Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OS X El Capitan License: in Plain English

robb.weblaws.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 132 posts

Re: OS X El Capitan License: in Plain English

#91

Post by lambada »

acd wrote: post #90

Legal agreements was used to be a agreement between two parties where an equal agreement was reached. EULA tends to be one sided agreements where the company take away your rights. "I gotta run it on Apple hardware (no Hackintoshes). I can’t help anyone else do that." Isnt help anyone else doing that taking away your legal right of free speech? I have also seen agreements where the company says you may not publicly m…

"Isnt help anyone else doing that taking away your legal right of free speech?"

Not in the US at least. In the US the legal right only prevents the government making laws that abridge them. It doesn't prohibit any private person or company from limiting speech in any way they like.

Re: OS X El Capitan License: in Plain English

#92

Post by zeckalpha »

msravi wrote: post #22

> Apple didn’t sell me this software. They still own it, in fact. I’m just borrowing it. Does this also apply to older versions of OS X that are actually paid for (such as Snow Leopard and Mountain Lion)? Or is this only for the "free" versions like Yosemite and El Capitan?

You paid for the disc, but you are borrowing the "contents" of the disc.

Re: OS X El Capitan License: in Plain English

#93

Post by pidg »

joosters wrote: post #67
wtallis wrote: post #39

IIRC, #7 about the voice synthesizers appeared with 10.6. Prior to that, there was no mention of the voices in the license and commercial use of narrations produced with the system's voice synthesizer might have been legal.

That's bizarre, especially since as far as I can tell, the voice synthesizer hasn't been improved in years. (the command 'say hello' sounds something like 'yellow' to my ears)

I can only think of one commercial track that uses the voice synth - Cow Cud is a Twin by Aphex Twin[1] uses the 'Hysterical' and 'Bells' voices.

And those aren't "remixed" - they're used straight - which makes me wonder what the full license terms are (I agreed blindly and can't find a copy of the license now...)

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbOqgWifXgU

Re: OS X El Capitan License: in Plain English

#94

Post by zeckalpha »

joosters wrote: post #67
wtallis wrote: post #39

IIRC, #7 about the voice synthesizers appeared with 10.6. Prior to that, there was no mention of the voices in the license and commercial use of narrations produced with the system's voice synthesizer might have been legal.

That's bizarre, especially since as far as I can tell, the voice synthesizer hasn't been improved in years. (the command 'say hello' sounds something like 'yellow' to my ears)

More voices have been added.

Re: OS X El Capitan License: in Plain English

#96

Post by fernandotakai »

suneilp wrote: post #45
x5n1 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come to Linux my brother, heed the call of salvation!

X Windows has traumatized me in the past.

it got a lot better. on my archlinux install (on a macbook), the only thing that did not work out of the box was wifi (i had to install proprietary broadcom drivers).

other than that, everything is fine and dandy. and it boots a lot faster than osx ever did.

Re: OS X El Capitan License: in Plain English

#97

Post by randallsquared »

lambada wrote: post #91
acd wrote: post #90

Legal agreements was used to be a agreement between two parties where an equal agreement was reached. EULA tends to be one sided agreements where the company take away your rights. "I gotta run it on Apple hardware (no Hackintoshes). I can’t help anyone else do that." Isnt help anyone else doing that taking away your legal right of free speech? I have also seen agreements where the company says you may not publicly m…

"Isnt help anyone else doing that taking away your legal right of free speech?" Not in the US at least. In the US the legal right only prevents the government making laws that abridge them. It doesn't prohibit any private person or company from limiting speech in any way they like.

> limiting speech in any way they like.

...that you agree to. In theory. And originally, only the federal government was so limited; states could and did have laws that would have been in violation of the first amendment, had the federal government instituted them.

Re: OS X El Capitan License: in Plain English

#98

Post by rogeryu »

Narishma wrote: post #82

> I gotta follow all my local laws while I’m using it. (!) (Really? Whereever I live?) Where I live, a lot of those rules conflict with local law.

Well then, it's quite simple, but then local law overrules Apple law. And Apple is nice enough to let you know this.

Re: OS X El Capitan License: in Plain English

#99

Post by croddin »

jmpeax wrote: post #76
tajen wrote: post #40

"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?

This is cool. If I do something illegal, I'm not only allowed to, but obligated to delete all evidence of it.

* Unless that conflicts with local law. Which I believe in many places it does.

Re: OS X El Capitan License: in Plain English

#100

Post by goldmar »

gilgoomesh wrote: post #77
joosters wrote: post #72

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.

> In any case, almost all warranty disclaimers start with "TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW"

Which is an invalid clause in Germany and probably most other European countries. Any clause that goes beyond the extent permitted by the applicable law is automatically void in Germany. This is due to consumer protection laws. Therefore, most of these EULAs are probably void if it ever comes to law suit...

Post reply on HN