3

There was a good point being made in this thread. The OP was trying to virtualize MacOS, which isn't legal following its terms of service.

What is the correct action for this question? I voted to close with the reason "Not an official Ubuntu flavor", but I don't really think this fits, since questions about virtualizing other OS'es (which don't have any legal restrictions) is on-topic.

Maybe I should have chosen the custom close reason with a comment instead?

17
  • 4
    The question on AU has been locked for a week while being discussed here...
    – andrew.46 Mod
    Oct 13 at 7:36
  • I wonder if it's a simple typo (GetKeyFromRealSMdC in the error, GetKeyFromRealSMC in the listed commands. Should be closed if that's the case, irrespective of the gray area
    – muru
    Oct 13 at 7:44
  • 6
    Based on the relevant part of MacOS's EULA, it seems that it is legal to use MacOS VMs, but only on Mac hardware. So I guess that it's legal even on another OS (e.g. Ubuntu), as long as the hardware is a Mac? If that's the case and I don't misinterpret something, the question shouldn't be closed for this reason in my opinion. Oct 13 at 8:20
  • 15
    I don't think breaking an EULA is illegal anyway. And we're not lawyers.
    – terdon
    Oct 13 at 8:54
  • Interesting points.. Also, when I think of it breaking EULA is more like a breach of contract, and not a "criminal offense" in any way. In severe cases, a company might sue for damages, but I don't really see how this would ever come into effect here. Oct 13 at 9:54
  • So someone thought this wasn't worth discussing - also interesting... 😅 Oct 13 at 12:31
  • 1
    @ArturMeinild OR someone was just having a bad day 😅 meta.askubuntu.com/questions/20130/… Oct 13 at 13:48
  • 1
    @ArturMeinild We are not the police. This is a legal question that would have to be answered by SE's legal team. So if this is really a question we need to look at further we should be involving SE Legal.
    – Thomas Ward Mod
    Oct 13 at 15:09
  • 1
    I personally think we should not be hosting questions and answers that are only relevant or useful for engaging in piracy. I don't agree with Apple's restrictions and I have a distaste for proprietary software and restrictive licensing. However if the license terms prohibit a specific use of the software, then that prohibited use would be a form of piracy especially considering that the action specifically involves creating a unique, new instance of that software in violation of the license agreement.
    – Nmath
    Oct 13 at 19:27
  • 2
    I also think that "we aren't the police" can not be an excuse for knowingly publishing content that we know constitutes illegal behavior or deliberate violations of proprietary software licenses.
    – Nmath
    Oct 13 at 19:29
  • 4
  • @cocomac I'm not sure this question has anything at all to do with NDAs and that is a completely different situation. That Q really doesn't belong with the others and has a completely different response from the others, which I agree with. The key difference is that people not involved in an NDA can't know the terms of an NDA or in some cases if it even exists. Software licence terms are not a secret and define legal use and restrictions that have been upheld by courts. Conflating that question with this and the others could be misunderstood to also conflate the very different answers...
    – Nmath
    Oct 13 at 20:35
  • 1
    @Nmath IANAL, but I partially disagree. While this wouldn't be an NDA specifically, that question does cover third-party agreements. Even though this wouldn't likely be an NDA, an EULA is still a third-party agreement IMO so I feel it is applicable, especially the part regarding about enforcement of third-party agreements on SE.
    – cocomac
    Oct 14 at 3:57
  • 2
    Pirate software is the only way for many people in poor countries to use a computer. This is beneficial to that country and the rest of the world. If Apple had it's way, all computers would come with hardware locks and you probably could not afford to own one. Oct 15 at 1:42
  • 2
    I guess such things are not in AWS's interest. Oct 18 at 1:25

1 Answer 1

13

It's not illegal to run OS X in a VM. My government will not care.

It may be a breach of the license terms. But that's not our problem. The user should know the license agreement.

There is no way we can have a overview of all EULA's for third party software; we simply have to leave that conundrum to the users.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .