...it means you just aren't trying hard enough.

Come on, everybody, think positive thoughts! Together we can do it!

So, sticky label + marker pen = Valid Licence?

Wow. Are we reduced to bragging about 3G inadequacies in public now. 'My 3G is bigger than yours, snigger'. Ah for the innocent days when it was just about penis length.

Oh, and I'd be sad if Webster didn't chip in with something about the EVIL Apple empire now starting to INFECT other OSs.

Unless there's money to be made by a lawyer.

Then, "Impossible is Nothing!"

... and anyway you'd have to be totally deranged to install any Apple written software on a windows machine. Cross platform has never been their strong point, and don't even get me started on what several incarnations of i-tunes have done to my pc's, So much so I threw the bloody i-pods away and bought generic MP3's instead.

Mines the one with "Apples are not the only fruit" on the back ........

My God, I've been using it for 4 months now, getting email and browsing the web, its been far more useable than any other mobile browser I have ever used. However, now I know it doesn't have 3G, it's going in the bin!

'This licence does not allow the Apple software to exist on more then one computer at a time '

Hey, when you're done surfing, toss me the browser please.

Unfortunately there is no pie-in-the-face Steve jobs icon ...

When users have "auto update" software enabled (as most do so they won't be bothered), there is no such box to UNcheck if you don't want that notoriously Security Buggy Safari on your PC! The fact the Stevie Gods is blatantly trying to bundle Safari in with somewhat benign iTunes, is tantamount to SNEAKING it in!

Say, wasn't MS raked over the coals for doing similar things by the HYPOCRITE Apple Hack media and all the Apple FUDs??? Geez, all you guys would make great Dems and Liberals ... oh wait, according to recent research, Apple kooks are usually snooty hypocrite Liberals.

The big rumor is that a number of Windows users have already been soliciting ambulance chaser lawyers to sue Apple. a known Malware, if not historic buggy software provider. Now THAT will make my day! ... oh, YEAR!

The fact that nobody has noticed this for months just goes to show how useless EULAs really are.

Golden Delicious, Braeburn or Pink Lady?

Sorry, but my honest opinion of Safari on Mac is mostly unprintable, and I would seriously consider a Vista upgrade for anyone stupid enough to install it on Windows. Actually, that might not be a bad idea - Vista is bound to break it!

Maybe not "impossible" in the virtual world, but, like almost all EULAs, it is an "unreasonale " contract, which invalidates it regardless.

As PH would say just made my day !

Gala or Pink Lady?

someone actually read the EULA?

<<<

And shut the door.

I prefer Granny Smiths, myself.

I pray that one day, a company will put some really weird stuff in the EULA, such as:

"By reading this, you agree to pay the maker of this software 10 dollars a second

when using the software", And then try to enforce it.

I wonder how courts would manage to declare this EULA not legally binding, without having it apply to all others EULAs...

I read that to be I can only install it on "one Apple labeled hardware device" - however I do not see any mention that I am restricted as to the number of non-Apple labeled devices, that is: PCs I can install it on...

My Dell is Apple Labeled, "The Label is from my Leopard disk" but it still can't run Safari as it has Ubuntu on it. Heh.

I don't blame you Windows users for being outraged one bit, Safari and iTunes on Windows is unnatural. The solution is obvious, get rid of Windows. Fixes the problem right up!

I like Safari and iTunes just fine where they belong, on my Mac.

this is a collossal 'non-story' - even by 'reg' standards:

1. someone at apple was lazy and cut'n'pasted some boilerplate text into the EULA for windoze safari

2. apple's software update offers to install safari for windoze for you, while updating itunes. If you dinnae want it, just untick the box.

hardly 'forbidding' windoze users from installing safari. nor, conversely 'forcing' them to install it.

nothing to see here. move along, please!

Wait til they start using the Chewbecca defense on each other. Then it becomes a three ring circus.

Don't want to be sued by Apple.

Firefox seems like the only safe choice.

:)

All laws are toss.

People sitting around writing "thou shalt not" on bits of paper and then waving them around like they were stone tablets from on high.

When I bought my Mac Mini, it came with several Apple labels in the box, in the form of pretty stickers, I happened to stick one on my Windows box, so I'm covered anyway :).

Apple == A poor version of Microsoft

Same tactics. Next I'll install a program that uses the Java runtime and find a copy of Linux waiting to be installed on auto-update.

..but, if you stick your own apple label on a beige box are you not techincally committing an offence to defraud or produce counterfeit goods or some other form of techincal deception?

maybe apple are going to start selling there own officially licenced apple case badges (say $40 - that seems an appropriately inflated jiz for an apple fan boi to swallow) thereby makn you complaint with the EULA

>> this is a collossal 'non-story' - even by 'reg' standards:

I see you're one of these apple fanboys who wont hear a word said against his beloved jobs, but I'll bite.

It's not a non-story, its quite interesting. Most people find EULA morally questionable, especially when they consist of 10 pages of legal speak. How can anyone not trained to read these things seriously be bound by them?

>> 1. someone at apple was lazy and cut'n'pasted some boilerplate text into the EULA for windoze safari

It's interesting that a company like apple is essentially treating the EULA with the same kind of contempt as the end users. If a company with massive financial reserves and dedicated legal teams cant get it right why should the end user?

>> 2. apple's software update offers to install safari for windoze for you, while updating itunes. If you dinnae want it, just untick the box.

I got rid of quicktime when apple started forcing me to download and install itunes every time there was a quicktime update, so I shouldn't really comment, but i suspect this is more of an issue of default options and misrepresentation. It really isn't a security update.

>> hardly 'forbidding' windoze users from installing safari. nor, conversely 'forcing' them to install it.

No, they are deliberately making things complicated so that they can claim they have X million installs of their web browser. The majority of installs will never be used because most people simply have no idea what they have installed, "it was a security update so I hit yes".

Heres a little hint, spelling Windows with a 'z' makes you look like you have the mental age of a 12 year old. Apologies to any 12 year olds reading...

"....Or how about, Apple is in with MS on this one, and the idea is to get Firefox customers (I mean users, sorry I was thinking Apple/MS) hooked on Safari (in hopes Firefox dies)...."

You obviously haven't used Safari. Believe me, the 'Fox is safe!

Find someone who has two Apples with Safari on both, get them to give you the Apple label from one of them, stick said label on your PC, and you are both in the clear.

Or buy a Beatles album and cut and paste the Apple logo...

Why on earth does anyone with a PC need any of Jobs' rotten apples spoiling their box.

iTunes - who needs it ? Same muppets who were fleeced for an iPhone.

Qtime - good grief need it as much as realplayer !

Safari - it's a hippopotamus in a zoo, give me Konqueror or FF3B4 any day.

This is fairly typical for software with restrictive licences.

Restrictive software licences are based around the idea that in order to use a piece of software, you have to make a copy of it in the computer's memory -- and software is subject to copyright, meaning that you would require special permission from the copyright holder to make that copy (and therefore use the software).

However, there's just one tiny flaw in this plan. It's bollocks.

If you have acquired the software legitimately, as a consumer, then you already have a right -- which is afforded under the Law of the Land, and therefore sacrosanct -- to use it for its rightful purpose. And if, in the course of using a piece for its rightful purpose, you happen to have to make a copy, then making that copy is Fair Dealing and so would not infringe copyright.