> There is a major difference between being annoying about it's hardware "preferences", and a legally bound license and it's protection to prevent end-users from breaking those defined rules (VMs, Debuggers, and cryptographic DRM). The first doesn't do anything. The second protects profits and secrets.
Yes, exactly. Another way to say this is: an annoying message about platform "preferences" still ultimately respects your freedom, including your freedom to install and run the software on OS X. You are even free to distribute a copy that doesn't display the message -- indeed, I would encourage you to do so. A proprietary license and the technical means used to enforce it do not respect that freedom.
You seem to think that these two approaches carry the same moral status. If that's true, I must respectfully disagree. I don't believe that "protecting profits and secrets" is a sufficient justification for preventing people from using computers and software in a way that best suits their needs.
Respecting would be if it would be just a message.
Disabling the download for Mac users (I guess it is based on the user agent string of the browser) and making it just hang for 30 seconds is something different.
Yes, exactly. Another way to say this is: an annoying message about platform "preferences" still ultimately respects your freedom, including your freedom to install and run the software on OS X. You are even free to distribute a copy that doesn't display the message -- indeed, I would encourage you to do so. A proprietary license and the technical means used to enforce it do not respect that freedom.
You seem to think that these two approaches carry the same moral status. If that's true, I must respectfully disagree. I don't believe that "protecting profits and secrets" is a sufficient justification for preventing people from using computers and software in a way that best suits their needs.