toggle

AAPL Stock: 119 ( + 1.4 )

Printed from http://www.macnn.com

Safari 3 license unusually restrictive?

updated 12:00 pm EDT, Wed March 26, 2008

Safari 3 license limits

Apple's license for the Safari web browser -- of which v3.1 was recently released -- may be unnecessarily restrictive, an Italian site observes. In spite of the fact that the software is a free download, and ships by default on all Macs, its license currently states that it "allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time."

This wording is said to be especially questionable given that Safari is one of few Apple programs available for Windows. There is no mention of PCs or the Microsoft operating system anywhere in Safari's legal documentation, suggesting either that Safari can only be installed on Apple computers, or that PC users are free to copy and share the browser as they wish.




by MacNN Staff

POST TOOLS:

TAGS :

toggle

Comments

  1. testudo

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    goof up

    Apple goofed somewhere on this. The v3.0 license did not limit it to Apple-branded computers.

    I wonder whether Apple will be suing all those using Safari on a Dell.

  1. chadpengar

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    perhaps

    Perhaps there are different licenses with the Windows and Mac versions? (just wondering -- I don't have the Windows Safari)

    Perhaps it is a boilerplate agreement that was copy and pasted from a master license they use.

  1. dliup

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    retarded story

    It's free. What do you want for free?

  1. JeffHarris

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    Non-story

    Does anyone read those those software licenses?

    Clearly, if Apple has developed and is allowing downloads and installation on WinBoxes, where's the problem?

    Maybe this is a stealth effort to sue everyone who loads he Windows version. What a Microsoftian plan that would be… dumb to the core.

  1. climacs

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    boilerplate

    sounds to me, as suggested above, that someone just copied boilerplate language. Is Apple really going to sue someone or send a cease-and-desist letter if they download Safari and install it on more than one computer? Especially when pretty much everybody updates/downloads Safari through Software Update and hardly anyone (I would imagine) copies the installer from one computer to another?

  1. testudo

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    comments

    Perhaps there are different licenses with the Windows and Mac versions? (just wondering -- I don't have the Windows Safari)

    Nope, I went to the effort of installing 3.1 on my windows box just to check, and it does say it that way. It is also listed that way from the web site. v3.0 didn't read that way, though.

    retarded story It's free. What do you want for free?

    Um, it's free, but you can't use it legally unless you have an apple branded computer.

    BTW, irony would best describe your comment. The site is free, yet your complaining about an article with the argument "but it's free".

  1. jpellino

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    so demand a refund

    for safari. knock yourself out.

  1. just a poster

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    it just goes to show

    that even the lawyers don't read software license agreements.

    After-purchase agreements/EULA's are totally unenforceable.

  1. malax

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    ah ha!

    Now Apple is going to sue Window's Safari users to comply with the license agreement--by buying one Apple-branded computer for each copy of Safari they downloaded! Genius.

  1. DarkVader

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    Or...

    you can just do what I do. Recite "I do not" just before you click the agree button.

    It's just as valid as these licenses.

    Seriously - who cares what it says, nobody reads it. This case just proves that the people putting it into the software don't even read it.

    And despite all the claims of companies to the contrary, software is sold, not licensed. To license it, they would have to have you sign an agreement BEFORE you hand over the money, and they don't do that. It's a sale, you can ignore the "license" unless it gives you MORE rights than you'd have under copyright law and the first sale doctrine (like the GPL does).

Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.

toggle

Network Headlines

toggle

Most Popular

MacNN Sponsor

Recent Reviews

IDrive cloud backup and sync service

There are a lot of cloud services out there, and nearly all of them can be used for backing up key files and folders. A few dedicated ...

Plantronics BackBeat Pro Bluetooth headphones

Looking for a pair of headphones that can do everything a user requires is a task that can take some study. Trying to decide on in-ear ...

MaxUpgrades 512GB Retina MacBook Pro SSD

Apple's Retina line of MacBook Pro notebooks have been impressive, right from their debut in 2012. Thinner than the previous model, t ...

toggle

Most Commented