I thought it’d be a “fun” project to see what the “El Capitan License” actually says. Cool idea, huh? Kind of like spelunking through a cave that everyone says they’ve been through, but maybe no one really has. What will I find wedged in a wall or lurking in the dark around the next turn?
These software licences are always pretty much the same – and unlike what many people assume, they’re really not targeted at us, the user, but more at limiting liability for the company that writes them. Clearly, as always, Apple is no different than all the others.
Based on the article, the policy looks pretty uneventful, which has to be a good thing. However, I had a look at the policy myself (I don’t own a Mac, so taken from the Apple website) and unless I’m misunderstanding (I’m no lawyer) the words that appear onscreen are only part of the story.
If you end up using the machine, you’re also agreeing to Apple’s Refund Policy, their iTunes Policy, their Privacy Policy, various Open Source licences and their Certificate Policy,
Use it fully and you’ll further be agreeing to their iCloud policy, Print Services policy, Google’s Terms of Service and Google’s Privacy Policy.
I didn’t read all of these, so maybe they’re uneventful too, but I reckon it would take me more than 33 minutes if I did!
I wonder mostly about things like this:
8. Slideshows made with Photo; same deal, don’t even think about using them for some commercial purpose.
22. I cannot, don’t even think about it, just plain can’t, make money from MPEG/H.264/AVC videos I create. For that, I need to buy another something from somebody.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but if I buy a tool of any other kind, I can use for whatever I want. Are such restrictions really enforcable in the US. And what about the rest of the developed world?
If you are a not a private consumer and you live in the EU, then this license is not enforceable.
Consumer law in the EU forbids additional clauses / restrictions to the conditions that were known when you bought the product. And because you can only read the license agreement when you start your Mac, ans not when you actually bought it, this license agreement is not enforceable.
But it does not mean that you can do whatever you want: copyright law e.g. is still applicable.
There are many things you can do, but are not allowed to do, with products that you by. If you buy a DVD you can play it in front of you and your family but not in front of all your co-workers. (no-broadcasting)
Software licenses are also not bought products, but “contract agreements” and in those situations it is apparently normal to say “Sure you can buy this version of Microsoft Word, but you cannot use it to type business proposals on it”.
(I never understood why companies got away with selling server licenses that allowed you to connect > 2 RDP-connections…but all those connections needed their own Client-Access-Licenses anyway. Double dipping on a major scale)
But in your example with the DVD player, the infringement is not predicated on the DVD player. You can use any device. It’s not illegal because a license agreement says so. It’s the law. Whereas it’s not illegal to write business proposals.
I am of the inclination that a contract should only narrow your rights if such narrowing was explicitly allowed by law. Because at least some narrowings are not allowed, like you cannot allow someone to kill you. But I am not a lawyer.
That’s silly. Contractual obligation never makes an illegal action become legal. There’s no issue here.
All contracts narrow rights, by establishing obligations. That’s the entire point.
I agree that certain things should never belong in contract, but I think a ‘blacklist’ approach of specifically forbidding things makes more sense.
Any examples of Apple ever even trying to enforce such a thing?
So many people make media on a mac that they then sell, I find this hard to believe. Music, video, film, images…. I find it hard to believe they are claiming you cannot use these in commercial works.
Dude, its not Apple that will kill you over that, its the MPLA. Apple only has a license to produce things, you need a separate license from MPLA to distribute to consumers.
Yes, that’s stupid and absurd, and probably only going to be enforced if they become aware of it and you are making tons of money with it, or they just want to send a message to anyone else who is making money to not do it.
The whole issue of Copyright is a nasty dirty sesspit.
I can make a video yet to show It I have to pay those licensing slimeballs money to get a license to show my own work to people outside my own family.
This is a load of [redacted]
The EULA on OSX has nothing to do with this but as has been said, they are just covering are backsides.
The MS one absolves them of all responibility for everything and enything the computers that run their OS are used for.
I wonder how their forced update policy squares with they. By forcing updates they have to retain some responsibility for what said computer is used for. If a forced update causes some plant malfunction then…
The lawyers will have a field day.
These sort of license agreements are just lawyer speak aimed at other lawyers. Only people who deserve punishment should be made to read them (i.e lawyers mostly). They have almost zero impact on end users. When I was a project manager I used to dread the point when we had to consult our lawyers, it meant every possible bad thing that could happen was postulated and examined in grotesque detail, and everything slowed down. Usually I just ignored the lawyers advice whilst telling them I was fully complying, just to shut them up.
BTW what do mean by ‘forced updates’?
Edited 2015-10-19 17:19 UTC
Exactly what it sounds like. Windows 10, both Home and Professional, force automatic updates at all times. The professional version allows you to at least postpone the reboot, but the home version doesn’t even let you do that and it can, and will, restart in the middle of your work. And yes, that includes drivers… and the resulting failure of said driver updates. It’s nasty.
I believe most large companies test the upgrades before deploying them to their servers/workstations. I think its only the consumer grade os versions that are getting forced updates.
and most corporate PC’s and Laptops are locked down tighter that a Nuns ….
Except that some people have to have things like Local Admin access just to do their job. So my team uses Win 7 Pro with our own license keys. Corporate IT have washed their hands with us (Yes! Success!) apart from letting us access the Corp Intranet, we are on our own
If any of my team upgraded to W10 then they’d be out the door. The MS data slurp is enough to stop many of our projects dead. Some of it can’t be blocked and they will constantly evolve/exted the numbers of IP addresses for us to find and block.
This is as bad as any trojan horse/malware I have seen yet people are just letting it happen.
Don’t that have any backbone? I think it should be challenged in court. etc etc etc
The result is that we are transitioning away from windows to OSX and Linux and VMware (Windows Server OS Only). I’m the only one going to Linux (CentOS 7). The rest of the team are getting MBP’s.
Are any of these computers controlling factories? I hope they aren’t, I’d like those to be locked down as much as possible. If the general restrictions are too tight ( again for these factory critical computers), then one can easily add special configurations for them to allow them to run the factory.
If you are talking about a RD group within a larger company, well that’s a different sack of potatoes.