Live data from Hacker News

OS X El Capitan License: in Plain English

robb.weblaws.org

21–30 of 132 posts

Re: OS X El Capitan License: in Plain English

#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?

Re: OS X El Capitan License: in Plain English

#25
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?

It applies to pretty much all software: you're licensing it, not buying.

Re: OS X El Capitan License: in Plain English

#26
I 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 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.”

Yes, there are a lot of things it doesn’t cover. There’s no copyleft in this license, and no restriction on commercial use, and so on. Some will argue the problems with that, but it’s also a strength—because the license does less, explaining these concepts is unnecessary, and the resulting license text is much simpler.

There aren’t that many licenses like that. Even Creative Commons summary pages state: “This is a human-readable summary of (and not a substitute for) the license. This deed highlights only some of the key features and terms of the actual license. It is not a license and has no legal value. You should carefully review all of the terms and conditions of the actual license before using the licensed material.” Who actually does that? But it seems dangerous not to.

    $ wc -w * | sort -n
         60 wtfpl
        118 isc
        140 zlib
        167 mit
        190 unlicense
        207 bsd
       1055 cc0
       1234 lgpl3
       2487 gpl2
       2699 cc-by
       3111 cc-by-sa
       4025 lgpl2.1
       5174 agpl3
       5209 gpl3
      25876 total

Re: OS X El Capitan License: in Plain English

#27
post #23

Why is Sudan of all places singled out and not like North Korea or Iran? Or was that just reduced for brevity.

In the comments of the original article, the author mentions this condition applies to any country on the embargoed list [0] (which includes Sudan).

0: http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/embargoed_countries/

Re: OS X El Capitan License: in Plain English

#28

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?

China is indeed on that list, however to understand what you may or may not export to China you will have to read all of the relevant laws, which may or may not be the same as those for any other country.

Re: OS X El Capitan License: in Plain English

#30
> Slideshows made with Photo; same deal, don’t even think about using them for some commercial purpose.

??? Was Apple too cheap to buy the proper license for the default slideshow music? That sounds completely arbitrary and unexpected. (I doubt anyone will ever enforce this rule, but why is it there?)

Post reply on HN