In effect, they don't define the word. However, once you start looking
at the words in the document, you can see just how poorly it is written.
One critical example is:
This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Mac OS X
Server software (the “Mac OS X Server Software”) on a single Apple-
labeled computer.
Note that here they define the phrase "Mac OS X Server Software" as
either "one copy of the Mac OS X Server software" or simply as "Mac OS
X Server software", it is not clear which one they mean. In the latter
case, the definition differs from its meaning only in the case of the
ess in software. And yet, in the next couple few sentences, we see
this phrase, with the capital ess, used in the phrase
other copies of the Mac OS X Server Software
with the capital ess. So by replacement, this either means "other
copies of one copy of the Mac OS X Server software", which is
interesting, or, it just means "other copies of the Mac OS X Server
software". Note the esses.
The second interpretation is perhaps more plausible, but then, down
below, we have the sentence:
This License does not allow the Mac OS X Server Software to exist on
more than one computer at a time...
If we accept the first possible definition, this means, logically,
"This license does not allow one copy of the Mac OS X Server software
to exist on more than one computer at a time".
However, if we accept the second interpretation, then it means "This
license does not allow the Mac OS X Server software to exist on more
than one computer at a time", which would appear to limit the
worldwide distribution of the software to one customer and one machine.
This is all very silly, but in truth, it is very unclear and doesn't
help me understand what they mean by "copy".
It seems to me that the issue of "copy" is fundamental here. When OS X
Server is running, is the copy in RAM or on a swap or paging device a
"copy" in the sense of the license?
Probably not, and of course a bootable dd(1) backup of the entire
volume onto another drive, even on another computer over the network,
doesn't appear to be a copy in that sense either, nor do the two not-
copies in my mirrored RAID volumes.
"Copy" might refer to the CD-ROM or DVD used to distribute the
software, but that is clearly not the case. For one thing, as far as I
know, it is perfectly kosher to copy the DVD.
I give up. I really don't know what they mean, precisely, by the word
"copy" in the EULA.
Another interesting word is "machine" or "computer", which they also
do not define adequately, and this is the crux of the matter for
virtual installations.
Well, what do you do with this gobbedly-gook?
My answer is just to go with my gut. If I felt like I was cheating,
ripping Apple off, or breaking the law by setting up a sandbox
installation to test things out before putting them into production,
then I wouldn't do it. If I felt completely free of ethical or moral
guilt and if I really didn't understand the precise legal limitations
in the EULA, then I would do it, without hesitation.
Greg Shenaut _______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Macos-x-server mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/macos-x-server/email@hidden
