.... the iLabel.... for PC users. It'll probably contain a web-cam and be backlit etc.

Does the Safari License for MacOSX mean that Mac users with more than one machine can only use Safari one of them ?

http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/SafariMac.pdf

So, I don't have to own the computer, but I can control it? Kind of puts a neat spin on allowing hackers to push the software for us, completely legally. Maybe it is a way for Apple to justify pushing this software to all of the Windows computers out there... All your PC are belong to us!

Isnt Safari free? What do Apple care about how many machines I install it on?

Not only does changing "a single Apple-labeled computer" to "each computer owned or controlled by you." allow Windows users to use Safari but it also suddenly allows Apple owners to use it on all their computers at once. Apple fans with more than one PC, you did remember to only use it on one PC at a time didn't you?

(coat is for the title)

I know you have a "thing" with Apple snubbing you, but aren't you carrying this a bit far? Is this really that large a deal? Slow IT News Day?

Some people just have too much time on their hands.

As you can easily run Windows on "Apple labeled computers" (as long as they have an intel chip anyway) perhaps Lord Jobs only wanted people using Windows on a Mac to be able to use his software.

Either than or someone cocked up and cut and copied the Safari for OSX Eula.

;)

Apple has just, in the last 15 minutes, offered me a download of Safari (I already use iTunes and Quicktime). The offer was labelled an "update" though I have never had a copy. I downloaded and have tried it, but for the moment I have reverted to IE. Perhaps I should have read the EULA.

I'm thinking this may explain why the Quicktime updater, which keeps trying to foist iTunes on me, started last week to also try to shove Safari down my throat.

The system being propositioned is of course not Apple, unless Apple just started running Vista.

This is very frustrating as an IT admin. I have a very specific job of maintaining AND UPDATING ~ 1400 PCs day in and day out, and the idea that Apple sliding their browser into the "critical updates" screen is like MS adding "ONE CARE" to their "critical updates" list. And to forget to change your EULA to reflect these new changes is simply catching Jobs with his pants down in an effort to increase the popularity of his software. If I had previously installed Safari and confirmed our cold fusion backends were approved for SAFARI browsing, then I would not be so upset.

*siiiigh* And now my phone is ringing off the hook... Time for a pub break....

Can't hide from this one too Apple Kool Aid Drinkers and Mac Denialcrats ... it's DOCUMENTED!

Apple Plugs Windows Safari Security Holes

http://www.betanews.com/article/Apple_Plugs_Windows_Safari_Security_Holes/1181845181

Security researchers poke holes in Safari

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/12/safari_security_bugs/

Safari On Windows A Security Risk

http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/06/12/safari-on-windows-a-security-risk/

Apple's Safari a Windows security risk?

http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/12/apples-safari-a-windows-security-risk/

Security researchers: Safari for Windows not so secure

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9728500-7.html

<b>Apple CAN'T even make a secure version for themselves!!<b/>

Security firm discovers severe iPhone Safari exploit

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070723-security-firm-discovers-severe-iphone-safari-exploit.html

<b> Apple security updates LONG LIST from the Apple site!!<b/)

* Apple security updates (25-Jan-2005 to 21-Dec-2007)

* Apple security updates (03-Oct-2003 to 11-Jan-2005)

* Apple security updates (August, 2003 and earlier)

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1222

The Apple image is PHONY! Just like their advertising and their Apple Kool Aid Drinkers!

Buyers BEWARE!

Somebody set up us the EULA. All you Windows are belong to us. Make your time.

Something tells me people don't understand the meaning of the term "right." A right exists whether or not someone decides to recognise or "allow" it.

This confirms that even the companies do not read their own EULAs... So why would Paris be expected to do it?

I was offered Safari as an update by the Apple Updater a couple of days ago. Needless to say I didn't download it - and I fail to see quite how a new product is an update. I can only assume that Apple are now following the Microsoft school of updates and peddling all their stuff via the update service - at least Apple had the decency to make it obvious what they wanted to install!

Not that you must use it ON an apple, but on an Apple-labelled (and it can't even spell labelled properly) computer.

So, pick a computer, any computer, and pick an apple, any apple -- whatever your local supermarket stocks will do.

Using juice from the apple, write your name on it and you now have an apple-labelled computer.

Problem solved?

Now pick up what remains of the Apple, as its time for a core dump.

At the risk of seeming a troll, I must add that with my new Vista system, I feel like I neither own nor control it. But it can at least be persuaded to run the apps that my Ubuntu machine with wine can't hack.

"[...] the idea that Apple sliding their browser into the "critical updates" screen [...]"

Actually, far as I can see, they don't offer it as a "critical" update, just as an update. So I'd say it's on the same level as MS's never-ending attempts to foist WMP on people who neither need nor want it via Windows Update...

Mine's the one with the xmms logo on the back.

Wouldn't the 'Apple-Labelled' bit actually imply that you can only install Safari for windows on an Intel Powered Mac running windoze?

If during a update of firefox, I had to uncheck a box to NOT INSTALL thunderbird I would be equally upset.

Apple can no longer be trusted, they are now one of the companies that will try to trick you for their own gain.

Maybe Apple will decide that whatever marketing advantage such tactics give them its not worth the loss of trust.

Maybe some other company will read this and decide not to use similar tacticks.

The Register is obviously trying to draw as much attention to this as possible. I like that. Keep up the good work.

Ohhh look: a team of security researchers has won $10,000 for hacking a MacBook Air in two minutes using an undisclosed Safari vulnerability....

http://www.news.com/8301-13579_3-9905095-37.html?tag=nefd.top

Thanks for the update. I posted on the article ElReg had about this competition and wanted to know who won (or lost in this case) Nice to see last year it was Apple. And this year it was. . .wait for it. . .Apple. Hopefully this deflates all the Mac fanbois and they will go sod off in the corner about Vista (read WINDOWS) sucking. Granted I wish I could switch from XP to Ubuntu on my main rig at home which is the only one to run a product from M$ but as a gamer I dont really see that happening too much. As for Vista. . .Yeah not gonna happen.

/mines the one with the worm coming out of the apple on the back.

while it's very reassuring to see that Mr Phreaky is still with us, it'd be nice if he could provide links to current articles that talk about the current version of Safari - not ones from last year that talk about pre-3.0 Safari

Loaded Safari yesterday ignoring EULA (who reads this stuff anyway). Took 10 times longer to get to Google than I.E. Was quicker to uninstall than to use.

The license simply means that you can install a particular copy of Safari on one Apple computer.

If you want to install Safari on a second computer, you'd need to acquire another copy (which would presumably be under the same license).

This does mean that if Apple decided to stop providing Safari (or particular versions of Safari), then its user base can't grow -- it would shrink as the computers it is installed on are replaced. If that worries you, perhaps you should download copies of the Safari installer so you can install it on new machines :)

I've got an Apple label on my PC (Came with my iPod if I remember right) Does this mean I can happily install Safari-so-goodie?

One of the guys at work mentioned that Apple make 2M (£? $? either way you'd not kick that cash out of bed) per month from the google search box in Safari. Then he mentioned that there's 300M itunes installs on PC's, apparently.

There's your motive.

"This licence does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time..."

So, if I have two computers, when I switch between them I have to uninstall on one and install on the other?

While the licence doesn't "allow" it, does the licence actually forbid it?

"each computer owned or controlled by you" that would be both my computers though?

There's this tricky thing about a network as well, "You may not make the software available over a network where it could be used by more than one computer at a time", so um, does a USB HD count as being on a network, theoretically it _could_ be used by more than one computer at a time, must I make a special effort to ensure that no part of it resides on a shareable drive? Perhaps SATA could be considered a network? Network backup devices would have to be set to explicitly avoid it.

What about one machine with multiple monitors and keyboards attached? or thick and thin terminals?

Perhaps they should rewrite it to say how they feel it should be used rather than dicking about with legal mumbo jumbo.

Yesterday evening my main machine asked me if I wanted to "update" safari for the second time since they started pushing this out. Is their plan to just nag me until I just install it to make it go away? Or did I just get it again due to the new eula?

... That even software vendors don't even read license EULAs.

"While the licence doesn't "allow" it, does the licence actually forbid it?"

If they didn't forbid it, I guess it'll be Okay. Your parents should have taught you that when you were about 4!

Who cares?

Herpes is free and has unlimited distribution rights....

Still don't want it though..

What about iHerpes?

I reckon that, not withstanding the Apple-Labelled boo boo, what they want to do is be able to say how many machines are running Safari for all the marketing guff.

If I downloaded one copy and installed that on two machines they're missing out on the chance to say that another machine has Safari installed.

I'm sure you know what I mean but I can't be bothered to articulate it properly.

Doesn't anyone realise that they know this would cause a stir, thus giving them publicity (remember, Apple is first and foremost a marketing company, second a gadget maker and third, a computer company).

Then, at the next Steve Jobs stand-up show, he'll proudly inform the congregation that Safari has been downloaded millions of times and recieve huge applause and a few tears of joy. This will result in half the press (the ones who actually use Macs becase... well... they just always have innit?) reporting that Safari is the new Firefox while the other half, and websites like this, will give them even more publicity by banging on about how the figures are skewed because many of those downloads were unintended 'updates' and are either never used or have been removed.

Either way, Apple wins - and all off the backs of people who make a fuss about it. If people are really unhappy about it, why not talk about Safari's shortcomings rather than focus on the Apple Update slyness? It seems to have good CSS support but is flakey in other areas. I've seen a few Javascript-heavy pages where if you go to another page and then hit the back button, it knocks out half the event handlers so you have to reload - which may of course completely change the page if all those event handlers did a lot of AJAX to change the contents of the page. Opera has no such problems and I don't think I've noticed them lately in Firefox either.

Better the devil you know. That's why I chose Bill Gates KBE, *and* made him a saint. At least his latest browser (and the next one!) works on a 7-year-old machine that came with XP, and for older machines there was a free upgrade to IE6 (or IE5.5 for Win95 weirdos). I know someone with a Mac that's just 3 years old and it won't run a modern version of Safari or many third party programs unless they shell out about £100 on a new OS for it! Come on... they won't even allow Safari 3 to run on a 3 year old machine? That's taking £100 worth of piss.

"This licence does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time"

I just read this snippet in the screenshot from the article, and am I seriously missing something, or does anyone else take this to mean that NO-ONE in the whole universe can ever have Safari installed at the same time as someone else? That is, only ONE copy can ever be installed, on ANY computer, simultaneously??

What legal fuckwits write this bollocks??!!

Nice distribution method ;)