Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Difference between single license vs faimly pack

G

Greenhoe

macrumors regular
Original poster
Dec 17, 2008
199
0
Putting aside what is morally right, or legally right, is there honestly a difference between a the single license compared to the Family Pack of OS X or iLife 09?

Neither of them have a serial number so if someone wanted they could use their single licenses disc of OS X Leopard on as many macs as they want in their house right? I know many of you are going to say that is wrong, but I just want to know if its possible and does Apple just put Family Pack out so people who will want to install on multiple machines hopefully spend the extra money on a family pack?
 
there is no difference. You could install the single user one on as many computers you want apple just trusts you to buy a family pack to do that.
 
yeah like Gleadr said its just honor system. same exact CD inside the box. Do the right thing and help keep apple software serial and hassle free :cool:
 
fleshman03 said:
I wonder how many truly honest people who know this are out there...
Click to expand...

Well I'm one of them for the exact same reason bigjnyc mentioned. Coming from the Windows world (since 3.1) I'm happily willing to pay the extra bucks for the family pack (5 Macs in the household). Not having to deal with serial numbers, registration and having to call Windows/Apple after you re-formated your HDD is wonderful.
 
If you are going to put aside what is morally and legally right, why not just steal it outright? It's easy enough to find a torrent.
 
Molnies said:
Well I'm one of them for the exact same reason bigjnyc mentioned. Coming from the Windows world (since 3.1) I'm happily willing to pay the extra bucks for the family pack (5 Macs in the household). Not having to deal with serial numbers, registration and having to call Windows/Apple after you re-formated your HDD is wonderful.
Click to expand...

Oh yes - that is a huge pain and part of the reason I am an Apple FanBoy now.


BaldiMac said:
If you are going to put aside what is morally and legally right, why not just steal it outright? It's easy enough to find a torrent.
Click to expand...

It was just a question. I don't condone it, I'm only asking the question.

And it is different from a torrent. You could make the argument that only one copy would be used at a time. For example, having a MP at home and a MB while on the road. You would only use one at a time.

Again, I'm not condoning it.
 
I use a couple of Macs daily...

Mac Pro @ home, Macbook Pro @ work, Mac mini @ my TV, Power Mac G5 Quad @ play-time... etc...

What I did, was buy a copy of iWork 09 and iLife 09, for use on my "work-MacBook Pro".
And I purchased the Mac Box Set. Gives me iLife 09 and iWork 09 for my Mac Pro, and also gives me an additional Leopard license, for, say, my G5 Quad.
My Mac Pro and MacBook Pro already had Leopard pre-installed, and I own the original Mac OS X Leopard Retail DVD...
I will admit that I probably will be installing iWork 09 and iLife 09 on that Quad, and yes then I'm one license short.. be hey.. come on... me thinks I'm okay if Apple were to check on me.
:apple:
 
sidewinder said:
No, you would not be okay....even you know you are two licenses short if you install two unlicensed pieces of software.

S-
Click to expand...

One license.
I got one for My MBP, and one for my Mac Pro.. and lending one for my Quad. :p .. so only one license short.
The Mac mini doesn't need iLife (or iWork). Neither does the Quad, really. Be running YDL 6.1 more on it anyway... :D

Whatever... you're taking my post a bit too serious.
 
sidewinder said:
No, you would not be okay....even you know you are two licenses short if you install two unlicensed pieces of software.

S-
Click to expand...

There's gotta be a "come on" factor here. He paid for licenses on all but one machine. There's like four machines there!

Besides, are you using four of them at the same time? The Terms of Service say you can only install it one machine per license, but TOS aren't exactly legally binding.

What is clear is that YOU are licensed to USE the software once per license. I don't see any harm in you installing it to have it ready when you need to use the software. Just only use 3 at a time.

Note: If more than one person was using the machine at the same time, then you need more than one license. However - if you are a single user who uses one machine at a time, you are fine.

Finally - pay for one license, use one license. Where you install your software is a different story.

Exhibit A


Let those who would call me in aMoral, thief and bad person begin...

Edit: to the licencee - you can only run iWork/iLife '09 on two machines and install Leopard on one that didn't come with it.
 
fleshman03 said:
There's gotta be a "come on" factor here. He paid for licenses on all but one machine. There's like four machines there!
Click to expand...
A "come on factor? If I have three systems running Tiger but I don't use more than one at a time. I want them to run Leopard on all of them. Golly. Since I don't run more than one system at a time, I will buy just one copy of Leopard and I will be alright, right? Bzzzzt! Wrong answer.

fleshman03 said:
Besides, are you using four of them at the same time? The Terms of Service say you can only install it one machine per license, but TOS aren't exactly legally binding.
Click to expand...

The TOS used by Apple is legally binding. There is nothing in the TOS regarding per system licenses that is illegal. It doesn't matter if you don't use the copies at the same time. It's a one copy license on a per sysatem basis.

fleshman03 said:
What is clear is that YOU are licensed to USE the software once per license. I don't see any harm in you installing it to have it ready when you need to use the software. Just only use 3 at a time.
Click to expand...
You interpretation of the what is right does not match the law. Apple is not being unreasonable here.

fleshman03 said:
Note: If more than one person was using the machine at the same time, then you need more than one license. However - if you are a single user who uses one machine at a time, you are fine.

Finally - pay for one license, use one license. Where you install your software is a different story.
Click to expand...
I sure hope the OP does not rely on your advice in court...

S-
 
sidewinder said:
A "come on factor? If I have three systems running Tiger but I don't use more than one at a time. I want them to run Leopard on all of them. Golly. Since I don't run more than one system at a time, I will buy just one copy of Leopard and I will be alright, right? Bzzzzt! Wrong answer.
Click to expand...

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzt, Stop drinking the Kool Aid and smoking the peace pipe there buddy. Think about it, why should he pay for four licenses he isn't using four? Making one person pay to have the same copy of software on four machines is ridiculous and wrong. If he was using more than one at a time, then he would need to pay for that usage. But as it is, one at a time is what he paid for.


The TOS used by Apple is legally binding. There is nothing in the TOS regarding per system licenses that is illegal. It doesn't matter if you don't use the copies at the same time. It's a one copy license on a per sysatem basis.
Click to expand...

Nice spelling! Say it with me, it is NOT legal. NOT legal. Got it? Let me explain. When did I have the chance to review the terms before shelling out money? In Print? Where did I sign at the bottom line? Was I allowed to negotiate in good faith? That is what makes a legally binding contract. Not this BS TOS.

This is how you want it to be too. Look at Facebook's TOS:
By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise, on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.
Click to expand...

Remember Chrome, Google's Web Browser? They had a similar TOS. Theirs said that they owned everything you produced that was transmitted via their browser. What reasonable person would agree to that?


You interpretation of the what is right does not match the law. Apple is not being unreasonable here.
Click to expand...

Did you look at the link I first posted? The court doesn't like TOS either. How does a TOS fill the description of a contract?

I sure hope the OP does not rely on your advice in court...
Click to expand...

how many law classes have you taken? What is your education level? How are you qualified to give legal opinion? For me, I am a librarian. That means I have a Master's Degree in Information and Library Science. I have taken many copyright law classes. Although not a lawyer, I know the topic.
 
fleshman03 said:
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzt, Stop drinking the Kool Aid and smoking the peace pipe there buddy. Think about it, why should he pay for four licenses he isn't using four? Making one person pay to have the same copy of software on four machines is ridiculous and wrong. If he was using more than one at a time, then he would need to pay for that usage. But as it is, one at a time is what he paid for.
Click to expand...

No, what he paid for is one copy on dvd and a license to install it on one machine.

Nice spelling! Say it with me, it is NOT legal. NOT legal. Got it? Let me explain. When did I have the chance to review the terms before shelling out money? In Print? Where did I sign at the bottom line? Was I allowed to negotiate in good faith? That is what makes a legally binding contract. Not this BS TOS.
Click to expand...

Apple SLAs are available on their website for you to review before shelling out your money. There is no requirement for a contract to be "in print" or signed in ink in order to be valid. You have an opportunity to review the license agreement when you install the software. If you do not agree to the license terms, you can return the software for a full refund.

Did you look at the link I first posted? The court doesn't like TOS either. How does a TOS fill the description of a contract?
Click to expand...

In the case in the link that you posted, the court had a problem with a specific clause in the TOS (regarding arbitration). TOS or SLA have never been found to be unenforceable as a contract. To the contrary.

how many law classes have you taken? What is your education level? How are you qualified to give legal opinion? For me, I am a librarian. That means I have a Master's Degree in Information and Library Science. I have taken many copyright law classes. Although not a lawyer, I know the topic.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, the legal issue being discussed deals primarily with contract law.
 
BaldiMac said:
Apple SLAs are available on their website for you to review before shelling out your money. There is no requirement for a contract to be "in print" or signed in ink in order to be valid. You have an opportunity to review the license agreement when you install the software. If you do not agree to the license terms, you can return the software for a full refund.
Click to expand...

First, you can't return open software anywhere, so good luck getting a refund. Second, EULA are typically non-binding. There's all kinds of reasons why, but lack of option to decline the offer before the sale is one common one, but so is the requirement that both parties benefit from a contract. If we had a contract that says I can punch you in the face and in exchange I'll take your wallet off your hands, it's not going to be binding because you don't receive anything of value for the punch in the face. There are other issues at work here, but just assuming that clicking "I Agree" makes a binding agreement between two parties is incorrect.

Finally, as to licensing, there are all sorts of licensing terms for software. There's per system licenses. There's per user licenses. There's even per CPU licenses. I don't know what Apple is offering on iLife or OS X but again, to assume that software can only be licensed on a per user basis is also incorrect.
 
BaldiMac said:
No, what he paid for is one copy on dvd and a license to install it on one machine.
Click to expand...

Which, interestingly enough, isn't stated on the package prior to purchase.



Apple SLAs are available on their website for you to review before shelling out your money. There is no requirement for a contract to be "in print" or signed in ink in order to be valid. You have an opportunity to review the license agreement when you install the software. If you do not agree to the license terms, you can return the software for a full refund.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the EULA is not posted on Apple's website. (If it is, just point out the link and I'll happily retract this statement). Yes, you can return it if you don't agree with the on-screen EULA, but those haven't held up in court yet.

In the case in the link that you posted, the court had a problem with a specific clause in the TOS (regarding arbitration). TOS or SLA have never been found to be unenforceable as a contract. To the contrary.
Click to expand...

Actually, at least in the US, AFAIK there is no legal precedent one way or the other for EULAs.
 
fleshman03 said:
how many law classes have you taken? What is your education level? How are you qualified to give legal opinion? For me, I am a librarian. That means I have a Master's Degree in Information and Library Science. I have taken many copyright law classes. Although not a lawyer, I know the topic.
Click to expand...
I want to thank BaldiMac for his fine response. It hits all the points perfectly.

fleshman03, It doesn't really matter what you have a Masters Degree in. It's clear from your position that you do not understand contract law in regards to computer programs.

In regards to copyrights, did you pay attention in class? Look here:

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-digital.html

SLA's are definitely enforceable assuming they are written properly and are not legally unreasonable. It is not legally unreasonable to restrict a piece of software to one system at a time. If the SLA does not allow it, it is not legal to install software on multiple systems even if only one system at a time is being used.

Let's take an extreme example which should make the point clear:

ABC Widget Company has offices in California. The run two shifts and each shift has 100 workers. Each worker has their own office and their own iMac computer. The second shift starts 1 hour after the first shift ends and shifts NEVER overlap. To save money, ABC Widget Company bought 100 copies of Mac OS X 10.5 and installed it on all 200 computers.

Is ABC Widget Company legally okay here?

I'll be sure to keep you in mind if I have any questions on Dewey Decimal Classification or the merits of Universal Decimal Classification versus DDC. But your legal advice is not up to snuff.

S-
 
mrgreen4242 said:
First, you can't return open software anywhere, so good luck getting a refund.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely entitled to a refund in the US if you do not agree to the SLA.

Second, EULA are typically non-binding. There's all kinds of reasons why, but lack of option to decline the offer before the sale is one common one, but so is the requirement that both parties benefit from a contract. If we had a contract that says I can punch you in the face and in exchange I'll take your wallet off your hands, it's not going to be binding because you don't receive anything of value for the punch in the face. There are other issues at work here, but just assuming that clicking "I Agree" makes a binding agreement between two parties is incorrect.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you get this information. SLAs have never been found to be non-binding in the US. Individual clauses have been found to be illegal. Your germane example of a clause that allows someone to punch you in the face in exchange for a wallet would not be valid. That issue does not invalidate SLAs on the whole. The same thing would apply to any contract.

I don't know why you are making an issue of both parties needing to benefit from a contract. Obviously, both Apple and the user are receiving value. Apple gets your money. You get a license to install and use the software per the terms of the license.

Clicking "I Agree" is no more or less binding than a signature on a paper contract or a verbal "I Agree" in an oral contract. Of course, in all cases, individual clauses may be found unconscionable by the courts which may or may not invalidate the contract as a whole.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back