Registration and Tiger

reaper

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 9, 2004
267
0
19th Hole
I have read elsewhere (can't remember where) that Apple makes you register each copy of Tiger (unlike 10.3 which would allow you to skip it). Is this true?

I have a PB and PM I would like to install Tiger onto, so will I have to buy 2 copies? (I will be using the edu version if that makes a difference) Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

- reaper
 

snickelfritz

macrumors 65816
Oct 24, 2003
1,109
0
Tucson AZ
Just purchase the family pack for $200 to mitigate any personal ethical dilemmas about software licensing. Registration is optional in either case though.
BTW, I purchased the Family Pack for Tiger, not for ethical reasons, but because I like what Apple is doing and think it's worth more than they're charging for a single license.
It's certainly a better value than paying $200 for WinXP Pro.

Personally, I think the whole software licensing issue makes little sense to most consumers though.
For example, I don't recall ever having to register a book, movie, CD, or art supplies, but these things are basically analogs of computer software. I often buy a book, read it, then give to my Mom to read. Geez, I hope the book police don't arrest me.
 

Applespider

macrumors G4
snickelfritz said:
I often buy a book, read it, then give to my Mom to read. Geez, I hope the book police don't arrest me.
The difference being that you've bought a single copy of the book and while she has it, you can't use it. If you'd photocopied/scanned it, and then handed it over, it would be illegal. If you buy a CD and lend it to someone, that's fine. It's the copying of it so you can both use it is the problem.

Software wise, if one person downgraded to Panther, there's no reason why they couldn't give their Tiger to someone else.
 

sacear

macrumors 6502
Jan 12, 2005
457
0
Buy the "OS X Family Pack"

reaper said:
I have read elsewhere (can't remember where) that Apple makes you register each copy of Tiger (unlike 10.3 which would allow you to skip it). Is this true?

I have a PB and PM I would like to install Tiger onto, so will I have to buy 2 copies? (I will be using the edu version if that makes a difference) Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

- reaper
grapes911 said:
You don't have to register Tiger, but legally you need two copies for two machines.
Buy the "Family Pack" of OS X, it allows five licenses, installs and registrations, yet costs less than two single license versions. Very sweet deal! :D
 

hodgjy

macrumors 6502
Apr 15, 2005
423
0
"Registration" here isn't the same as Microsoft's "Activation." For Apple's purposes, it's just for marketing research rather than to make sure no one is pirating their software. OS X doesn't have any hardware or software hashes that go back to Apple Inc. They just want to know about the people using OS X (retired, student, etc).

You can canel the registration process by cmd-cntrl-q (or cmd-opt-q, I forget which one, but you can do it).

Only cancel reg if you don't want Apple knowing about you--don't do it because you want to pirate.
 

sacear

macrumors 6502
Jan 12, 2005
457
0
Thank you!

Applespider said:
The difference being that you've bought a single copy of the book and while she has it, you can't use it. If you'd photocopied/scanned it, and then handed it over, it would be illegal. If you buy a CD and lend it to someone, that's fine. It's the copying of it so you can both use it is the problem.

Software wise, if one person downgraded to Panther, there's no reason why they couldn't give their Tiger to someone else.
Applespider, it is so refreshing to read that someone understands the difference between physical and virtual (or electronic) media, and how it works.

Yes, one can give the actual physical purchased book, cassette, VHS, CD, or DVD to someone else, as long as, one does not copy that item first. Same is true of software, one can give it away, as long as, one takes the software off one's machine first. One may not distribute copies of music CDs, likewise one may not distribute copies of software. :)
 

snickelfritz

macrumors 65816
Oct 24, 2003
1,109
0
Tucson AZ
The difference being that you've bought a single copy of the book and while she has it, you can't use it. If you'd photocopied/scanned it, and then handed it over, it would be illegal. If you buy a CD and lend it to someone, that's fine. It's the copying of it so you can both use it is the problem.

Software wise, if one person downgraded to Panther, there's no reason why they couldn't give their Tiger to someone else.

Gimme a break. :|
Of course I understand the distinction, but I didn't think I needed to spell it out within a glib anecdote regarding mainstream consumer perceptions.
People tend to believe they own and can use as they see fit, the things they purchase, whether it be a toaster, a book, or software.
 

grapes911

Moderator emeritus
Jul 28, 2003
6,943
3
Citizens Bank Park
snickelfritz said:
Gimme a break. :|
Of course I understand the distinction, but I didn't think I needed to spell it out within a glib anecdote regarding mainstream consumer perceptions.
People tend to believe they own and can use as they see fit, the things they purchase, whether it be a toaster, a book, or software.
Well, you used and analogy that didn't fully fit the situation so it wasn't a stretch to assume you did not understand the distinction.
 

snickelfritz

macrumors 65816
Oct 24, 2003
1,109
0
Tucson AZ
grapes911 said:
Well, you used and analogy that didn't fully fit the situation so it wasn't a stretch to assume you did not understand the distinction.
I understand your motive, but that is precisely the point of my glib little anecdote; "analog" and digital products are not as analogous, legally, as most people instinctively believe. It's not like a book that can be lent out, but it seems like it should be.
ie: my non-computer-person-Mother believes MS Word is just a digital typewriter; she can borrow my typewriter, therefore she can borrow my Word program.
Not true, even though a typewriter is a reasonable analogy to MS Word.

Personally, I see no ethical reason why a person should not reasonably expect to be able to use a single copy of any software package on multiple systems as long as all systems are only ever used by that person.
Theoretically, one could uninstall the software from one system and move it to another to remain within the letter of the contract, but this would be an absurd and unproductive extension of the EULA.
Imagine paying for two copies of AdobeCS, MS Office, OSX, and Maya, just so you can legally do some work on a vacation using your notebook.
That's roughly $4000! This software is definitely cool, but it aint THAT cool!
The Tiger Family Pack does not cover this situation, since it only applies to non-commercial use.

It escapes my comprehension why consumers continue to advocate software licensing restrictions. I can understand an apathetic acceptance of it, but not advocation.
It's getting worse by the minute; eventually we'll have to do a voice-print in order to boot the stupid machine. (I'm only half kidding here)
 

tobefirst

macrumors 601
Jan 24, 2005
4,030
1,140
St. Louis, MO
I think that what maybe some people are missing here is that, when you go online to purchase software, or go to the store and pick up the box, you are NOT usually purchasing the software, but a LICENSE to use the software. Much in the same way that you purchase a license to drive an automobile, or the same way you register for a library card. In all of these cases (the software, the driver's license, and the library card) those things can be taken away from you if you are caught misusing them. You are not buying a physical (or digital) piece of equipment, you are buying the opportunity to use the equipment. That being the case, I think it's the software creator's right to make up whatever license agreements he or she wants. By buying the software, you are agreeing to his (or her) terms. Don't like the terms? Don't buy the software license and find an alternative.
 

andiwm2003

macrumors 601
Mar 29, 2004
4,325
379
Boston, MA
tobefirst said:
................ I think it's the software creator's right to make up whatever license agreements he or she wants. By buying the software, you are agreeing to his (or her) terms. Don't like the terms? Don't buy the software license and find an alternative.

you're right on the point. but there is a problem. since every company has different licensng terms and since they are not understandable to normal human beings you never know exactly what you pay for.

that put's you in the unfavourable position that you might unknowingly violate those agreements.
how do i know if i am allowed to install copies of my ~ 30 software titles on my desktop and my pb from each licence?

since the software companies rights get protected by the goverment with rather extensive legislation that no normal human being understands there should also be a legislation that protects customers. i think along the line of defining what fair use a customer can expect from a license. and customers can't be sued if the licence agreement gives you less than that fair use and you violate it. basically create a minimal standard licence. developers can give you more but not less rights than that.

that would at least clarify once and for all if you can have two copies of your software on your desktop and mobile from one licence.
or if you are allowed to make backup copies from you software dvd.
or if you can have multiple systems on one machine with multiple copies of your programs.
if you are allowed to sell your software.
if your family members can use your software.

right now it's impossible to know all that for all your software.

andi
 

QCassidy352

macrumors G4
Mar 20, 2003
10,571
2,661
Bay Area
snickelfritz said:
Personally, I see no ethical reason why a person should not reasonably expect to be able to use a single copy of any software package on multiple systems as long as all systems are only ever used by that person.
Theoretically, one could uninstall the software from one system and move it to another to remain within the letter of the contract, but this would be an absurd and unproductive extension of the EULA.
I agree. I've used the example of uninstalling each time myself; it ends up being exactly the same thing as just installing it multiple times but without the absolutely pointless waste of time.

Licencing software to a computer makes zero sense. The software is owned by a single person, not a single machine. If that's not true in a technical, legal sense... well, I don't care.
 

yellow

Moderator emeritus
Oct 21, 2003
15,925
1
Portland, OR
QCassidy352 said:
Licencing software to a computer makes zero sense. The software is owned by a single person, not a single machine. If that's not true in a technical, legal sense... well, I don't care.
So, by that reasoning, I could purchase Tiger for work and install it on 500 Macs, but only pay for 1 copy.. because I own it. So Apple misses out on $34,431?
 

Manzana

macrumors 6502a
Jul 19, 2004
605
8
Orange County, CA
yellow said:
So, by that reasoning, I could purchase Tiger for work and install it on 500 Macs, but only pay for 1 copy.. because I own it. So Apple misses out on $34,431?
for work? I don't think so. there are even licensing problems if you have two computers and only one license. i know there are many times when i use both at the same time. the previous posts indicated that they would turn one off and the other one. that sounds good, but is not really reasonable.
 

faintember

macrumors 65816
Jun 6, 2005
1,363
0
the ruins of the Cherokee nation
Dongle anyone?

This is why we need more usb dongles (sp?).

I love Logic exp b/c i can have it one my iMac and PB at the same time, but i can only use one installation at a time b/c the program only works if the dongle is installed. I know there are ways around this, and i know that it can be a hassle moving dongles around ( i currently have two, one for Logic Exp, one for Cubase), but i think it is a decent solution to people that want to use the same software on multiple machines legally.

I wish that i could have a dongle that allowed me to use Tiger, Logic, iLife, Logic, etc. all on one key, and maybe even be able to add the ability to allow the use for other software such as Photoshop, Cubase, etc, etc. Then i would be a happy camper!
 

sacear

macrumors 6502
Jan 12, 2005
457
0
ownership vs. license

snickelfritz said:
People tend to believe they own and can use as they see fit, the things they purchase, whether it be a toaster, a book, or software.
That is an erroneous belief, and just because some people believe that does not make it right or acceptable.

snickelfritz said:
my non-computer-person-Mother believes MS Word is just a digital typewriter; she can borrow my typewriter, therefore she can borrow my Word program.
Well she can, as long as she borrows the whole machine (i.e. the whole computer or the whole typewriter) and not just the MS Word software to install on a different separate computer. Your mother wouldn't borrow just the ribbon (or just the software of an electronic typewriter), she would borrow the whole typewriter. Likewise, with the computer.

I will let my friends come use (borrow) my computer, yet they may not borrow just the software for which I have purchased a usage license. Likewise, I sometimes let my friends borrow my car, but I do not allow them to borrow just the engine.

The difference with software is that it is not a hard commodity, like a car or a typewriter. It is a soft commodity, an intellectual commodity, like art and music. One does not own the music on the CDs you buy. One buys a license for the right to listen to the recording of the music on THAT particular CD alone. One cannot record or distribute copies.

Another analogy is that of an amusement park or a movie theatre. One pays a for a usage license, but not for the product itself. One does not attain ownership of the rides or of the movie. One gets to use the product or service for a period of time, yet one is not allowed to take ownership or re-sell that product or service. Sneaking one's friends in without paying (copying software) is illegal (theft) and if one is caught, then appropriate police and legal action is taken.

snickelfritz said:
It's getting worse by the minute; eventually we'll have to do a voice-print in order to boot the stupid machine. (I'm only half kidding here)
I like that idea.
 

sacear

macrumors 6502
Jan 12, 2005
457
0
Re: Dongle anyone?

faintember said:
This is why we need more usb dongles (sp?).

I love Logic exp b/c i can have it one my iMac and PB at the same time, but i can only use one installation at a time b/c the program only works if the dongle is installed. I know there are ways around this, and i know that it can be a hassle moving dongles around ( i currently have two, one for Logic Exp, one for Cubase), but i think it is a decent solution to people that want to use the same software on multiple machines legally.

I wish that i could have a dongle that allowed me to use Tiger, Logic, iLife, Logic, etc. all on one key, and maybe even be able to add the ability to allow the use for other software such as Photoshop, Cubase, etc, etc. Then i would be a happy camper!
Yeah, I like the dongle key.
 

mduser63

macrumors 68040
Nov 9, 2004
3,038
30
Salt Lake City, UT
faintember said:
I wish that i could have a dongle that allowed me to use Tiger, Logic, iLife, Logic, etc. all on one key, and maybe even be able to add the ability to allow the use for other software such as Photoshop, Cubase, etc, etc. Then i would be a happy camper!
I've seen such a dongle in the Sweetwater catalog. You plug your regular dongle in to it, then plug it into your computer and run the software for the dongle you're "downloading." It captures the information sent by the dongle and stores it. You do this with all your separate dongles, and then you have one dongle that works for all of your programs.
 

annk

Administrator
Staff member
Apr 18, 2004
12,886
4,271
Somewhere over the rainbow
yellow said:
So, by that reasoning, I could purchase Tiger for work and install it on 500 Macs, but only pay for 1 copy.. because I own it. So Apple misses out on $34,431?
Mmmm...no....If I understand this correctly, the point is you could purchase Tiger and install it on 500 Macs, as long as you, the licensee, were the one to use the machines, and you only used one at a time. :D

Not really practical :eek: , and anyway not applicable when you're talking about work, where other licenses apply.
 

Duff-Man

macrumors 68030
Dec 26, 2002
2,976
2
Albuquerque, NM
annk said:
Mmmm...no....If I understand this correctly, the point is you could purchase Tiger and install it on 500 Macs, as long as you, the licensee, were the one to use the machines, and you only used one at a time. :D
Duff-Man says...no, Mac OS X is a *per computer* license, not a per user license. You need a license forn *every computer* you install it on....oh yeah!
 

Nickygoat

macrumors 6502a
Dec 11, 2004
992
0
London
Applespider said:
The difference being that you've bought a single copy of the book and while she has it, you can't use it. If you'd photocopied/scanned it, and then handed it over, it would be illegal. If you buy a CD and lend it to someone, that's fine. It's the copying of it so you can both use it is the problem.

Software wise, if one person downgraded to Panther, there's no reason why they couldn't give their Tiger to someone else.
By that logic why can't he do it? He is (very) unlikely to be using his PB and PM at exactly the same time? It breaches the EULA I agree but? I'm not saying it's right - it isn't - but I'm curious.
 

annk

Administrator
Staff member
Apr 18, 2004
12,886
4,271
Somewhere over the rainbow
Duff-Man said:
Duff-Man says...no, Mac OS X is a *per computer* license, not a per user license. You need a license forn *every computer* you install it on....oh yeah!
Ahh...Ok, I get it. That must be why you could install it, use it, uninstall it, instill it on your other computer, use it....etc.
 

Macky-Mac

macrumors 68030
May 18, 2004
2,589
1,142
Duff-Man said:
Duff-Man says...no, Mac OS X is a *per computer* license, not a per user license. You need a license forn *every computer* you install it on....oh yeah!

that's a little misleading.....it's actually a "single use" and not a "per computer" license.....the license is not tied to a specific machine but can be transferred to other computers