School yard level? Ouch! Flame on, Mr Human Torch...
I can't agree with you. In front of me I have the text of every "Software Licence Agreement for Mac OS X" from Public Beta to Panther. On the shelf I have every Apple OS licence from 7.0 onwards. I have done shedloads of this stuff. I am not the ignorant law-breaking dork you seem to think.
From 10.0 onwards, the Licence for Mac OS X has included a specific right of one-time transfer at no additional cost to holder. That is: you're allowed to sell a Mac OS X licence once you cease using it.
This is useful to us on this list. If you buy a copy of Panther (like I have) to replace a copy of Jaguar (like I have) you can sell the copy of Jag legitimately on eBay to help defray the cost (like I have).
(Of course, I appreciate that other software licences for other products may not be so explicitly helpful; but I assure you that within the EU when you buy something you own it, and you are then legally entitled to sell it on unhindered by its original maker or supplier, who is legally prevented from interfering or attempting to impose restrictions on the second-hand market; so if that something is a licence for MS Windows which you no longer need, you can flog it with a clear conscience and Microsoft can't touch you for it. We have some magic laws which automatically nullify unfair terms in contracts, which I've always thought were rather handy for purchasers of goods and services.)
But I see that I have not made my meaning clear. I am simply pointing out that there is a difference between the Licence to use Mac OS X in some particular version - for which I have always kept the correct number I needed in the filing cabinet - and the addendum which allows multiple use of Mac OS X in a household. This is a separate right, issued as a separate piece of paper (which I suspect you haven't read) bought for an additional fee, and it is not tied to version.
So if I cease all use of Jag, and transfer away my copy and its single-use licence, I can independently retain the addendum for multiple household use. Provided I legitimately acquire a copy of Panther or Tiger by purchase or legal transfer from another user, I can then run multiple copies of that OS for household use in accordance with the terms of the addendum which I still own and which confers on me that right. (But what I can't do is, say, run a mixture of two copies of Panther and three copies of Tiger on the basis of the addendum; that is clearly not something it allows.)
I do not think this is what Apple intended. But I do know this is what the licence paperwork says.
But if you think that the courts would disagree, please cite the judgements.
(of course David M. Ensteness wrote:
Uhm not so much ....
Even in the EU I imagine you still have to deal with the transferring of such licenses, just as when you sell a car you must transfer the title, you must transfer the license when selling software from one party to another, so its not just "unbundling" as many developers do require a fee to be paid to transfer a license and that fee may exceed the cost of the software to the OEM and therefore the original end user.
Also, none of what you say about the "trade restrictions" applies to your conclusions about Mac OS X Family Pack.
Apple is not breaking any trade restriction by requiring you to license each product. Also note that courts on both sides of the pond have upheld the fact that the end user license of a previous version can not apply to a future version unless it states that it grants such license to future versions.
Otherwise someone could legally claim that their EULA that was included with their Macintosh 128K that shipped in '84 which said "Macintosh Operating System" has applied to EVERY version of the Mac OS including Mac OS X because it is simply the newest version of the "Macintosh Operating System" as noted in their EULA.
There is a big difference between a company violating trade restrictions - which even by your explanation does not in any way apply - and one party breaking an agreement. Not all agreements are legal and that keeps companies (or attempts to keep companies) from imposing illegal measures in otherwise legal agreements, but there is nothing illegal about Apple agreeing to license you one product in a 5-pack (Mac OS X v.10.2) and requiring you to buy a license at a later date for *a completely different product,* namely Mac OS X v.10.4.
Its a nice thing to try and justify and all, but making yourself feel better does not make it legal. If you want tell yourself its OK to buy one copy and run it on five Macs - great, right or wrong its your choice. But this explanation is school yard level and rather silly.
David
-- Unsupported OS X is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/>
Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html>
Unsupported OS X list info <http://lowendmac.com/lists/unsupported.html> --> AOL users, remove "mailto:"; Send list messages to: <mailto:[email protected]> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archive <http://www.mail-archive.com/unsupportedosx%40mail.maclaunch.com/>
iPod Accessories for Less at 1-800-iPOD.COM Fast Delivery, Low Price, Good Deal www.1800ipod.com
