Sign up ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

One such example in source code files open-sourced by Apple:

 * Everything in this file is for Apple Internal use only.
 * These will change in arbitrary OS updates and in unpredictable ways.
 * When your program breaks, you get to keep both pieces.

The warning basically means the source code is internal to Apple and is subject to change. Software developers who use these files should not expect the 'interface' to stay the same between version. If the interface is indeed changed, any program that depends on the file will be broken.

What I do not quite understand are:

1) Is the phrase When <something> breaks, you get to keep both pieces a common one? If so, how is it usually used?

2) Does 'both pieces' means 'two pieces' here?

3) Is it supposed to be playful in tone? Is there any other implied meaning based on the context?

share|improve this question
It's like: when you ruin the program, you keep the program. We're not fixing it... it's yours now. You can keep both pieces (i.e., you broke it in half, so it's not ours anymore). – Jeremy Jul 8 '13 at 12:47
A fairly common saying in America that is seen occasionally in a publicly displayed sign in retail stores that sell delicate breakables (such as antiques, dishes, pottery, vases, glassware, etc.): "IF YOU BREAK IT, YOU BOUGHT IT," meaning if you insist on handling the merchandise and happen to drop it and break it, you are obligated to pay for it. It's a good rule, I guess, especially for those shoppers who like to "see" with their "hands"! – rhetorician Jul 9 '13 at 1:09

3 Answers 3

up vote 10 down vote accepted
  1. I have read this phrase before. I'd say it's common among programmers who are writing their own warnings or licenses for software.

  2. Yes. I believe the metaphor relates to an object that is broken in two, as if software could break in this manner.

  3. Yes, it is playful. It's terse and sarcastic: it seems it may be a criticism of the verbosity of legalese in software licenses.

share|improve this answer
You get to keep both [useless] pieces. – bib Jul 8 '13 at 13:09

As far as I've been able to determine, the canonical appearance of "if it breaks, you get to keep both pieces" in software development comes from the manual page of the BSD chat program, a tool for communicating with modem hardware. The earliest version of that manual page I could find was from 1994 in the FreeBSD 2.0 distribution:


The chat program is in public domain. This is not the GNU public license. If it breaks then you get to keep both pieces.

The statement was a clear dig at the GNU tools from the Free Software Foundation, which were infamous for having long copyright sections in their manual pages dotted with ALL CAPS warranty disclaimers, for example this is the equivalent section from the man page of GNU make:


Copyright (C) 1992, 1993, 1996, 1999 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This file is part of GNU make. GNU make is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) any later version.

GNU make is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details.

You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with GNU make; see the file COPYING. If not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA.

These days, the standard GNU copyright section is much shorter, if it appears at all, but at the time the GNU General Public Licence was legally novel and untested, and the FSF felt it best to be careful.

Since the userland of OS X is based on BSD, it's very likely the term made its way into some Apple developer's vocabulary through that tradition.

share|improve this answer

It's just another way of saying that we are not responsible of anything, but in a funnier way.

A variation of the sentence above is "you get to keep both halves", as seen in

If they break your system, you get to keep both halves.

share|improve this answer
This does not provide an answer to the question. Try rewriting your answer so that it answers the question asked by the user, rather than providing additional (and interesting, I might add) information. – Nick2253 Oct 24 '14 at 14:13
I wanted to post it as a comment, but could not due to my low reputation. Still, I thought it was a relevant addition and relevant to the question, so I just posted it in the only way I could. – Jose Gómez Oct 24 '14 at 18:55

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.