Hi,

I have a Mac Mini - about 2 years old running lepard which it came with, my question is if I install a downloaded copy of snow lepard from torrent or wherever, then I buy a legit copy of lion from the app store, will this work and will I have a legit operating system on my mac?

Thanks

Originally Posted by aaronmarsh632

I have a Mac Mini - about 2 years old running lepard which it came with, my question is if I install a downloaded copy of snow lepard from torrent or wherever, then I buy a legit copy of lion from the app store, will this work and will I have a legit operating system on my mac?

I'm not a lawyer but my interpretation of this is a clear NO.
10.5 to 10.6 cost $30 for the OS (you are not paying for this and thus defrauding Apple). Apple has not announced any direct upgrade options for 10.5 users yet.

If you compare with the way Apple handled the 10.4-10.6 update (you had to buy a $150+ OS+App bundle to legally skip over 10.5). It seems clear that the $30 price is for updates from the prior OS only. (this was true from 10.5 to 10.6 and now from 10.6 to 10.7)

While you can now purchase 10.7 installer on a USB stick for $69, as Apple have marketed this as an install alternative for those without broadband access - I strongly doubt that Apple considers this a legal direct update option from 10.4 or 10.5.

The summary is the full outright cost of OS X has always been $129 and around $29 for upgrade from the prior version ONLY.
Apple enforces this on an honor/trust system - there is likely no technical barrier stopping a direct update, just the terms and conditions of the license associated with your purchase.

We don't tolerate pirates here. Do the right thing and pay the extra $30 for a 10.6 update disk. It's a lot less than Microsoft charges for an OS update.

Ok, I see what your saying I just think having to buy another operating system that I'm not going to use seems a bit unfair but I guess i'll have to buy it if I want lion then, Just 1 more question... How can a website called 'Hackint0sh' which supports installing unlicensed copies of OSX on PC's not tollerate piracy when unlicenced OSX is basically a pirate copy? (please dont confuse this with sarcasm, it's a bit hard to determin tone thru text) - Just curious

Thanks

Originally Posted by aaronmarsh632

Just 1 more question... How can a website called 'Hackint0sh' which supports installing unlicensed copies of OSX on PC's not tollerate piracy when unlicenced OSX is basically a pirate copy? (please dont confuse this with sarcasm, it's a bit hard to determin tone thru text) - Just curious

Lots of people seem to confuse the two things.
Again I'm not a lawyer, however there are a couple of legal issues at play here:

1. Illegal redistribution of copyrighted Apple binary files. (warez) - here we take a hard line, this isn't allowed on the site. As well as being very black and white. Refusing to allow piracy here takes away the biggest reason for Apple to shut the site down
2. Purchasing of a legitimate copy of OS X for your hackint0sh'd machine. Here we encourage all hackint0sher's to purchase a copy of OS X. This is the mirror of the anti-warez issue.
   We acknowledge that Apple's EULA restricts the licensing of OS X to legitimate Apple hardware.
   
   Although Apple claims that OS X is only licensed for use on their hardware, this has only been tested against a commercial hackint0sh vendor in the US (apple won). In other countries the legal status of shrinkwrap type EULAs - where you implicitly agree by opening the package is unclear.
   
   Also as this site encourgaes hackint0sh strictly for personal use - it's most likely a US court will rule that a non commercial user has "in good faith" tried to properly license the software on their hackint0sh. This means that it's not worthwhile for Apple to take legal action against individuals making hackint0sh'd computers for personal use (where the OS was purchased not pirated)

Like jailbreaking (which was eventually declared legal in the US - for specific purposes only), Apple's restrictions on the way individuals can use a legitimately purchased copy of OS X might eventually be challenged and exemptions granted.

No legal court is ever going to grant an exemption for unauthorised redistribution of copyrighted binary material (that is not already considered to be in the public domain)

Fair Enough - I stand corrected.

Thanks