My point - to be succinct:
While you can argue and nitpick the terms looking for justifications to use a 5-pack license from 10.2 for 10.4, the spirit of the agreement does not include use for newer versions.
Its the "trying to get more than what I paid for" justification that you use which creates more legal banter and confuses the common sense of such things even further.
The fact is, no one bought Mac OS X v.10.2 Family Pack expecting that they got rights to future products and Apple never intended to imply that.
So if your argument really comes down to "look at the loop hole I found!" Great. All I am saying is its not honest because *neither* of the two parties involved in the agreement intended it.
David
On Apr 27, 2005, at 4:06 AM, Gerald Wilson wrote:
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.
-- 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
