Leopard: Single User vs. Family Pack (?)

Status
Not open for further replies.

jasko

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Dec 26, 2006
471
5
Hi,
I was seeing if someone could explain to me the difference?

Does the single user only allow you to install Leopard on 1 computer? Myself and two other people are looking to get Leopard... please fill me in.

I apologize if this has been asked/answered. I ran a search and couldn't find anything. Thanks guys.
 

Osarkon

macrumors 68020
Aug 30, 2006
2,161
4
Wales
Yes, the single user only allows you to install on one machine. You'd need a family pack if you wanted to install on more than one machine.
 

queshy

macrumors 68040
Apr 2, 2005
3,687
3
the single user license allows you to LEGALLY install it on one computer but nothing is physically (or electronically...) stopping you from installing it on as many as you like. If you want to install it on >1 Mac, then Apple trusts that you will purchase the family pack (5 licenses).
 

vendettabass

macrumors 6502a
Jul 8, 2006
894
0
Wellington, New Zealand
the single user license allows you to LEGALLY install it on one computer but nothing is physically (or electronically...) stopping you from installing it on as many as you like. If you want to install it on >1 Mac, then Apple trusts that you will purchase the family pack (5 licenses).
I seem to recall a registration process when I first installed Tiger, where I had to input home address etc etc.

Will Apple follow up people using the same disc but registering it to different people?
 

jasko

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Dec 26, 2006
471
5
Ah I see. Yeah, we all live in seperate homes and whatnot. So, I'll find out what they want to do. Thanks for the input everyone.
 

queshy

macrumors 68040
Apr 2, 2005
3,687
3
I seem to recall a registration process when I first installed Tiger, where I had to input home address etc etc.

Will Apple follow up people using the same disc but registering it to different people?
The disc will probably think it's just the same computer and you're simply doing a format...it won't make a difference. If you have no regard for the law - then just get the single license and save some money lol. Apple doesn't make money off of selling their OS anyway...they make it on the hardware.
 

mavherzog

macrumors 6502
Jun 11, 2005
304
0
Columbus, WI
queshy said:
The disc will probably think it's just the same computer and you're simply doing a format...
That doesn't even make sense.

The DVD is read-only media and can't retain any information regarding previous installations. The only way the licensing could be enforced is via the registration procedure.

And, I believe it is fairly well known that Apple doesn't bother enforcing licensing. But it certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility for them to start doing so with the release of Leopard.

Jasko, just do the right thing and buy the appropriate media for you situation.
 

gnasher729

macrumors P6
Nov 25, 2005
16,692
3,381
Hi,
I was seeing if someone could explain to me the difference?

Does the single user only allow you to install Leopard on 1 computer? Myself and two other people are looking to get Leopard... please fill me in.

I apologize if this has been asked/answered. I ran a search and couldn't find anything. Thanks guys.
The law allows you to install a single user version of Leopard on one computer, and the law plus Apple's license allows you to install a family pack on up to five computers in the same household.
 

AdeFowler

macrumors 68020
Aug 27, 2004
2,278
266
England
If you want Apple to adopt a Microsoft-like activation process, complete with regular checks, then buy one copy and share it with all your mates. Apple currently do trust their user base, and it'll be a sad day when their consumer software comes with serial numbers.

Do the right thing.
 

CRAZYBUBBA

macrumors 65816
Mar 28, 2007
1,119
6
Toronto/Houston
If you want Apple to adopt a Microsoft-like activation process, complete with regular checks, then buy one copy and share it with all your mates. Apple currently do trust their user base, and it'll be a sad day when their consumer software comes with serial numbers.

Do the right thing.

I agree, do the right thing. If you can't afford it (a common excuse for piracy) please save up some money.
 

jasko

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Dec 26, 2006
471
5
Ya, I don't mind buying the Family pack, but it really isn't for my "family". Well, I need Leopard for myself, my mom (same house), and my mom's friend (different house). Does that violate their "family" pack rules?
 

desenso

macrumors 6502a
May 25, 2005
798
1
I have 2 Macs and bought the family pack, even although I could have gone to my bookstore a few days later and bought 2 copies for cheaper. Why? Because I want it on Friday, and because I want to support Apple. Just making that clear off the bat.

To those of you who are scolding the people who want to round up 3 friends to buy a family pack because its a violation of the EULA if you don't "live in the same household", I'm inclined to say that you're taking your moral argument a little too far. Perhaps that's what the EULA says. Perhaps that's the way Apple really sees it. But as far as I'm concerned (which obviously has no legal weight), if you buy the Family Pack you are effectively buying 5 licenses. Sure, you shouldn't be able to just copy the DVD and pass it around for a few bucks, but if you get your friends together, and work off of a single DVD, and you come out having installed Leopard on less than 5 systems... well... frankly, I don't think there's any moral culpability there.

I have no basis for saying this, but I'm guessing that a lot of the people in here who are doing their anti-piracy cheerleading are probably guilty of a little hypocrisy. I'm guessing that, just maybe, a few of those people have downloaded a song from a P2P, ripped a friend's DVD, or done any of the other "prohibited" activities that they now appear to be so offended by. That's just a hunch, but I'll throw it out there anyways.
 

CalBoy

macrumors 604
May 21, 2007
7,849
37
I have 2 Macs and bought the family pack, even although I could have gone to my bookstore a few days later and bought 2 copies for cheaper. Why? Because I want it on Friday, and because I want to support Apple. Just making that clear off the bat.

To those of you who are scolding the people who want to round up 3 friends to buy a family pack because its a violation of the EULA if you don't "live in the same household", I'm inclined to say that you're taking your moral argument a little too far. Perhaps that's what the EULA says. Perhaps that's the way Apple really sees it. But as far as I'm concerned (which obviously has no legal weight), if you buy the Family Pack you are effectively buying 5 licenses. Sure, you shouldn't be able to just copy the DVD and pass it around for a few bucks, but if you get your friends together, and work off of a single DVD, and you come out having installed Leopard on less than 5 systems... well... frankly, I don't think there's any moral culpability there.

I have no basis for saying this, but I'm guessing that a lot of the people in here who are doing their anti-piracy cheerleading are probably guilty of a little hypocrisy. I'm guessing that, just maybe, a few of those people have downloaded a song from a P2P, ripped a friend's DVD, or done any of the other "prohibited" activities that they now appear to be so offended by. That's just a hunch, but I'll throw it out there anyways.
The OP asked if it was ok, and the answer is a basic and plain "no." No one is going into deep philosophical discussions, or marshaling their legal services:p

The point is, if you have more than one Mac in your household, the contractual requirement is for you to buy the Family Pack. Apple has made 'household' quite flexible in my opinion, because the only requirement is for the users to share the same physical address. If this doesn't fit, then don't try to cheat. Or, if you feel you must cheat, don't ask for any help on this site, because the RULES clearly forbid this.
 

quidire

macrumors 6502
If I remember correctly, kids in college are considered by the license to be a part of the same household. (No, this doesn't apply to the OP, but I wanted to amend the emerging understanding of "one place")

I'd put it like this: Apple is trusting you. Get multiple copies (or one family pack and a single license, in the OP's case) if you can afford it. If you literally cannot, Apple prospers more if you get the family pack or even a single license than if you simply didn't buy the product at all. Just try to do your best by the company (to reward them for their trust and consumer-friendly policies in that regard), and enjoy your new operating system.

-RS
 

CalBoy

macrumors 604
May 21, 2007
7,849
37
If I remember correctly, kids in college are considered by the license to be a part of the same household. (No, this doesn't apply to the OP, but I wanted to amend the emerging understanding of "one place")
That's correct. The students have to be living under the same address for it to be valid:

Apple* The Family Pack Software License Agreement allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple software on up to a maximum of five (5) Apple-labeled computers at a time as long as those computers are located in the same household and used by persons who occupy that household. By “household” we mean a person or persons who share the same housing unit such as a home, apartment, mobile home, or condominium, including student members who are primary residents of that household but reside at a separate on-campus location. This license does not extend to business or commercial users.
 

gnasher729

macrumors P6
Nov 25, 2005
16,692
3,381
To those of you who are scolding the people who want to round up 3 friends to buy a family pack because its a violation of the EULA if you don't "live in the same household", I'm inclined to say that you're taking your moral argument a little too far. Perhaps that's what the EULA says. Perhaps that's the way Apple really sees it. But as far as I'm concerned (which obviously has no legal weight), if you buy the Family Pack you are effectively buying 5 licenses. Sure, you shouldn't be able to just copy the DVD and pass it around for a few bucks, but if you get your friends together, and work off of a single DVD, and you come out having installed Leopard on less than 5 systems... well... frankly, I don't think there's any moral culpability there.
With this kind of thing there are three possible questions: What is technically possible, what is legal, and what is moral. We can answer the first two questions here (except that forum rules don't allow me to tell how something can be done technically when it is not legal), and answering is easy because everything is black and white. For the third question, what is moral, there are no easy answers. I'd leave that for anyone to decide for themselves. But to make the right moral decision, you need to know what is legal as well.

With what you say, that a family pack is effectively five licenses, you are wrong. It states clearly that it is five licenses in a household, not five licenses anywhere. So there is moral culpability if you share it between friends, but whether you do it or not is entirely your decision and not for me to judge. And sharing a family pack between three friends is certainly _more_ moral than sharing a single user version, or downloading a version and paying nothing at all.
 

jasko

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Dec 26, 2006
471
5
I see. Thanks for all the replies everyone. I'll probably end up buying a Family pack for myself and my mom, and tell my moms friend to buzz off and get her own, in nicer words :)
 

CalBoy

macrumors 604
May 21, 2007
7,849
37
All this talk about morality got me thinking...

Kohlberg's stages everyone!:D

1. Obedience and punishment orientation-I'll punch the Apple Store employee if he doesn't give me a free copy of Leopard. :p
2. Self-interest orientation-I'll pay the Apple Store employee 20 bucks to sneak me a copy.
3. Interpersonal accord and conformity-Everyone expects me to buy the single license copy, so I will.
4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation-I'll do whatever the license agreement says because it's a license agreement.
5. Social contract orientation-If a poor student can't afford Leopard, Apple should send him/her a subsidized copy.
6. Universal ethical principles-Using a computer harms the environment, so I will never use one again!:p
 

desenso

macrumors 6502a
May 25, 2005
798
1
The OP asked if it was ok, and the answer is a basic and plain "no." No one is going into deep philosophical discussions, or marshaling their legal services:p
Except that the moral undertones were brought in:

If you want Apple to adopt a Microsoft-like activation process, complete with regular checks, then buy one copy and share it with all your mates. Apple currently do trust their user base, and it'll be a sad day when their consumer software comes with serial numbers.

Do the right thing.
[Emphasis mine]

You state that the answer is very simple, but I don't think that it is. There are ways to go about using a Family Pack in a manner that is NOT detrimental to Apple, and there are ways to go about using a Family Pack in a manner that IS detrimental to Apple.

The way that is NOT detrimental to Apple is: 5 computers need leopard, but because those 5 computers are in such close proximity that only 1 disc is needed (limiting share-ability, portability, resell-ability), Apple offers the incentive to "do the right thing" by paying a little extra to stay "legit" in what would otherwise be a piratically enticing situation. No one is holding a gun to Apple's head, they decided to make this offer to the consumer. In the household case, an inconvenience is created because there exists only one physical Leopard disc. Generally, because of the close proximity, that inconvenience becomes a non-issue. But if someone leaves the household and moves across the country, but finds the needs to re-install, she is out of luck. It's now in her interest to own her own, individual license to the software so that she is entitled to physical possession of the installation disc.

Use of a family pack in a manner that WOULD BE detrimental to Apple would be buying one Family Pack, splitting the total cost between 5+ different people, burning 5+ copies of the disc, and essentially giving everyone the freedom that they would have had if they had each bought an individual license, but at a fraction of the cost.

In the former case, does it really matter if people are within the same physical household versus being in the same, say, 2 mile radius? Only 1 person retains possession of the physical disc, and the other 4 are slightly inconvenienced. It's therefore a cost/benefit analysis on their part -- risk not having access to the installation disc for any amount of time, but paying a smaller fraction of the total purchase price, or having the security of their own installation disc at the cost of a higher up-front payment.

In the latter case, the piratical element is clear. In the former, I think the boundary imposition is a bit arbitrary. To show why this is arbitrary, I think if someone had come in here and said "I have 2 iMacs, one in my primary home and one 500 miles away... can I just buy a family pack?" NO ONE would have pointed their moralistic/legalistic finger at the rule that says the disc can only be used in one household. If someone had come to this forum and said that his brother lives in a trailer in the back yard, which technically is not part of the household, and questioned whether he should be allowed to make use of the family pack, only a few (the biggest d-bags in this forum) would have pointed to the rule.

Which takes me to my point: I think it's a bit silly for people to cite the black letter rule with such moralistic fervor. It strikes me as a VERY LIKELY case of denial and hypocrisy. And given that this is an open discussion forum, I think we're entirely free to debate the underlying reasons for the perhaps arbitrary restrictions imposed by Apple in their EULA. We don't see this kind of false pretension in the iPhone forums where people are quite happy to hack away at Apple's various policies regarding carrier and application restrictions. Why should we do it here? The OP deserved a fairer answer than he got. He didn't present a case of blatant piratical intent. It was, I think, a question which has reasonable, but differing answers.

With this kind of thing there are three possible questions: What is technically possible, what is legal, and what is moral.
You and Justice Scalia would be great friends.

But rightly or wrongly (another moral question!), 95% of the rest of the judicial system would disagree (although perhaps only privately) that there is a distinction between a moral and a legal question.

This is ESPECIALLY TRUE in a one-way bargaining situation where the software licensee has absolutely no leverage to bargain the terms of the EULA.
 

CalBoy

macrumors 604
May 21, 2007
7,849
37
You state that the answer is very simple, but I don't think that it is. There are ways to go about using a Family Pack in a manner that is NOT detrimental to Apple, and there are ways to go about using a Family Pack in a manner that IS detrimental to Apple.

The way that is NOT detrimental to Apple is: 5 computers need leopard, but because those 5 computers are in such close proximity that only 1 disc is needed (limiting share-ability, portability, resell-ability), Apple offers the incentive to "do the right thing" by paying a little extra to stay "legit" in what would otherwise be a piratically enticing situation. No one is holding a gun to Apple's head, they decided to make this offer to the consumer. In the household case, an inconvenience is created because there exists only one physical Leopard disc. Generally, because of the close proximity, that inconvenience becomes a non-issue. But if someone leaves the household and moves across the country, but finds the needs to re-install, she is out of luck. It's now in her interest to own her own, individual license to the software so that she is entitled to physical possession of the installation disc.

Use of a family pack in a manner that WOULD BE detrimental to Apple would be buying one Family Pack, splitting the total cost between 5+ different people, burning 5+ copies of the disc, and essentially giving everyone the freedom that they would have had if they had each bought an individual license, but at a fraction of the cost.

In the former case, does it really matter if people are within the same physical household versus being in the same, say, 2 mile radius? Only 1 person retains possession of the physical disc, and the other 4 are slightly inconvenienced. It's therefore a cost/benefit analysis on their part -- risk not having access to the installation disc for any amount of time, but paying a smaller fraction of the total purchase price, or having the security of their own installation disc at the cost of a higher up-front payment.

In the latter case, the piratical element is clear. In the former, I think the boundary imposition is a bit arbitrary. To show why this is arbitrary, I think if someone had come in here and said "I have 2 iMacs, one in my primary home and one 500 miles away... can I just buy a family pack?" NO ONE would have pointed their moralistic/legalistic finger at the rule that says the disc can only be used in one household. If someone had come to this forum and said that his brother lives in a trailer in the back yard, which technically is not part of the household, and questioned whether he should be allowed to make use of the family pack, only a few (the biggest d-bags in this forum) would have pointed to the rule.

Which takes me to my point: I think it's a bit silly for people to cite the black letter rule with such moralistic fervor. It strikes me as a VERY LIKELY case of denial and hypocrisy. And given that this is an open discussion forum, I think we're entirely free to debate the underlying reasons for the perhaps arbitrary restrictions imposed by Apple in their EULA. We don't see this kind of false pretension in the iPhone forums where people are quite happy to hack away at Apple's various policies regarding carrier and application restrictions. Why should we do it here? The OP deserved a fairer answer than he got. He didn't present a case of blatant piratical intent. It was, I think, a question which has reasonable, but differing answers.
Great essay, and if you want to discuss the morality of it all, go HERE.

Otherwise, the answer to the OP's question, according to Apple's Terms and Conditions, and the RULES of this site, are quite clear.
 

desenso

macrumors 6502a
May 25, 2005
798
1
Great essay, and if you want to discuss the morality of it all, go HERE.

Otherwise, the answer to the OP's question, according to Apple's Terms and Conditions, and the RULES of this site, are quite clear.
I really didn't want this to devolve into a thread of silly technicalities. It could have formed the basis of a perfectly reasonable debate.

But to play your game, according to the rules:

"One thread. Do not post a thread more than once. Post a new thread in the proper forum. If the topic is relevant to more than one forum, pick the best fit or most specific forum and post it only once.

I think this applies to posts just as well as whole threads.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • ginhb
2
Replies
2
Views
548
  • Cold_Beaver
5
Replies
5
Views
659
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.