[clug] Off topic: OS/X USB boot device for 'normal' PC'S

Daniel Pittman daniel at rimspace.net
Wed Jun 25 04:02:15 GMT 2008

Arjen Lentz <arjen at lentz.com.au> writes:
> On 25/06/2008, at 12:08 PM, Neill Cox wrote:
>> The license actually says "Apple-labeled computer". I think a lawyer would
>> interpret that as a computer labeled by Apple, not some random  piece of
>> hardware with an Apple sticker.
> A lawyer may well intepret it that way, but that's irrelevant.
> A license is a contract, in this case between Apple Computer and an
> end-user. 

Your views on the law are touchingly naïve, but rather dangerous to both
yourself and anyone influenced by them.

> It has to be in precise unambiguous language, otherwise the lay user
> is quite entitled to intepret it within the bounds of what the text
> says.
> Apple has plenty of expert lawyers. If they want to word it precisely
> to exclude unintended meaning, they're quite capable of doing so.  It
> serves no purpose to second guess what might have been intended, but
> from the above, one may actually infer that the wording is
> deliberate. 

A judge, and a jury in the unlikely event one was involved, will
interpret the intent of the contract, not the specific wording.

It is, in my untrained opinion, extraordinarily unlikely that a judge
would be convinced that a "reasonable person" would interpret the
license in that fashion, or determine that Apple would have intended


> I'll admit it's creative and *possibly* not what Apple intended, but
> that's not for us lay people to judge. We just use what we get.

Actually, under legal systems derived from British common law, it *is*
your responsibility to act as a reasonable person.  Interpretation of a
contract is governed by that guideline.

Under legal systems derived from the Napoleonic Code your situation is
substantially worse: they place a much greater burden of proof on the
defendant than the rather equitable British, Australian and American
legal traditions.


> Look, let's not deviate from the actual issue at hand. This is *not*
> about illegally copying software.

Yes, it is.  It may be "is it illegal to copy this software", but it is
certainly about that subject.

> If someone purchases a OS X 10.5 pack, they are quite entitled to
> possess that copy. Nothing illegal about it.


> And they can also use it, within the EULA requirements, and so they
> might install it on their computer which is Apple-labeled,

Correct.  Your interpretation of that later guideline, though, is
unlikely to hold up in a court of law.


More information about the linux mailing list