Skip to main content
added 117 characters in body
Source Link
Journeyman Geek Mod
  • 132k
  • 2
  • 76
  • 165

In a practical sense, we don't really support pirated software anywhere. Yes, Hackintoshes are a specific and very visible example, but its no different from someone using "Windows 10 pirate edition". Its entirely consistent, and every situation where something similar happens, we probably end up needing to close.

I'd readily admit, its a rule that got put in place by an ex mod, and it feels vaguely 'by fiat' but its in line with the Stack Exchange TOS in my opinion

Subscriber represents, warrants and agrees that it will not contribute any Subscriber Content that (a) infringes, violates or otherwise interferes with any copyright or trademark of another party, (b) reveals any trade secret, unless Subscriber owns the trade secret or has the owner’s permission to post it, (c) infringes any intellectual property right of another or the privacy or publicity rights of another....

Even with a "vanilla" copy of OS X with some suitable tool that does nothing more than bypass the hardware checks, its no different from running windows with an activation crack. Our policy's been pretty consistent there.

So, unless someone from SE corporate says "Yeah, its fine", publicly, and tells us our interpretation of the TOS is wrong - I'm disinclined to think it is acceptable.

In addition, while Allquixotic has made most of the point I wanted to make for me, outside of a small range of hardware - the secondary argument I make against pirated variants of commercial OSes - that its impossible to know what has been added or removed, making it difficult to pinpoint an error is worth considering.

In a practical sense, we don't really support pirated software anywhere. Yes, Hackintoshes are a specific and very visible example, but its no different from someone using "Windows 10 pirate edition"

I'd readily admit, its a rule that got put in place by an ex mod, and it feels vaguely 'by fiat' but its in line with the Stack Exchange TOS in my opinion

Subscriber represents, warrants and agrees that it will not contribute any Subscriber Content that (a) infringes, violates or otherwise interferes with any copyright or trademark of another party, (b) reveals any trade secret, unless Subscriber owns the trade secret or has the owner’s permission to post it, (c) infringes any intellectual property right of another or the privacy or publicity rights of another....

Even with a "vanilla" copy of OS X with some suitable tool that does nothing more than bypass the hardware checks, its no different from running windows with an activation crack. Our policy's been pretty consistent there.

So, unless someone from SE corporate says "Yeah, its fine", publicly, and tells us our interpretation of the TOS is wrong - I'm disinclined to think it is acceptable.

In addition, while Allquixotic has made most of the point I wanted to make for me, outside of a small range of hardware - the secondary argument I make against pirated variants of commercial OSes - that its impossible to know what has been added or removed, making it difficult to pinpoint an error is worth considering.

In a practical sense, we don't really support pirated software anywhere. Yes, Hackintoshes are a specific and very visible example, but its no different from someone using "Windows 10 pirate edition". Its entirely consistent, and every situation where something similar happens, we probably end up needing to close.

I'd readily admit, its a rule that got put in place by an ex mod, and it feels vaguely 'by fiat' but its in line with the Stack Exchange TOS in my opinion

Subscriber represents, warrants and agrees that it will not contribute any Subscriber Content that (a) infringes, violates or otherwise interferes with any copyright or trademark of another party, (b) reveals any trade secret, unless Subscriber owns the trade secret or has the owner’s permission to post it, (c) infringes any intellectual property right of another or the privacy or publicity rights of another....

Even with a "vanilla" copy of OS X with some suitable tool that does nothing more than bypass the hardware checks, its no different from running windows with an activation crack. Our policy's been pretty consistent there.

So, unless someone from SE corporate says "Yeah, its fine", publicly, and tells us our interpretation of the TOS is wrong - I'm disinclined to think it is acceptable.

In addition, while Allquixotic has made most of the point I wanted to make for me, outside of a small range of hardware - the secondary argument I make against pirated variants of commercial OSes - that its impossible to know what has been added or removed, making it difficult to pinpoint an error is worth considering.

added 46 characters in body
Source Link
Journeyman Geek Mod
  • 132k
  • 2
  • 76
  • 165

In a practical sense, we don't really support pirated software anywhere. Yes, Hackintoshes are a specific and very visible example, but its no different from someone using "Windows 10 pirate edition"

I'd readily admit, its a rule that got put in place by an ex mod, and it feels vaguely 'by fiat' but its in line with the Stack Exchange TOS in my opinion

Subscriber represents, warrants and agrees that it will not contribute any Subscriber Content that (a) infringes, violates or otherwise interferes with any copyright or trademark of another party, (b) reveals any trade secret, unless Subscriber owns the trade secret or has the owner’s permission to post it, (c) infringes any intellectual property right of another or the privacy or publicity rights of another....

Even with a "vanilla" copy of OS X with some suitable tool that does nothing more than bypass the hardware checks, its no different from running windows with a hardwarean activation crack. Our policy's been pretty consistent there.

So, unless someone from SE corporate says "Yeah, its fine", publicly, and tells us our interpretation of the TOS is wrong - I'm disinclined to think it is acceptable.

In addition, while Allquixotic has made most of the point I wanted to make for me, outside of a small range of hardware - the secondary argument I make against pirated variants of commercial OSes - that its impossible to know what has been added or removed, making it difficult to pinpoint an error is worth considering.

In a practical sense, we don't really support pirated software anywhere. Yes, Hackintoshes are a specific and very visible example, but its no different from someone using "Windows 10 pirate edition"

I'd readily admit, its a rule that got put in place by an ex mod, and it feels vaguely 'by fiat' but its in line with the Stack Exchange TOS in my opinion

Subscriber represents, warrants and agrees that it will not contribute any Subscriber Content that (a) infringes, violates or otherwise interferes with any copyright or trademark of another party, (b) reveals any trade secret, unless Subscriber owns the trade secret or has the owner’s permission to post it, (c) infringes any intellectual property right of another or the privacy or publicity rights of another....

Even with a "vanilla" copy of OS X with some suitable tool that does nothing more than bypass the hardware checks, its no different from running windows with a hardware crack.

So, unless someone from SE corporate says "Yeah, its fine", publicly, and tells us our interpretation of the TOS is wrong - I'm disinclined to think it is acceptable.

In addition, while Allquixotic has made most of the point I wanted to make for me, outside of a small range of hardware - the secondary argument I make against pirated variants of commercial OSes - that its impossible to know what has been added or removed, making it difficult to pinpoint an error is worth considering.

In a practical sense, we don't really support pirated software anywhere. Yes, Hackintoshes are a specific and very visible example, but its no different from someone using "Windows 10 pirate edition"

I'd readily admit, its a rule that got put in place by an ex mod, and it feels vaguely 'by fiat' but its in line with the Stack Exchange TOS in my opinion

Subscriber represents, warrants and agrees that it will not contribute any Subscriber Content that (a) infringes, violates or otherwise interferes with any copyright or trademark of another party, (b) reveals any trade secret, unless Subscriber owns the trade secret or has the owner’s permission to post it, (c) infringes any intellectual property right of another or the privacy or publicity rights of another....

Even with a "vanilla" copy of OS X with some suitable tool that does nothing more than bypass the hardware checks, its no different from running windows with an activation crack. Our policy's been pretty consistent there.

So, unless someone from SE corporate says "Yeah, its fine", publicly, and tells us our interpretation of the TOS is wrong - I'm disinclined to think it is acceptable.

In addition, while Allquixotic has made most of the point I wanted to make for me, outside of a small range of hardware - the secondary argument I make against pirated variants of commercial OSes - that its impossible to know what has been added or removed, making it difficult to pinpoint an error is worth considering.

added 244 characters in body
Source Link
Journeyman Geek Mod
  • 132k
  • 2
  • 76
  • 165

In a practical sense, we don't really support pirated software anywhere. Yes, Hackintoshes are a specific and very visible example, but its no different from someone using "Windows 10 pirate edition"

I'd readily admit, its a rule that got put in place by an ex mod, and it feels vaguely 'by fiat' but its in line with the Stack Exchange TOS in my opinion

Subscriber represents, warrants and agrees that it will not contribute any Subscriber Content that (a) infringes, violates or otherwise interferes with any copyright or trademark of another party, (b) reveals any trade secret, unless Subscriber owns the trade secret or has the owner’s permission to post it, (c) infringes any intellectual property right of another or the privacy or publicity rights of another....

Even with a "vanilla" copy of OS X with some suitable tool that does nothing more than bypass the hardware checks, its no different from running windows with a hardware crack.

So, unless someone from SE corporate says "Yeah, its fine", publicly, and tells us our interpretation of the TOS is wrong - I'm disinclined to think it is acceptable.

In addition, while Allquixotic has made most of the point I wanted to make for me, outside of a small range of hardware - the secondary argument I make against pirated variants of commercial OSes - that its impossible to know what has been added or removed, making it difficult to pinpoint an error is worth considering.

In a practical sense, we don't really support pirated software anywhere. Yes, Hackintoshes are a specific and very visible example, but its no different from someone using "Windows 10 pirate edition"

I'd readily admit, its a rule that got put in place by an ex mod, and it feels vaguely 'by fiat' but its in line with the Stack Exchange TOS in my opinion

Subscriber represents, warrants and agrees that it will not contribute any Subscriber Content that (a) infringes, violates or otherwise interferes with any copyright or trademark of another party, (b) reveals any trade secret, unless Subscriber owns the trade secret or has the owner’s permission to post it, (c) infringes any intellectual property right of another or the privacy or publicity rights of another....

So, unless someone from SE corporate says "Yeah, its fine" - I'm disinclined to think it is acceptable.

In addition, while Allquixotic has made most of the point I wanted to make for me, outside of a small range of hardware - the secondary argument I make against pirated variants of commercial OSes - that its impossible to know what has been added or removed, making it difficult to pinpoint an error is worth considering.

In a practical sense, we don't really support pirated software anywhere. Yes, Hackintoshes are a specific and very visible example, but its no different from someone using "Windows 10 pirate edition"

I'd readily admit, its a rule that got put in place by an ex mod, and it feels vaguely 'by fiat' but its in line with the Stack Exchange TOS in my opinion

Subscriber represents, warrants and agrees that it will not contribute any Subscriber Content that (a) infringes, violates or otherwise interferes with any copyright or trademark of another party, (b) reveals any trade secret, unless Subscriber owns the trade secret or has the owner’s permission to post it, (c) infringes any intellectual property right of another or the privacy or publicity rights of another....

Even with a "vanilla" copy of OS X with some suitable tool that does nothing more than bypass the hardware checks, its no different from running windows with a hardware crack.

So, unless someone from SE corporate says "Yeah, its fine", publicly, and tells us our interpretation of the TOS is wrong - I'm disinclined to think it is acceptable.

In addition, while Allquixotic has made most of the point I wanted to make for me, outside of a small range of hardware - the secondary argument I make against pirated variants of commercial OSes - that its impossible to know what has been added or removed, making it difficult to pinpoint an error is worth considering.

Source Link
Journeyman Geek Mod
  • 132k
  • 2
  • 76
  • 165
Loading