3 ms·

> Apple didn’t sell me this software. They still own it, in fact. I’m just borrowing it. Does this also apply to older versions of OS X that are actually paid

by msravi 11y ago

> Apple didn’t sell me this software. They still own it, in fact. I’m just borrowing it. Does this also apply to older versions of OS X that are actually paid for (such as Snow Leopard and Mountain Lion)? Or is this only for the "free" versions like Yosemite and El Capitan?

dchest 11y ago
It applies to pretty much all software: you're licensing it, not buying.
- Silhouette 11y ago
  Though it's actually a very bad summary in this particular case. If you've paid real money for a permanent copy of some software then in many jurisdictions you do effectively own that copy of the software. In those places, there may be quite severe restrictions on what the copyright holder can then restrict you from doing with your copy, even though they retain the main rights to the software itself, and in some cases there have been lawsuits which have made it to court and upheld limitations on the rightsholders' powers. Even where there used to be potential distinctions between physical copies and things you acquired in purely digital form such as on-line downloads, the law is catching up in a lot of places. It's just doing so painfully slowly compared to the pace of development of technology, and sometimes with a few accidental/deliberate (delete as applicable) loopholes written into the newer laws that still seem rather favourable to copyright holders and the like.
  - Joeri 11y ago
    They'll still put it in for the jurisdictions that it's valid, or maybe just as a chilling effect. I've signed an employment contract before which contained clauses that were invalid under the law (non-compete and also forced repayment of mandatory training when you leave too soon after), and when the employer was asked whether they knew they were invalid, they admitted they did. Those clauses were only enforceable to people who didn't know any better, and apparently that was sufficient reason to have them in there.
    - Silhouette 11y ago
      Yes, this is an all-too-common tactic with legalese. I assume that's why in some places even including certain provisions in a consumer contract or failing to advertise certain information about consumer rights is in itself against the law now.
zeckalpha 11y ago
You paid for the disc, but you are borrowing the "contents" of the disc.

by msravi 11y ago

dchest 11y ago

It applies to pretty much all software: you're licensing it, not buying.

Silhouette 11y ago
Though it's actually a very bad summary in this particular case. If you've paid real money for a permanent copy of some software then in many jurisdictions you do effectively own that copy of the software. In those places, there may be quite severe restrictions on what the copyright holder can then restrict you from doing with your copy, even though they retain the main rights to the software itself, and in some cases there have been lawsuits which have made it to court and upheld limitations on the rightsholders' powers. Even where there used to be potential distinctions between physical copies and things you acquired in purely digital form such as on-line downloads, the law is catching up in a lot of places. It's just doing so painfully slowly compared to the pace of development of technology, and sometimes with a few accidental/deliberate (delete as applicable) loopholes written into the newer laws that still seem rather favourable to copyright holders and the like.
- Joeri 11y ago
  They'll still put it in for the jurisdictions that it's valid, or maybe just as a chilling effect. I've signed an employment contract before which contained clauses that were invalid under the law (non-compete and also forced repayment of mandatory training when you leave too soon after), and when the employer was asked whether they knew they were invalid, they admitted they did. Those clauses were only enforceable to people who didn't know any better, and apparently that was sufficient reason to have them in there.
  - Silhouette 11y ago
    Yes, this is an all-too-common tactic with legalese. I assume that's why in some places even including certain provisions in a consumer contract or failing to advertise certain information about consumer rights is in itself against the law now.

zeckalpha 11y ago

You paid for the disc, but you are borrowing the "contents" of the disc.