Section 2A of the Mac OS X Leopard licensing agreement:
2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. Single Use. 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. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one
computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time.
You may not be violating the DMCA, and chances are Apple isn't going to sue you anyway, but you are violating their software licensing agreement.
I'm guessing that the interpretation of "Apple-labeled" means "labeled by Apple" and not "labeled WITH Apple labels", but what do I know.
As far as I can tell, it's somewhat vague unless that is accepted legal terminology to denote 'something labeled by Apple', so shame on them for writing a less-than-ironclad TOS (if in fact it isn't.)
If anyone actually believes slapping a sticker on their computer will cause Apple to lose a lawsuit... then I have a title and offer to the Golden Gate Bridge I'd like them to consider.
Right. You don't buy software, you license it. This is no different than buying a poster of some sports star. You can hang it on your wall, but you don't have the legal right to photocopy and redistribute it.
I'm not arguing that one shouldn't build a Hackintosh, and I'm not making any moral arguments against piracy or the DMCA. I'm just pointing out that use of software outside the bounds of the license agreement is at least grounds for a civil suit.
Yes, and that's their right. We can argue that we don't like it, but its no different than me licensing Hanna Montana's likeness for a toothbrush I'm producing (no, I'm not!). I'd have the right to put her pretty face on the toothbrush but not anywhere else. I understand the laws to be well established here. If you don't like it, use Ubuntu. I understand a moral argument, but pragmatic ones are of little use here.
No, ShabbyDoo, it's not their right at all. It's very different if you are selling the toothbrush for profit. And I'd allow that it could be different if you were a professional room designer and licensed the poster as part of your design for a client. But them forbidding me from placing a poster on my own wall with any background paint I choose is absurd.
Things only become "their right" if we weakly sit by and let it. We are allowed to control what is allowed in contracts and licenses. We can legislate that. In fact, it's our responsibility to do so.
Some people have a hard time going from abstract to concrete, so the analogies in discussions like this are actually quite useful. (read: moral/pragmatic).
2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions. A. Single Use. 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. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time.
You may not be violating the DMCA, and chances are Apple isn't going to sue you anyway, but you are violating their software licensing agreement.
from http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf