71–80 of 132 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The prohibition is against sending it to any “embargoed country”. Sudan is on the list: http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/embargoed_countries/
Funny, China seems to be on the list too... Or am I interpreting that list incorrectly?
I did not read anything about installing Windows on Apple hardware and then running OSX Capitan in a virtual machine. Is that really allowed?
Unfortunately, no, that's not allowed, your host OS must be an apple supplied OS.
See also [1] and here's the excerpt:
(iii) to install, use and run up to two (2) additional copies or instances of the Apple Software within virtual operating system environments on each Mac Computer you own or control that is already running the Apple Software
I did not read anything about installing Windows on Apple hardware and then running OSX Capitan in a virtual machine. Is that really allowed?
As long as the OSX VM runs on Apple hardware, it's allowed. Apple does not put any legal restrictions on what OS you choose to run on Mac hardware, you're free to install Windows on it (but then you'd better be complying with Windows' license terms)
Note that there is an interesting side case with vSphere ESXi where the host OS is a hypervisor not an apple provided OS. This appears to be legal as VMware clearly supports it, if an only if vSphere runs on apple hardware, but I'm not sure how that fits in the EULA.
I don't understand how practically all commercial software can get away with claiming that it isn't fit or warranted for any purpose. Apple's product demos and website advertise the OS performing lots of different tasks. If I bought a Mac and found I couldn't use it to browse the web or store photos, surely Apple's marketing is direct proof that they are warranting that it should be able to do these things?
[I agree]
"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 don't understand how practically all commercial software can get away with claiming that it isn't fit or warranted for any purpose. Apple's product demos and website advertise the OS performing lots of different tasks. If I bought a Mac and found I couldn't use it to browse the web or store photos, surely Apple's marketing is direct proof that they are warranting that it should be able to do these things?
In any case, almost all warranty disclaimers start with "TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW" which, under consumer laws in most countries, requires the company to provide a product that can work as shown in all its advertising materials.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 t…
I don't understand how practically all commercial software can get away with claiming that it isn't fit or warranted for any purpose. Apple's product demos and website advertise the OS performing lots of different tasks. If I bought a Mac and found I couldn't use it to browse the web or store photos, surely Apple's marketing is direct proof that they are warranting that it should be able to do these things?
Nothing like that appears in the plain text license here. Are you reading it from somewhere else? In any case, almost all warranty disclaimers start with "TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW" which, under consumer laws in most countries, requires the company to provide a product that can work as shown in all its advertising materials.
License agreements are long, the consumer laws are probably an order of magnitude bigger (and that's assuming you even know which bits are relevant)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing like that appears in the plain text license here. Are you reading it from somewhere else? In any case, almost all warranty disclaimers start with "TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW" which, under consumer laws in most countries, requires the company to provide a product that can work as shown in all its advertising materials.
See my other post containing the actual text (all-caps). You're right about the 'permitted by law' bit but who knows what that actually covers? I've never seen a clear summary anywhere. License agreements are long, the consumer laws are probably an order of magnitude bigger (and that's assuming you even know which bits are relevant)