4 ms·
> It’s reductio ad absurdum It's not, it's just factually wrong. If Apple can legally claim 30% of your salary then a doctor using an iPad to demonstrate resu
by willtemperley 9mo ago
> It’s reductio ad absurdum
It's not, it's just factually wrong.
If Apple can legally claim 30% of your salary then a doctor using an iPad to demonstrate results of a scan to a patient has to pay Apple 30% of their consultation fee.
That's reductio ad absurdum.
Lol.
- spacebanana7 9mo ago> If Apple can legally claim 30% of your salary then a doctor using an iPad to demonstrate results of a scan to a patient has to pay Apple 30% of their consultation fee. Apple could absolutely do this. They could say that professional medical use of macOS requires a commercial license, and the price of that commercial licence could be linked to revenue. Doctors - or rather their hospital IT/procurement departments - would be held to the terms of service they agree to. Far more rigorously than ordinary consumers.
- willtemperley 9mo agoIf that were legally enforcable, which is almost certainly not the case, Microsoft and Google could do the same, making your argument moot in this context.
- spacebanana7 9mo agoEvery software company can do this. Oracle Java is free for personal use but if you use it in prod you have to pay a licence based on the number of employees in your company. Epic games takes 5% of your revenue above a million if you use unreal for a game. Docker desktop requires a paid license if you have over 250 employees or $10 million in revenue.
- willtemperley 9mo agoLet's continue with the reductio ad absurdum - a taxi driver uses their iPhone to navigate. Can Apple take 30% of their revenue?
- spacebanana7 8mo agoAbsolutely, if the taxi driver signs a contract / agrees to terms of service. What law prohibits them from charging that? This is why open source is so important.
- bigDinosaur 9mo agoWhat would make this legally unenforceable?
- g947o 8mo agoHeard of the word "contract"?