iWork '08 on two machines with the same user?

Discussion in 'Mac Apps and Mac App Store' started by Mitthrawnuruodo, Aug 8, 2007.

  1. Mitthrawnuruodo Moderator emeritus

    Mitthrawnuruodo

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Location:
    Bergen, Norway
    #1
    Has anybody found out if the iWork '08 (or earlier comparable) EULA allows one user to install iWork on two Macs, if s/he's the only user of those (like Adobe and others allow to a certain degree: One desktop and one laptop where the license holder are the main user on both).

    iWork '08 is sold as a single user license, so I could just assume that I'm allowed, and get one for the (no-yet-bought) work machine and also install it on my home machine, but I'm actually a bit curious if it would be in violation of the EULA...

    Now, I know there's a family pack, but that specifically states that "This license does not extend [...] to business or commercial users." And I'm definitively gonna use the work machine for business purposes and I would never get iWork for just private use, which leaves me with the single user license.

    I'm not gonna have this problem with iLife '08, since I'm only going to get a family pack and install that on our home machines (and it will come bundled with the work machine, anyway).
     
  2. PeggyD macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Location:
    Covington, WA, USA
    #2
    The EULA in iWork '08 is no different than before. It still says the single user license allows the software to exist on only one Mac at a time.
     
  3. Mitthrawnuruodo thread starter Moderator emeritus

    Mitthrawnuruodo

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Location:
    Bergen, Norway
    #3
    Thanks... that's not good news, but - at least - it's confirmation of what I feared... :(

    Well, I'm probably just going to get a licence for my work machine, then, and see if I get addicted enough to get another one for my home machine... :)


    Oh, and BTW, after some creative searching earlier today - why does Apple call their licences SLA and not EULA? :rolleyes: - I found this page with all Apple's SLA's. Handy. :cool:
     
  4. coren2000 macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    #4
    Define Exists. I define software existing as being loaded into RAM and running.

    By this definition, you may run iWork on any computer, so long as it is ONLY YOU and ONLY ONE AT A TIME.

    Please see my replies to this thread
    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=338964
     
  5. Mitthrawnuruodo thread starter Moderator emeritus

    Mitthrawnuruodo

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Location:
    Bergen, Norway
    #5
    Yes, but unfortunately Apple is very specific, and makes it quite clear that it can only be installed at one machine at the time:

    So technically, you need to uninstall it from machine A and install it and use it on machine B... might just be easier to get another license...

    :(
     
  6. coren2000 macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    #6
    No, its quite clear that its installed AND used at the same time.

     
  7. sananda macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    #7
    it's perfectly clear to me and anyone else using ordinary english that you are only permitted to install the single user software on one computer at a time.
     
  8. coren2000 macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    #8
    Its perfectly clear to me and those who understand the implications of the word AND that so long as you do not run the software at the same time, you can install it anywhere you want.

    The simple fact that we can have an argument about this means that the EULA is not a legally binding contract (see other post about why)
     
  9. Mitthrawnuruodo thread starter Moderator emeritus

    Mitthrawnuruodo

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Location:
    Bergen, Norway
    #9
    Nope, sananda is quite right, and the license is quite clear. The only other machine readable copy you're allowed to make is for backup purposes only.

    Now, technically, nothing really prevents you from installing the software on an external disk and drag that from machine to machine (the license only mentions networking), but you cannot - according to the SLA - install iWork on another machine (without uninstalling it from the first one).

    I was hoping Apple would take more of an Adobe approach to license agreements:

    PSCS3EULA.jpg

    From the Photoshop CS3 license

    But unfortunately Adobe seems to be a more friendly company than Apple... at least on this area... :(
     
  10. sananda macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    #10
    no, it doesn't. anyone can make up an argument on anything.
     
  11. coren2000 macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    #11
    Im not "making up" anything. I am using the commonly know usage of the word AND.

    And means "both together" If they wanted to say otherwise they would have used the word OR (or simply not included the "AND USE" part of the sentance).

    Anyways. There are two ways of looking at this EULA
    1) The moral way (am I stealing anything)
    2) The legal way (am I in breech of contract)

    If looking from a moral persepective, when you buy a "single user" licence, you (and only you) are morally entitled to use the software anywhere you want, forcing you to use a specific machine is completely unconscionable and unethical. The idea is that you do not share the software with anyone else.

    If looking from a legal perspective, you obviously have a legal defense argument based on that this is a contract of adhesion and is unconscionable.

    Of course, legally its pointless, Apple will not sue you so long as you dont share the software with people who dont legally purchase a licence (can you really imagine apple suing you for using the software on two machines that you own and do not share with others???) so all that matters is the moral perspective, in which case you are a single user using a single user licence.
     
  12. jamesarm97 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2006
    #12
    If your going to spend $79 for iWorks, just spend $20 more for the family pack and put it on all of your Macs. $79 is not bad compared to MS.
     
  13. Mitthrawnuruodo thread starter Moderator emeritus

    Mitthrawnuruodo

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Location:
    Bergen, Norway
    #13
    I know... but that's where the business use clause kicks in, unfortunately... ;)
     
  14. coren2000 macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    #14
    Since you are a small business, you might want to look to see if there is some sort of small business licence. Im not sure its ethical for you to use a single user licence as a business.
     
  15. Mitthrawnuruodo thread starter Moderator emeritus

    Mitthrawnuruodo

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Location:
    Bergen, Norway
    #15
    There's nothing that says I cannot use a single user license for business use or commercial purposes, that only applies to the family pack license.
     
  16. coren2000 macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    #16
    Business ethics is a big can of worms. Legally, all that really matters is how much you pay your lawyer.

    Well I guess the best you can do is buy the single user licence, and only use iWork for business matters. If Apple ever comes after you simply state that you are a single user, using a single user licence for a single purpose (business) and would be happy to buy a business licence if they offered one.

    if your really paranoid, install to a portable harddrive as was earlier suggested.
     
  17. sananda macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    #17
    i didn't suggest you were making anything up. you said "the simple fact that we can have an argument about this means that the EULA is not a legally binding contract (see other post about why)" and i disputed the logic of that suggestion since anyone can make an argument therefore you cannot conclude that any opposing view makes an agreement non binding.

    as to your argument about the word "and", i read the sentence in question as stating that you may install the software only on one machine at a time AND you may use the software one machine at a time. it seems perfectly clear to me. the "and use" merely reinforces that you can only install the software on one machine at a time. in case in wasn't clear, it goes on to say that the software may only exist on one machine at a time. exist is again are more english word and most people will understand this to mean installed and would not the somewhat absurd line that it must be in RAM to exist.

    if you don't take the ordinary english interpretation of the agreement, you have to next look at the intentions of the parties. are you suggesting that apple intend that this software may be used in whatever way by one person on different machines? if they did why would they not specifically and expressly state that the software may be used by one user on multiple machines? you will not that some single user software allows the user to install on a desktop and laptop and expressly states so in the agreement.

    why do you think the agreement is one of adhesion and/or (like that? :D) unconscionable?

    as to your moral argument, i take your point. why shouldn't someone with two computers remain a single user? i suspect that apple take much the same view and wouldn't care to take action against such a single user. the situation is highlighted by my mother's situation. she has an imac and an ibook. she would like to buy ilife08. she can get it for £35 from the apple higher education store. a nice reduction compared to the normal price of £55. but if she wants to put it on her ibook as well as her imac she must either buy two at £35 or a family pack for £69 (which has no higher education discount). doesn't seem enormously reasonable since she is the user of both machines. but that is the agreement. you can take it or leave it.
     
  18. estee065 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    #18
    ok, so ethics aside, is it physically possible to install it twice, or is there a serial number that must be entered that will prevent it from running on two machines?
     
  19. coren2000 macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    #19
    That is your opinion, which I disagree with. In my opinion, you are reading something that is not there.

    If you are meant to install the software only on one machine at a time AND use the software one machine at a time, then the EULA should specifically say that in the clear and consise words, similar to what you wrote. The EULA doesn't use your wordings, the EULA states "install and use."

    To me (and many others) this usage of language is akin to the statement "dont drink and drive"... You are allowed to drink, and you are allowed to drive, you just aren't allowed to do both at the same time.

    Now I admit my reasoning here comes from being a software designer rather than a common man. Because of my knowledge, I know that software is a process that demands the usage of the CPU and RAM and many other computer components. The file on your computer that you double click is more like a recipe that tells the machine how to execute and display things the user wants. The execution and display is the software 'existing.'

    An analogy would be a cook baking a cake. The cook uses a recipe to tell him how to do it, but in and of itself, the recipe is not a cake.

    I cannot comment on Apple's intentions, however, by giving the EULA the title "single user licence" they give the impression to others that the software is to be used by one person, and not many people. If they wanted to give the impression that the software is to be used on only one machine, they should have entitled it "Single Machine Licence."

    Again, I am only guessing here, but the idea that I can use software that I have a licence for anywhere I want is implicit to the idea of softare; so long as I do not share the software with others who do not have a licence.

    The EULA is Unconscientious Dealing because
    1) Enforcement of the contract would require an invasion of my privacy, which is unfair
    2) It is unfair for me to buy multiple "single user licences" if I (a single user) am only using a single instance of the software at a single time
    3) It is unfair for me to buy a family licence, since I am not a family.

    Add these unfair contractual wordings towards the fact that this is a take it or leave it deal formed from a boiler plate (all Apples EULAs are essentially the same and use complicated legal language which often seems irrelevant). Also, there is no real alternative at this point to iWork 08... MS Office for Mac is buggy and often crashes (and is therefore not an acceptable alternative), while NeoOffice/OpenOffice does not have full compatibility to MS Office (which is nearly universally used by businesses, making oOo unacceptable). The points I make in this paragraph demonstrate that Apple is using strong arm tactics to get you to accept their conditions.
     
  20. sananda macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    #20
    coren2000: i won't go over my assessment of the agreement again but i'm sure you if it came to legal proceedings you would not have reasonable prospects of success in convincing a court that, taking all the circumstances into consideration (including all the wording used, omitted and the intentions of the parties), the agreement allows you to have the software installed in two machines at the same time. whatever you may say about the use of the word "and" the use of "exist" in the agreement kills your argument even taking into account your exotic recipe analogy.

    i agree that the title "single user" alone would lead someone to believe that it could be used by one person on more than one machine. i wondered myself today in relation to ilife08. and i couldn't find the agreement anywhere on the apple website. i only found the agreement for the previous ilife. someone could quite reasonably buy a single user ilife now and be surprised to find it's only for one machine (assuming they read the agreement). if you were to argue that it's unfair because we are not clearly told (or cannot find out for ourselves despite a reasonable search through apple documents) that it's for one machine prior to purchase, then i think that would be a reasonable argument. essentially, i think you're right that the title is misleading.

    no-one is forcing you to use iwork. you are free to enter into this agreement or use another program. you can't argue there is no reasonable alternative. mrs sananda senior has just finished her PhD thesis written over some years on Office 2004 without incident. and there are no strong arm tactics. they have no idea how many computers you install the software on. have you ever heard of taking action because a single user has a program installed on two machines? i wouldn't know the answer to that.
     
  21. coren2000 macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    #21
    @sanandra : I know my argument isn't very strong but it does exist (based on the opinion that it is unfair for a single user to be forced to buy multiple single user licences), if it ever came down to it I'd have to hire a really good lawyer... however OJ got off, Im sure I could find the right lawyer to get out of the contract if I was stubborn enough to make sure this went to court (which would cost way more than the $79 for the extra copy).

    Legal issues aren't really of importance to the average joe however. (though they are to the business user who should really buy a business licence). What's of importance to the average joe is "am I being ethical when I install this software in two places?" and so long as you aren't sharing the software with anyone else I believe the answer to that is "yes."
     
  22. sananda macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    #22
    i agree that it's not entirely fair to have to buy two copies or a family pack if you are a single user with two machines (and many people have a desktop and laptop). i don't know what i'd do in that situation but i wouldn't condemn anyone who chose to buy one single user copy so long as s/he really was not sharing the computers.
     
  23. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #23
    How does the "Single User Licence" work if there are two or more "Users" of the same computer? Do the other "users" have to refrain from using the software? The EULA model is deeply flawed, has many internal inconsistencies, and, if interpreted in such a way that a "Single User" cannot use it serially on any computer, is an "Unfair Contract Term", which, in the UK at least, is unenforceable.
     
  24. coren2000 macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    #24
    I agree. There are many inconsistencies that make EULAs non-binding. As an academic study I would like to see two reports done by a lawyer, one report to pick apart a EULA and one to state how the EULA is a legal contract.

    The real intention of the EULA is to cover the software companies a$$ (eg they revoke your serial number if you run on two machines... if you complain they say "you should have read the EULA... if you dont like it, see you in court").
     
  25. gnasher729 macrumors P6

    gnasher729

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    #25
    In the end, there is copyright law, and that doesn't allow you to make any copies of the software except copies that are required to run the software (and only a copy on _one_ harddisk is needed for that), and a backup copy. Apple can try to restrict your rights (whether that would be valid is debatable) or could give you more rights, but they don't give you more rights. Therefore one installation only is allowed. If the EULA is for some reason invalid, then still one installation is allowed.

    Which means you can still only make one copy, because that is what copyright law says.
     

Share This Page