???

Quote:

I know But I kindda like it because it gets me more and more stuff all time. That's a way of life pal.

Quote:

http://www.debian.org/

Quote:
Huh, first of all it was _you_ who wrote "Linux kernel" - when did "Linux kernel" mean distributions? And secondly, why is it relevant when this is no violation of GPL, as you wrote?

Quote:

Ah, almost same strategy as I use here

[ Edited by kolla on 2010/1/16 2:54 ]

[ Edited by kolla on 2010/1/16 2:57 ]

Quote:

So you suggest you just take everything 100% source from the site, compile it and have working on any machine said to be supported by debian right?

Well, I was told the Linux thing by a lawyer, I didn't make it up. I sustain my (Linux) claim though. I also see no much point in discussing Linux legality, since it breaks tons of patents anyway. This discussion is over.

EDIT* clarification

[ Edited by DiskDoctor on 2010/1/16 16:12 ]