Hacker News Reader

Comment by judge2020 | Hacker News Reader

judge2020

> If it didn't violate some arbitrary Apple rule

> You are expressly prohibited from separately using the Apple SDKs or attempting to run any part of the Apple Software on non-Apple-branded hardware.

Better be running linux on a Mac mini somewhere.

https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/xcode.pdf

View on HN

I have strong doubts about the legal enforceability of those requirements in the EULA in many jurisdictions. I strongly doubt such a requirement would fly in many European countries, for example.

Statically linking the library might be preventable because it involves spreading Apple's code, but if you run a legally obtained program that generates code not containing any libraries on your own computer, I doubt there's anything that the EULA can prevent you from developing that way.

“obtaining” a program is not a license to use it.

Some places still observe the "first sale doctrine" which means that if you legally got a copy of a piece of software, you have a right to use it whichever way you please -- so, in such a jurisdiction, as long as you obtained it legally, you have the right to use it.

(Analogy: You buy a music CD; You do not need a specific license to listen to it, and you're not violating anything even if it has a sticker that says "by opening this sticker, you hereby agree to never play this using a Sony CD player, and to never play it at faster than 1.25x on any non-Sony CD player)

I agree, this provision is probably only there to knock people trying to run MacOS and related software on Cloud services as a managed service (think Mac Stadium but not using Apple hardware). Using it just for your org or for personal use isn't going to cause Apple to send you a C&D letter/file suit.

> Better be running linux on a Mac mini somewhere.

At least we could use Docker!

..and get actually reproducible builds...

That's a TOS, not something you need to worry about for personal use.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com