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.












goof up
03/26, 12:15pm reply
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.
testudo
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Aug 2001
perhaps
03/26, 12:20pm reply
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.
chadpengar
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Oct 2001
retarded story
03/26, 12:22pm reply
It's free. What do you want for free?
dliup
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jan 2006
Non-story
03/26, 12:45pm reply
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.
JeffHarris
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Oct 1999
boilerplate
03/26, 12:55pm reply
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?
climacs
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Sep 2001
comments
03/26, 01:00pm reply
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".
testudo
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Aug 2001
so demand a refund
03/26, 01:08pm reply
for safari. knock yourself out.
jpellino
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Oct 1999
it just goes to show
03/26, 02:02pm reply
that even the lawyers don't read software license agreements.
After-purchase agreements/EULA's are totally unenforceable.
just a poster
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jun 2004
ah ha!
03/26, 02:06pm reply
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.
malax
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Aug 2006
Or...
03/26, 02:34pm reply
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).
DarkVader
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Sep 2001