4 ms·
Judging from the article it does: The author is clearly Apple and they are not responsible just as in the BSD license: The Capitan is AS-IS, of course. Unlik
by yxdfasdjkljasdf 11y ago
Judging from the article it does:
The author is clearly Apple and they are not responsible just as in the BSD license:
The Capitan is AS-IS, of course.
Unlike BSD, there is no source and a bunch of other very restrictive limitations, which is what I was commenting about.
1. I can’t use the Capitan with illegal copies of anyone’s stuff.
2. Apple didn’t sell me this software. They still own it, in fact. I’m just borrowing it.
3. If I install more Apple software, those are on loan as well.
...
And so on.
- togusa 11y agoThey place restrictive rights on the usage of the software and retain the ability to revoke your license. BSD does not, ergo it is different.
- hobarrera 11y agoI'm not sure if this is also true in the US, but the ability to revoke a licence is implicit by law in many places - though the revoker may be liable for any losses caused by the revocation.