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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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".

for safari. knock yourself out.

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

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

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.

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).