3 ms·

> (2) “Operating system provider” does not mean a person or entity that distributes an operating system or application under license terms that permit a recipie

> (2) “Operating system provider” does not mean a person or entity that distributes an operating system or application under license terms that permit a recipient to copy, redistribute, and modify the software. Where does MacOS and iOS fit then? The core of both those operating systems (darwin) is open source (APSL licensed).

gmueckl 2mo ago
MacOS isn't Darwin and comes under terms that do not fit rhe criteria of the exception. Apple actually did go to some lengths in the past to ensure that all layers of MacOS contained bits that they could claim restrictive licenses on. A project like PureDarwin, however, can be freely distributed because it omits Apple's proprietary parts.
- kennywinker 2mo ago
  Macos contains elements that are open licensed. Many linux distros contain elements that are closed source. Where is the line? This law describes as a true-false something that is not only true or false. This law is poorly written. Amending it didn’t fix that.
  - card_zero 2mo ago
    Call in a Reasonable Person, when the position of the line is in question.
    - kennywinker 2mo ago
      Reasonable People were unavailable for comment - they are busy deciding your 3d printer is illegal.
  - SahAssar 2mo ago
    Basically all linux distros fully run without the closed source parts, they are only there to provide support for specific hardware. MacOS on the other hand cannot run at all without the closed source parts.
  - gmueckl 2mo ago
    The line is that an open Linux distribution will boot and run on hardware that is sufficiently compatible. The full MacOS as distributed by Apple is engineered to require closed source, non-redistributabe components even on the hardware it is most compatible with. It will completely stop functioning if you remove those parts. The presence of freely licensed components becomes de facto irrelevant.
w10-1 2mo ago
> copy, redistribute, and modify the software I can copy and redistribute macOS binaries, and I can write programs/extensions that modify macOS. These vague terms show that legislators are incapable of regulating software effectively; but they do create an enduring legal franchise to deal with their confusion.
- SahAssar 2mo ago
  You cannot. The apple license has multiple restrictions on that prevent you from copying, modifying and redistribution, for example: > No Reverse Engineering. You may not, and you agree not to or enable others to, copy (except as expressly permitted by this License or by the Usage Rules if they are applicable to you), decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, attempt to derive the source code of, decrypt, modify, or create derivative works of the Apple Software or any services provided by the Apple Software or any part thereof (except as and only to the extent any foregoing restriction is prohibited by applicable law or by licensing terms governing use of Open-Sourced Components that may be included with the Apple Software). From https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macOSTahoe.pdf https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macOSTahoe.pdf
- aniviacat 2mo ago
  Aren't vague terms that need to be interpreted to mean what the writers intended very normal in the legal world?
- mirashii 2mo ago
  > under license terms that permit a recipient to copy, redistribute, and modify the software The “under license terms…” is a pretty important clause you omitted here.

gmueckl 2mo ago

MacOS isn't Darwin and comes under terms that do not fit rhe criteria of the exception. Apple actually did go to some lengths in the past to ensure that all layers of MacOS contained bits that they could claim restrictive licenses on. A project like PureDarwin, however, can be freely distributed because it omits Apple's proprietary parts.

kennywinker 2mo ago
Macos contains elements that are open licensed. Many linux distros contain elements that are closed source. Where is the line? This law describes as a true-false something that is not only true or false. This law is poorly written. Amending it didn’t fix that.
- card_zero 2mo ago
  Call in a Reasonable Person, when the position of the line is in question.
  - kennywinker 2mo ago
    Reasonable People were unavailable for comment - they are busy deciding your 3d printer is illegal.
- SahAssar 2mo ago
  Basically all linux distros fully run without the closed source parts, they are only there to provide support for specific hardware. MacOS on the other hand cannot run at all without the closed source parts.
- gmueckl 2mo ago
  The line is that an open Linux distribution will boot and run on hardware that is sufficiently compatible. The full MacOS as distributed by Apple is engineered to require closed source, non-redistributabe components even on the hardware it is most compatible with. It will completely stop functioning if you remove those parts. The presence of freely licensed components becomes de facto irrelevant.

w10-1 2mo ago

> copy, redistribute, and modify the software I can copy and redistribute macOS binaries, and I can write programs/extensions that modify macOS. These vague terms show that legislators are incapable of regulating software effectively; but they do create an enduring legal franchise to deal with their confusion.

SahAssar 2mo ago
You cannot. The apple license has multiple restrictions on that prevent you from copying, modifying and redistribution, for example: > No Reverse Engineering. You may not, and you agree not to or enable others to, copy (except as expressly permitted by this License or by the Usage Rules if they are applicable to you), decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, attempt to derive the source code of, decrypt, modify, or create derivative works of the Apple Software or any services provided by the Apple Software or any part thereof (except as and only to the extent any foregoing restriction is prohibited by applicable law or by licensing terms governing use of Open-Sourced Components that may be included with the Apple Software). From https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macOSTahoe.pdf https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macOSTahoe.pdf
aniviacat 2mo ago
Aren't vague terms that need to be interpreted to mean what the writers intended very normal in the legal world?
mirashii 2mo ago
> under license terms that permit a recipient to copy, redistribute, and modify the software The “under license terms…” is a pretty important clause you omitted here.