john.h.blake at gmail.com
Sat Feb 11 09:48:38 CST 2017
> > > Apple is slightly different -- the licence for Mac OS X stipulates
> > > that you're only allowed to run it on Apple-branded hardware. This is
> > > somewhere between rare and unique, though, and it has recently been
> > > relaxed slightly to permit use of hypervisors.
> > EULAs have the same value as toilet paper and should be used for the same
> > purpose.
> > Legally, they can and have been enforced. So their value is not nil
> > when it comes to screwing up someone.
I was always under the impression that EULAs existed, at this point, solely to scare corporate/commercial users into license compliance in order to avoid lengthy and draining court expenses, since they've been shown to be entirely unenforceable on individuals since the 90s. That's why Adobe stopped trying to prevent piracy of Photoshop on a single-user basis long ago, as an example. License compliance is irrelevant for individual users and particularly so for long obsolete software, i.e. anything that might reasonably be emulated. Even emulating a more recent video game system such as the Wii would be impossible to prevent given that the courts have decided that it is acceptable to create backups of software that you own and the original creator cannot prevent you from using that backup on a different platform than originally intended (recent example being ripping a CD you own and listening to it on an mp3 player, or more distant example, creating mixtapes for your personal use).
Not that it would prevent you from having to deal with a court case, but in virtually every case I'm aware of over the last decade or so it's usually just been a cease and desist letter to show the company still intends to maintain copyright, but actually taking someone to court for emulation would be catastrophic for any corporation's public image and virtually guaranteed to be thrown out.
More information about the cctalk