[OT] EULA and legality

[Kay C Lan]

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 2:42 AM, Peter Haworth <pete at lcsql.com> wrote:

> You're right, yes I'm referring to the parts about running only on Apple
> hardware.
> Pete
>

What you are saying then is Apple can't even say there is minimum system
requirement for their OS.

There are many people who are very unhappy with Apple because they have a
relatively modern Apple hardware yet Mount Lion doesn't run on it. This
isn't something new to the Apple community. Hardware restrictions for OSs
have been around for ages, in the case of Apple they just happen to add
that it also has to be Apple branded - I think much like Microsoft specify
Windows certified.

Whilst I acknowledge that Apple's choice of words in it's EULA is purely
business orientated, the fact remains that millions of people follow it to
the letter, and your choice to follow it or not is about honesty.

I'm just wondering, if you don't think in the EU Apple can license it's
software, but you actually own because it quacks like a duck, are you then
suggesting that Runrev's new monthly licensing option really is a cheap way
to go because once you've bought it, you own it and therefore Runrev must
allow you to use it just like their perpetual licence??? Hmm just wondering?

Musicians sell their music. I can listen to it for free on the radio. I can
download it for free off the Internet. The extension that if I download it
off the Internet for free and listen to it just like I was listen to the
radio might seem to be logical and valid, but it doesn't change the fact
that to me (but not to millions of others) it is dishonest.

I think Lynn's example is an excellent one.

I think it was Bob that suggested the EULA is simply a way Apple can wash
it hands of jailbreakers and all those who want to run OS X on other
hardware. I don't think they are really going to go chasing after any
individuals. You can't stop people from doing anything. Another industry
that has interesting terms of purchase are hand/power tools - in US anyway.
I can't use pliers as a hammer, I can't use a screwdriver as a chisel, I
can't use a power saw without safety goggles. Yes I can. No one from
Craftsman is going to check up on me, but guaranteed, when I injure myself
trying to use a screwdriver as a crowbar, my chances of recourse against
Craftsman is pretty slim.

Let me put this out there, if Apple were to remove that requirement, then
wouldn't that mean that Apple would have to then treat every customer the
same? All the hackintosh crowd would be entitled to time with Apple
support. Oh no you say, you wouldn't expect that, maybe not you but
everyone else would. Or maybe they could write into their EULA that only
Apple hardware owners were entitled to Apple support. Then there would be
an outcry, wait a minute I paid exactly the same as the Apple fan boy for
ML so why shouldn't I be treated the same?

Please come up with an EULA that is supposedly fair for both Apple hardware
owners and non-Apple hardware owners and doesn't turn into a can of worms
for Apple. From my view of the Apple Forums, Apple is a long way off
Steve's dream of seamless integration of hardware and software. There are
far too many people out there with Apple hardware with OS issues. Screw the
hackintosh crowd.