zlacker

>>janand+(OP)
I worked at a place that tested software releases on a VM of every supported operating system, including OS X. We didn't have any Apple hardware, because no one wanted to deal with that, but someone had brought in the chassis of an old Apple computer and the host computer was inside it. We didn't run it by any lawyers or anything, but as far as we could tell, running OS X inside a computer that had all of its guts replaced was entirely within the license requirements.

>>dlcarr+R8
These sort of letter-of-the-law arguments don't tend to do well in court in my very limited experience (UK). But I love the essence of it!

>>pbhjpb+yh
The UK has been slowly codifying laws over time, transitioning from common law to written law. In the Americas, we kind of jump started that processes, and are far more focused on the law as written, to the point that the positioning of a comma can have million-dollar implications: https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/25/business/worldbusiness/25...

If a literal interpretation of what you wrote allows for something, even though it's clear that you hadn't intended to do so, then it is going to be allowed.

>>dlcarr+Xj
> If a literal interpretation of what you wrote allows for something, even though it's clear that you hadn't intended to do so, then it is going to be allowed.

This isn’t necessarily true, there are a variety of legal doctrines specifically to handle things like this. Take, for example, the major questions doctrine.