Sorry. Parsed your reply wrong.
And yeah, Apple contributed a lot of code, but even if they didn't, its not like it hurts OSS.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why do they offer a family pack if snow leopard doesnt have a cd key?
- Thread starter Hissori
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sorry. Parsed your reply wrong.
And yeah, Apple contributed a lot of code, but even if they didn't, its not like it hurts OSS.
Except it is demonstrably different from stealing from a store. When you pirate software, the manufacturer doesn't actually lose anything. When you steal something from a store, they have inventory they need to replace--they actually lose money from your theft. The only thing you can say about piracy is that it's a lost sale, which is obviously not as bad as outright theft.
And even the "lost sale" argument doesn't hold 100% of the time, because people who pirate software often wouldn't buy it if they couldn't get it for free. (Not that this is a valid defense. I'm simply pointing out that not all piracy even equates to lost sales.)
I'm not saying this makes piracy an acceptable act, but I certainly put it lower on my list of Bad Things You Can Do.
There was actually an interesting article about a year ago, where an independent game developer asked for emails on why people pirated his games. The results are here.
I'm not advocating piracy, though, nor do I condone it. I bought Leopard, and I'll gladly buy Snow Leopard at $100 less. My point was that it's foolish to say there's no difference between physical theft and piracy, when there clearly is.
I agree that copyright infringement and physical theft are two separate issues. I will go one further and state my opinion that equating the two is actually doing the law and order side a disservice because it confuses the issue for those not yet mature enough to come to a moral conclusion on his or her own recognizance.
That said, this discussion will go nowhere but in circles.
Thank you, someone finally pointed out the difference between copyright infringement and theft. You can't say "how would you like it if I broke into your house and stole your mac" because copyright infringement does not equal theft. They are leagues apart.
The latest version of iWork only needs a key if you downloaded the trial version and then purchased the license from the Apple Store without buying the physical disks.
Other than that, most of Apple's pro apps have keys - including Aperture, Final Cut Studio and Logic.
They COULD care less about you ? Yes they could.
Finally, someone else has noticed! I keep on reading people saying they "could care less" when they seem to be trying to claim that they couldn't.
Hmmm, not to sure about that: Apple tried to silence owner of exploding iPod with gagging order. Read this.
I agree that if this thread was "which is worse, from a legal point of view", then we can rank the types of theft, and debate what the proper terms were ("physical theft" vs "virtual theft"), etc etc.
However, I was using the term "theft" in the very literal version of "The taking of property or services without consent". If I'm trying to teach a niece or nephew the rights and wrongs of moral behaviour, I don't start off by saying that stealing a $5000 car is really bad, but stealing a candy bar is just a little bad. I start of by saying that taking something that doesn't belong to you is bad. I expect children to then question the relative degrees of bad, because they are still forming their ideas of how the world works. But we should all be old enough that we know what theft is. If it doesn't belong to you, and you take it without consent, then it's theft. Whether its a service (like software) or property. I'll leave it up to courts to define "theft over" "theft under" "grand larceny" "fraud" embezzlement" etc.
I agree that by legal definition they are different, but for someone who is still learning the morality of things, equating software theft to being the same thing as someone taking your favourite toy is actually doing them a favour. Until they can understand the subtleties.
That I agree with wholeheartedly! But I can't just stand idly by and do nothing while others are condoning theft. And I recognize that you weren't condoning theft! We were splitting definition hairs.
I think that everyone can agree that simply not having a serial number or other draconian activation or validation system does change that the product is still licensed. Lack of enforcement does not negate the licensees intent. There's very little to stop one from speeding (my car may not have a device that applies the brakes whenever I exceed X miles per hour) but that doesn't negate the fact that we still have traffic laws. The same applies for Apple's licensing of OSX - simply because they so not verify that you are buying legitimate copies, doesn't change the fact that Apple still wants you to comply with its licensing - its the basis that they grant the distribution. Saying "I lied" is not a valid excuse to the fact that you may or may not have bought the correct licence. Apple is being a little trusting that you are doing the right thing - if enough people violate that trust it can go away.
Apple asks that you do the right thing and buy the correct license. In exchange for not being draconian about it, they just want you to do the right thing.
Apple asks that you do the right thing and buy the correct license. In exchange for not being draconian about it, they just want you to do the right thing.
You only get 1 DVD with the family pack; you just get more licenses. The licenses are supposed to be used by 5 family members or something; you can read more closely if you want.
+1, What makes me shake my head is that there is this whole talk of integrity and character and the big picture is totally missed. APPLE DOESN"T CARE!! Really.... They actually hope that their OS spreads like wildfire in order to increase market share.
People will pay for what they see value in. I see value in purchasing a single copy. I feel no value in paying for more copies.
How about unlocked iPhones. Doesn't that violate EULA? Oh, but that is okay because AT&T sucks, right? Isn't that stealing from AT&T?
How about torrents, mp3 and movie downloading. Wake up. People in this thread sound like a bunch of cattle.
Actually, with some exceptions, I was thinking that most of the people on this thread are the kind people who I would like to live with in a community. I'll leave it up to you to figure which set I'm referring to.
I happen to live in a place where a driver gave a hitchhiker a ride last week, and then discovered that the hitchhiker had dropped $6.71 in change out of their pocket. The driver is now trying to track down the hitchhiker to give them back their change. Appears that the driver is trying to do the right thing, down to the penny.
Completely true, so I'll say nothing more on the subject. Actually, this topic will probably just be loaded with the "lol whocares" people and the "but that's wrong" people arguing back and forth.
s/probably/is/
Let my clarify myself. Most OSS licenses generally stipulate you can use the code in whatever you want (e.g. WebKit in Safari) but if you make any changes to that code (WebKit) you must disclose them with a similar license (Apple's contributions to WebKit). From a legal standpoint Apple are perfectly fine.
What i'm saying is that Apple isn't using/contributing to OSS out of the goodness of their hearts. It benefits them. In a major way.
WebKit
Darwin
Samba
Three things that are useless (to most people at least) without anything on top of them (Safari, Mac OS X GUI, Mac OS X GUI). But it increases Safari's web presence, increases security and saves them having to code something to interact with Windows networks themselves. If Apple was really into OSS then things like Safari would be OSS. Instead they play the part of OSS lover while in fact they take advantage of it. In a perfectly allowed way, but they do.
Nokia bought the Symbian (S60) OS then open sourced the entire thing. And Qt (which the KDE Desktop Environment is coded in). Apple is as closed a company as there is. Except maybe Microsoft...
This isn't meant to delve into the psychological egoism of all corporate entities but the overused metaphor of OSS is that it's all about scratching your own itch.
When Linus wrote some code for Gnome, it wasn't about the greater good. It was about it him being pissed off that he couldn't get his right mouse button to work the way he wanted it to.
It's not like there are no parties benefiting from the code that's contributed back. Chrome uses WebKit. So does Epiphany and a dozen other OSS projects. The only browser using the KHTML engine is Konq.
And who's not benefiting from samba?
I don't understand your stance regarding end user visibility/usability. I don't generally see the internal wiring of my house every day either.
Snow Leopard: single user vs 5 pack?
What's the difference, if any, going to be between the single user Snow Leopard and the 5 pack? On a home network, will Big Brother know that you're using a single license multiple times or a 5 pack license?
Can I spend $29 for 4 Macs or do I need a 5 pack?
What's the difference, if any, going to be between the single user Snow Leopard and the 5 pack? On a home network, will Big Brother know that you're using a single license multiple times or a 5 pack license?
Can I spend $29 for 4 Macs or do I need a 5 pack?
The legal good person way = 5 user.
The cheap ass secret bad person way = 1 user.
Apple will never know, but come on...
-Omi
The cheap ass secret bad person way = 1 user.
Apple will never know, but come on...
-Omi
They'll never know, but really... A 5 pack is just $49. It's only $20 more than the single user version.
I wouldn't like it if you "copyright infringed" my company's software, because the sales of that software is what pays my salary and keeps me and my family alive.
You are correct in saying "copyright infringement does not equal theft". They are different things. Theft doesn't equal fraud, theft doesn't equal extortion, theft doesn't equal copyright infringement, they are all different things. You are incorrect in saying "they are leagues apart". And in your example, you haven't thought things through: If you physically steal software in a store, the software developer does actually get paid. Microsoft doesn't mind very much at all if you steal their software in a store.
There ara also plenty of cases where "copyright infringed" software is sold for money, and in some cases sold for the price of a legal copy to an unsuspecting purchaser.
To all believing Christians reading this thread, the answer is "yes". Any Muslims, Muddhists etc. here who can add to this?
Lots of software is sold online. Whether you steal the software (like downloading it but paying with a stolen credit card, or hacking into their server to be download without paying), or just copy it from a friend, that doesn't make the slightest difference whatsoever to the company. Even when you steal software from a store that is sold for $100, what you are taking away is a cardboard box and a DVD, value less than $2, plus the ability to copy the software, value $98.
If you see a $20,000 car at a dealership, and you steal the car and burn it, that costs the dealership probably around $16,000. If you see Leopard for $129 in an Apple Store, and you steal the box _and burn it_, destroying the copy of Leopard inside, that probably costs Apple just $2. If you steal the box and install the software on your computer instead of buying it, that costs Apple $129. If you get a copy from a friend and install it, instead of buying the box in the store, that costs Apple $129 - $2 = $127.
Tell that to the people who have had their iPhone apps pulled from the App Store for no good reason
And the people who lost their iphone. Because apple and at&t can pinpoint your phone and when brought into a store also know if it is yours or not. But do they care? Just buy a new one.
The comment was right before. They don't care.