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
They define: Mac OS X Server software => Mac OS X Server Software.
The word 'the' is a reference point and the double quotes marks the
part that actually is defined.
You see the resemblence here:
(the "Mac OS X Server Software")
the Mac OS X Server software
The unquoted 'the' is the common word so it is fairly clear to see the
exact wordings of the definition. I don't say it is bullet proof, but
as I see it it would be hard to argue about it and claim that the 'one
copy' part could be a part in the definition. It is not syntactilly
justified since with the parantesis which includes unqoted and quoted
parts in combination with the striking resemblence of the original and
the new definition.
John Stalberg
_______________________________________________
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
