Does anyone know if #10 changed in El Capitan? I remember reading that Apple allowed hackintoshes.
This summary is precisely for El Capitan, so no, it has not changed.
OS X El Capitan License: in Plain English
41–50 of 132 posts
Re: OS X El Capitan License: in Plain English
#42I think there’s a lot to be said for a license that’s so simple it doesn’t need a summary. For example, take the ISC license: “Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. “The software is provided ‘as is’ and the author disclaims all warranties with regard…
> The software is provided ‘as is’ and the author disclaims all warranties with regard to this software including all implied warranties of merchantability and fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this software.”
Not compatible with law in some jurisdictions. Which is one of the problems with complex licences - the more stuff there is in them the more chance they have of not being compatible with local law.
Re: OS X El Capitan License: in Plain English
#43If I'm just 'borrowing' El Capitan, then that means the copy I'm running belongs to them. Therefore, any intellectual property I develop using my copy could technically belong to them?
Re: OS X El Capitan License: in Plain English
#44If I'm just 'borrowing' El Capitan, then that means the copy I'm running belongs to them. Therefore, any intellectual property I develop using my copy could technically belong to them?
Come to Linux my brother, heed the call of salvation!
Re: OS X El Capitan License: in Plain English
#45Re: OS X El Capitan License: in Plain English
#46"I can't use El Captain with illegal copies of anyone's stuff" or break any local law. In which case I must delete everything. Do you think Apple is required to write this? or is it just lawyers maxing out on the possibilities of licensing?
I guess it's more about Apple washing their hands, like if someone uses a Mac to plan a bombing or hack into something, no matter what happens no one can point a finger at Apple.
It's a long shot, but it's same kind of thing when your microwave says "it's not suitable for drying living animal"
Re: OS X El Capitan License: in Plain English
#47I did not read anything about installing Windows on Apple hardware and then running OSX Capitan in a virtual machine. Is that really allowed?
Re: OS X El Capitan License: in Plain English
#48Re: OS X El Capitan License: in Plain English
#49English isn't really a better exchange format for licenses than legalese. Arguably it's even worse due to the lossy conversion.
What we really need is a common legal markup language[1]. Sadly, the few efforts that I've heard about seem to be stagnating.
Re: OS X El Capitan License: in Plain English
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
It applies to pretty much all software: you're licensing it, not buying.
Though it's actually a very bad summary in this particular case. If you've paid real money for a permanent copy of some software then in many jurisdictions you do effectively own that copy of the software. In those places, there may be quite severe restrictions on what the copyright holder can then restrict you from doing with your copy, even though they retain the main rights to the software itself, and in some case…
They'll still put it in for the jurisdictions that it's valid, or maybe just as a chilling effect. I've signed an employment contract before which contained clauses that were invalid under the law (non-compete and also forced repayment of mandatory training when you leave too soon after), and when the employer was asked whether they knew they were invalid, they admitted they did. Those clauses were only enforceable to people who didn't know any better, and apparently that was sufficient reason to have them in there.