Legality question of modification of macOS to run on unsupported Macs and non Apple hardware

[Guy Clark]

With the announcement of macOS Mojave there is considerable attempts being made to make it possible to run macOS Mojave on unsupported Macs outlined by Apple
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/macos-10-14-mojave-on-unsupported-macs-thread.2121473/

Furthermore in attempting to reach this goal kexts are being modified using non Apple hardware.

In examining the macOS EULA it would seem the modification of macOS in general whether it be be to run on non Apple Hardware or unsupported Hardware is a a blatant violation of the terms set out
https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx107.pdf

There are arguments that macOS is free but this is not so. The consumer purchases the Mac which gives the user the entitlement to run macOS on that Mac. This does not entitle and in any way permit macOS to be run non Apple Hardware.

 

[Juicy Box]

There are arguments that macOS is free but this is not so. The consumer purchases the Mac which gives the user the entitlement to run macOS on that Mac. This does not entitle and in any way permit macOS to be run non Apple Hardware.

I think you are correct. Although, it is the type of situation that Apple does not take any action against violators (afaik).

Actually, I thought I read a few places that Apple was giving some tech support over the phone for people attempting to use unsupported Mac OS versions on the Mac Pro 1,1. The 1,1 hardware is more than capable using Mac OS versions long after Apple dropped official support for it.

Maybe I might try to find the threads.

 

[maflynn]

EULA

The EULA is not law. They're breaking a license agreement, but is that violating U.S. Laws?

What happens if you choose to not accept the EULA, are you then breaking the EULA?

 

[Mikael H]

With the announcement of macOS Mojave there is considerable attempts being made to make it possible to run macOS Mojave on unsupported Macs outlined by Apple
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/macos-10-14-mojave-on-unsupported-macs-thread.2121473/

Furthermore in attempting to reach this goal kexts are being modified using non Apple hardware.

In examining the macOS EULA it would seem the modification of macOS in general whether it be be to run on non Apple Hardware or unsupported Hardware is a a blatant violation of the terms set out
https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx107.pdf

There are arguments that macOS is free but this is not so. The consumer purchases the Mac which gives the user the entitlement to run macOS on that Mac. This does not entitle and in any way permit macOS to be run non Apple Hardware.

In most of the world you're technically free to do whatever you want to an operating system running on your own computer, but you could potentially be prosecuted if you tried to make money off modified proprietary operating system versions.

 

[hajime]

It is all Apple's fault. If they make reliable and up to date hardware, less people would go for the Hackintosh route.

 

[pastrychef]

Lots of companies don't want you to mess with what they sell you... One example is those "Warranty void if removed" stickers. But are they legal?
https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/ftc-warranty-stickers-illegal/

 

[maflynn]

Lots of companies don't want you to mess with what they sell you... One example is those "Warranty void if removed" stickers. But are they legal?
https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/ftc-warranty-stickers-illegal/

Agreed, what criminal law is being violated where the consumer will be arrested and brought before a judge?

 

[belvdr]

Agreed, what criminal law is being violated where the consumer will be arrested and brought before a judge?

I expect it would be based on if a binding contract is made when the customer clicks "Agree" when presented the EULA. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm speaking out of my zone.

 

[maflynn]

I expect it would be based on if a binding contract is made when the customer clicks "Agree" when presented the EULA. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm speaking out of my zone.

Thats civil and not criminal and not sound pedant, means the police or criminal court system will get involved.

 

[belvdr]

Thats civil and not criminal and not sound pedant, means the police or criminal court system will get involved.

I understand and agree with your assessment. That's the only thing I can think of regarding legality though.

Wasn't PsyStar sued over the same thing?

 

[maflynn]

Wasn't PsyStar sued over the same thing?

Yes, but the major difference is they a commercial entity trying to make a profit off of it. Where as for us, its not something we need to fear.

 

[belvdr]

Yes, but the major difference is they a commercial entity trying to make a profit off of it. Where as for us, its not something we need to fear.

I understand it was a commercial for-profit entity.

The only reason personal users do not fear it is because it's not worthwhile for Apple to pursue each individual user. It would cost more to litigate than let it be.

I was responding to the question of the legality of it, not whether you may be sued. Just because you are not sued does not make it legal. Look at how many users of Limewire or Kazaa there were but so many were not sued, even though it was considered illegal.

Just my 2 cents.