OSX Leopard Licensing? I have 2 Macs and 1 license

Discussion in 'macOS' started by Spliff, Nov 5, 2007.

  1. Spliff macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    #1
    I already know one license is only for one machine, however I currently have Leopard UTD installed on my Mac Mini (I bought it recently), but would rather have Leopard on my MBP (which I purchased months ago with Tiger). Since I already registered Leopard with my Mac Mini, am I able to remove it and put Tiger back on it, and then install Leopard on my MBP? Or once registered, am I not able to switch?

    How does Apple determine whether only 1 license is being used at one time? I am not going to attempt to install my Leopard on both machines, I just want to transfer it to another one.
     
  2. Stampyhead macrumors 68020

    Stampyhead

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Location:
    London, UK
    #2
    They don't, they just go on the honor system.
    As far as switching your license, I believe that the Up to Date license goes only with the machine it was assigned to, but I could be totally wrong about that. I thought I read it somewhere... Anyone else have any insight on this?
     
  3. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #3
    Correct. Only intended for the original machine. Apple has no way of knowing. Its up to your own conscience.
     
  4. Spliff thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    #4
    Thanks for the replies guys. So if I try to put the UTD Leopard on another machine, will Apple reject it when I do the registration?
     
  5. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #5
    Shouldn't. They really have no way of knowing. It does break the license agreement, FWIW.
     
  6. Gav macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    #6
    I know that Mac OS contains no anti-piracy features like Windows. You can physically install it on an unlimited number of computers.

    In all seriousness though, you can install a retail copy, and Apple don't really mind that much and install it on 2 or more computers.

    When I say 'Apple don't really mind that much', I mean that they don't actively prosecute people for doing so.
     
  7. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #7
    why are you guys giving him answers on illegal activity??
     
  8. Phil A. Moderator

    Phil A.

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Location:
    Shropshire, UK
    #8
    What do you mean "Apple don't really mind that much"??? Have you asked them the question? If they "didn't mind that much" why would they sell the family pack?
    What you can do and what you should do are two completely different things, and IMO if people want Apple to continue using the honor system they should show a bit of honor and not break the license agreement (which clearly says it can only be installed on a single system)
     
  9. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #9
    The forum's stance on this is agnostic. I am not helping him on an illegal activity I am answering the technical question. Its his choice to break the EULA or not.
     
  10. dacreativeguy macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2007
    #10
    When you are on the registration screen type "command-q" and you'll skip it. I just found out about that a few days ago.
     
  11. VideoFreek macrumors 6502

    VideoFreek

    Joined:
    May 12, 2007
    Location:
    Philly
    #11
    Keep it up, guys, and soon we'll all be enjoying Windows-style activation for Mac OS. You're gonna love dealing with rude Indian techs every time you upgrade hardware and need a new activation code. It's a trip!!
     
  12. markfc macrumors 6502a

    markfc

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    Location:
    Prestatyn, Wales, UK
    #12
    Upgrade hardware on a Mac? HA!
    :p
     
  13. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #13
    Apple often ships a software disk that will only install on the type of computer it was bought with. I don't know if they're shipping computer-specific UTD disks, but if they are, you might not be able to get Leopard to install on your MBP
     
  14. timmillwood macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2006
    #14
    i did this when tiger came out, used the same disk for iMac and MBP, after that they would never share files again.

    "Is it the software stopping me sharing files or just karma" I thought.

    So i bought another copy of tiger and all was fine, till this day I will never know if it was the software or karma!
     
  15. AlexisV macrumors 68000

    AlexisV

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2007
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #15
    Stupid laws in the Uk:

    You can add you can't install a copy of OS X you paid good money for on two computers you own to that list.
     
  16. Sbrocket macrumors 65816

    Sbrocket

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Location:
    /dev/null
    #16
    That's how licenses work. You can either agree to it and use the product, or not use the product.
     
  17. eRondeau macrumors 6502a

    eRondeau

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Location:
    Canada's South Coast
    #17
    Can't Buy It Here...

    We have two Mac dealers in my town. Both have tons of single-license Leopard's available, but neither has any Family Packs, nor did they ever have any Family Packs for sale. WTF???
     
  18. AlexisV macrumors 68000

    AlexisV

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2007
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #18
    This isn't a black and white world.

    Reminds me of a well used example: ask a child if it's right to steal some medication that would save their ill paren't life and they'll say no - it's wrong to steal. Ask an adult the same question and their answer will be somewhat different.
     
  19. Avatar74 macrumors 65816

    Avatar74

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2007
    #19
    You're right. This isn't a black and white world... which is why the above situation doesn't apply here. Upgrading your OS is not a matter of life or death (metaphors aside) and I'm sure that most children and adults can understand the difference.

    Apple doesn't use crazy technological countermeasures that might hamper the user experience by making the install more complicated. Consequently they expose themselves. However, they don't pursue a lot of legal action because their real margins aren't in software, but hardware. They'd lose money taking legal action against every EULA violator so they'd probably only go after large institutions that made it worth their lawyers' time.

    That being said, none of these are reasons why you should try to argue that it's "fair" to violate an EULA that you "paid good money for"... I'm not buying it. If one license costs $129, it's pretty fair to pay $199 for up to five licenses, instead of $129 x 5.

    You paid good money for one license, and you knew and accepted that when you bought it. If you paid good money for a family pack license, wouldn't you be irritated that some other person was crapping on your sense of fairness? It's like single occupants who use the carpool lane... were they thinking about anyone but themselves? No.

    The only reason for refusing to adhere to the EULA is just plain selfishness. I'm not telling you what package to buy, but don't try to rationalize your actions as anything other than selfishness. You violate the EULA by your own volition for your own convenience and no one else's.
     
  20. maestro55 macrumors 68030

    maestro55

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Location:
    Goat Farm in Meridian, TX
    #20
    I do not have a halo over my head by any means but I am going to have to side with those who suggest spending the extra money and getting the family pack if they choose to run the OS on more than one system. I have been running Linux for years so I have never had to worry about how many installs I can make (I do not use RHEL or SLES because they go against the philosophies of Linux). This is the only Mac that I have purchased new and all the others I have owned came with an OS pre-installed (I was not given disks, so technically I suppose I could be breaking the law by using the OS if the previous owner has the disks and is using them on other systems).

    So as said things are not black and white, but in this case, as pointed out, one spends a little bit more money and they can get 5 licenses of Leopard, that seems like the logical and fair thing to do in this case. However, if the OP wants to get around the system and do what hundreds of others do with Microsoft (even with their anti-piracy software) and I am sure plenty with Mac (like the machines I bought without the OS disks) than that is the choice of the OP.

    Apple I am sure knows this goes on, which is why they sell their family pack for so cheap, if they can get someone to do things to legal way and spend an extra few dollars the didn't completely lose out. If they didn't offer that family pack at that price I am sure there would be more families installing the single-user copy on 5 different machines.
     
  21. GTiPhone macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Location:
    Island Heights, NJ
    #21
    You're saying if you have two, or 3, or 4, or even 5 $1000+ Macs in your home that you own personally.....that you should spend $199 on leopard instead of $129......just because?
     
  22. dacreativeguy macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2007
    #22
    You want to know the real story?

    The Mac OS, and to some degree all Macintosh computers, are loss leaders for Apple to drive sales of iPods and music. That is where they make the majority of their money. While Macs make up less than 5% of computers, iPods can go after that 5% plus the other 90%+ that are Windows users. And once Apple sells an iPod, that customer has the potential to purchase an infinite amount of music that costs Apple nothing to distribute after the initial build out of the itunes music store.

    Microsoft locks down Windows because it is their cash cow. Apple doesn't care because the OS is just an enabler for iPod features and content.
     
  23. gnasher729 macrumors P6

    gnasher729

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    #23
    Well, you have an interesting definition of "loss leader". And you got the economics a bit wrong. In the last quarter, Macs sold $3.1bn, peripherals, other hardware and software $0.8bn, iPods, $1.6bn, music $0.6bn.

    Macs are quite clearly not driving the sales of iPods, but quite a bit is happening the other way round. But if you look a few years ahead, where do you think is more potential? Do you think it is easier to double iPod sales or Macintosh sales? I would bet on the Macintosh.
     
  24. AlexisV macrumors 68000

    AlexisV

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2007
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #24
    Correct, it's not life or death, which conversely makes it less sensical to blindly follow the 'rules' like a robot. But is it black and white to blindly adhere to a rule when doing so would cause financial loss to yourself and not doing so would benefit you and cause an miniscule amount of harm to an enormous corporation.

    This is an theoretical conversation - I haven't violated any licence. But if I did have 2 Macs and one copy of OS X I would install it on both.
    Yes I would be 'violating it for my own convenience' but is it selfishness? It doesn't feel selfish - it feels like downright common sense. The thing is, you can't make me feel bad by calling me selfish like some sort of school teacher. It doesn't feel selfish to save myself £xx and not give it to a multi billion dollar company.

    To bring in another metaphorical situation - if somebody had half an hour left on their parking ticket and they gave it to you (which happens sometimes) to save you having to buy a ticket yourself, is it selfish to accept it and deprive the car parking operator of the money? 90% of people wouldn't think so I suspect. Yet if you parked in a disabled parking space if you weren't disabled, then yes I think that could be deemed selfish. You're causing physical, tangible inconvenience to another human being in that situation. Again, their are degrees of selfishness and I think installing a piece of software on 2 machines you own barely registers on the selfish scale.

    I'm not rationalising anything here - I don't have to rationalise myself to anybody. I'm merely explaining my thoughts. We'll never meet each other in real life, but I can catagorically say I am not a selfish person :D
     
  25. QCassidy352 macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #25
    Why on earth are you all arguing about the legality/ethics/whatever of installing 1 copy on 2 macs? Anyone actually read the original post?

    If you want to argue about the legality or ethics of something, how about the question actually posed (which is a good one)? :rolleyes:

    FWIW, I don't know whether it's above board to use leopard on the older mac and tiger on the newer one, but it certainly seems Ok to me. I mean, you have one license for each OS... I can't see apple caring which one goes on which machine.
     

Share This Page