[OT] EULA and legality

Bob Sneidar bobs at twft.com
Tue Sep 11 12:43:09 EDT 2012

I can see in this specific case that it would be problematic for Apple to make their OS backwards compatible with everything ever produced by them. There has to be some kind of cutoff. I don't fault them for that. Where they draw the line is really not an issue of legality, but of expedience. 

If Apple wrote the OS installers in such away that it would only work with hardware made in the last year, it would not be very expedient for them, as not very many people would or could use it. That it is written in such a way that intel based machines that are not that old but still cannot run it has many people, myself included raising our eyebrows already. But if we found a way to install it anyway and did so, we would not be legally bound to remove it. At least I do not think that is what minimum requirements mean. It only means that Apple would not be bound to support that configuration. 

I find in many of these posts that there seems to be a confusion between an action that voids a contractual obligation, and one that infringes on the rights of the producer in a manner that can at least theoretically be actionable. I think this thread is really about the latter, not the former. 


On Sep 10, 2012, at 7:38 PM, Kay C Lan 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.

More information about the use-livecode mailing list