Software isn't free to develop, why should it be free to use?
Not that I'm necessarily on the side of all of the restrictions and problems with items such as software, music and movies.... but...
Each of these items takes time and effort and money to develop. While the RIAA is a bit ridiculous in their tactics, their argument is valid... Mp3's, software piracy and services like Napster and Gnutella cause them to lose money. They promote illegal copying and duplication of copyrighted works and products. I can personally say that since I started downloading mp3s from the internet and burning them to CD, my CD buying volume dropped drastically. The music on CD's and ultimately in Mp3's was written, produced and performed by people at great cost to the studio and occasionally the artist themselves. The software on the OS X 10.2 install CDs was written, produced and distrubuted at great cost to Apple.
I know first hand how time and cost intensive developing software is. If one of the products I produced was freely distributed to anyone who didn't feel like paying for it, my paycheck would eventually disappear and I wouldn't be able to put food on my table. While this seems obvious at a micro level to a single developer developing a single product, it has the same ultimate effect on larger companies like Apple. If they were to allow anyone who wants it to freely copy and distribute their operating system, they would not be earning the revenue that ultimately could mean the difference between continued operations or bankruptcy.
In an economy such as this, I think it's understandable that Apple is charging people for web-content hosting and email hosting with the .mac platform. They have to buy the bandwidth and hardware used for such services. I also think it's understandable for them to charge for their operating system and other software. They have to keep their heads above water or the business itself would be in danger.
I think the family licensing package is a good step for Apple. While it could have been announced at the beginning of pricing announcements for Jaguar, it's still a good deal for those out there that can't afford to pay $129 per copy for each macintosh they might own but don't want to violate copyright laws and still want to support further Apple development. Perhaps the reason it was announced later, after some people had already ordered more than one copy, is because they simply didn't think of it until now. When they realized that Jaguar wasn't selling at the rates they hoped, they may have come up with this deal to boost sales, or they may have realized that some people simply can't afford it any other way.
The CD and DVD argument posted earlier has very little relevance on this issue. You don't play your DVD in all 5 of your DVD players at once, it's not possible. You do, however, copy the operating system to each computer and use it simultaneously on each one. If DVD players required you to copy the contents of the DVD to the player before playing the movie, then it would be relevant. You can, at any time, wipe the operating system off of any computer and install it to another one.
I guess my point is that everyone should pick their battles. The family licensing deal was probably created to help users afford the cost of upgrading multiple computers they own. Kudos to Apple for the forsight to at least announce it before the boxes got to the shelves.
