Timeline for Can one ask Hackintosh questions on Ask Different?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 31, 2016 at 17:33 | comment | added | Wowfunhappy | The second question could be applicable to installing 3rd party video cards in a Mac Pro. | |
| May 5, 2015 at 20:34 | comment | added | Josh K | This is such an old answer I'm not sure it can be improved given current dynamics. I think a good line to draw would be what is supported and encouraged in terms of content and questions and leave everything else as a subjective case-by-case basis. | |
| May 5, 2015 at 18:58 | comment | added | Tetsujin | From the first comment - Pystar lost so badly I don't even think it's worth considering as an argument any more. | |
| May 1, 2015 at 17:28 | comment | added | Daniel Mod | The site is about Apple hardware and software. If the hardware isn't Apple, the software certainly is. | |
| May 30, 2012 at 17:44 | comment | added | bmike Mod | I'd love someone to flesh out this "no" answer with some more logic on how we might implement this. What laws should govern? Who will know what is unlawful? If you are going to prose that people moderate on the basis of legality - we will need some serious thinking to consider how this might happen (assuming there is community interest in this point of view of course). | |
| Aug 6, 2011 at 4:46 | comment | added | Graham Perrin | Thank God X someone finally admitted it ;) oh, and no matter how many times I look up meanings of FTW I'm never sure what it means, in context … | |
| Aug 20, 2010 at 19:34 | comment | added | Robert S Ciaccio | I'm not even really sure what we're talking about anymore :) | |
| Aug 20, 2010 at 17:04 | comment | added | Josh K | @calavera: Lol. Well this is a Brand X SE site. ;) | |
| Aug 20, 2010 at 14:03 | comment | added | Robert S Ciaccio | I'm glad you now see the light. BRAND Y FTW :P | |
| Aug 20, 2010 at 11:20 | comment | added | Josh K | @calavera: Yes, they are not longer driving Brand X lawnmowers. | |
| Aug 20, 2010 at 5:29 | comment | added | Robert S Ciaccio | Take these two cases for example. Case 1: person buys used lawnmower engine. Person puts said engine in a go kart and drives it around the block on weekends. Case 2: person buys 1000 lawnmower engines. Person refits the engines into a whole different set of lawnmowers, then sells said lawnmowers to consumers without the permission of the original lawnmower manufacturer. Are you starting to see the difference yet? | |
| Aug 20, 2010 at 5:23 | comment | added | Robert S Ciaccio | @Josh: Yet your legal precedent has nothing to do with fair use. You brought the RIAA into this context. The RIAA lawsuits don't even slightly resemble what we're talking about here. The RIAA goes after PIRATES. If you can show me one case where the RIAA went after somebody for moving their music from one media to another for their own personal use without distributing it, then you may have a point. Second, it appears that you're still talking about Psystar, which is a for-profit enterprise that was selling hardware running software which they were not licensed to sell in that manner. | |
| Aug 20, 2010 at 4:32 | comment | added | Josh K | @calavera: I'm simply pointing out that there is legal precedent for this. Also, I don't understand how where I work (not for the RIAA) would matter in the slightest about my opinions on fair use, or where you could even conceive the notion I would imply that they did. | |
| Aug 20, 2010 at 2:56 | comment | added | Robert S Ciaccio | @Josh: Did you read what I wrote? Once again... I'm not talking about for-profit undertakings, I'm talking about fair use. Unless you were implying you work for the RIAA and already have an opinion on the subject. | |
| Aug 19, 2010 at 16:54 | comment | added | Josh K | @calavera: Yeah, and Pystar lost. ;) | |
| Aug 17, 2010 at 21:34 | comment | added | Robert S Ciaccio | @Josh K: an EULA is not law, and uses that go against the EULA are not illegal. In fact, a company or individual can put ANYTHING they want into an EULA. They could say that by using the software you are giving them the right to take your first born son into slavery, but it doesn't give it any more legality than if they walked up to you on the street and told you the same. What makes an EULA enforceable is law and or legal precedent. | |
| Aug 17, 2010 at 21:29 | comment | added | Josh K | @calavera: It's against the EULA. That means it's not legal. Simply because Apple isn't chasing people down for doing it (like, uh, RIAA) doesn't make it any more supportable or legal. | |
| Aug 17, 2010 at 21:12 | comment | added | Robert S Ciaccio | @Josh K: there have not been any legal cases that i am aware of involving home users installing os x on non-apple hardware. There is no legal precedent to my knowledge that makes this illegal. Selling non-apple hardware containing apple software for profit is a whole different beast from personal and fair use application. | |
| Aug 17, 2010 at 19:45 | comment | added | Josh K | @Ashish: Just because they are appealing doesn't mean what they are doing is legal. | |
| Aug 17, 2010 at 19:44 | history | edited | Josh K | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 70 characters in body
|
| Aug 17, 2010 at 19:34 | comment | added | Robert S Ciaccio | i don't think that there is any consensus one way or another on whether installing osx non-apple hardware is actually illegal. | |
| Aug 17, 2010 at 19:33 | comment | added | Jungle Hunter | Pystar sells Hackintoshes. And it plans to appeal a recent judgement. I'm not sure if it is legally illegal. But whatever the community says. =) | |
| Aug 17, 2010 at 19:27 | history | answered | Josh K | CC BY-SA 2.5 |