On Thursday, Apr 28, 2005, at 20:31 Europe/London, David M. Ensteness wrote:
Capability does not alone dictate implied intent. As I said before, neither the buyer nor the seller assumed that what the buyer was buying entitled them to later reference releases.
You may or may not be able to speak for the seller. (I don't know if you work for Apple in any capacity.) Please don't presume to speak for every buyer.
expectation, that does not entitle me to get other products for nothing. A refund is one thing, what you have said is:Nope. What I have said is that the difference between a Family Pack and a standard single user licence is a printed addendum. The addendum varies two sentences of the standard licence. The addendum is not version specific. The addendum is an independently tradeable commodity. If I buy a five-pack (say of Jag), then later decide I don't need five licences, I can sell my addendum to someone who only has a single-pack of Jag and then they have the five-pack and I have the single pack. And since - AFAICT - the same addendum is used for Pan and Tig, what the addendum constitutes is a right to use a Mac OS X (client) licence which you own as a five-pack, not a right to use a Mac OS X JAGUAR (client) licence which you own as a five-pack. (But if you don't own the licence in the first place - no deal.)
The license agreement from 10.2 Family Pack entitles me to use 5 installations of ANY version of Mac OS X.
Basically you are saying its OK to steal the use of 10.3 and 10.4 and later versions because of the wording of the license when in fact, at the time of purchase you did not believe you were buying that right and Apple did not believe they were providing it. Since neither party had the expectation of getting later reference releases at no cost, it is in fact dishonest, although it *may* not be illegal.Bollox. I can't tell whether you can speak authoritatively for Apple, but please stop telling me what I did or did not think. Apple have, at various times, issued reference releases FOC (for example, S 6.0.8, S7.0, S7.0.1, S7.5.3/7.5.5). I have NO expectations about how Apple will choose to licence later reference releases. But at the moment I do expect to pay for a copy of Tiger on Saturday, same as I have always honestly done to keep my usage legal and compliant.
Bollox again. As far as Server goes, I'm not grumbling that the performance of Puma Server was below my expectations; I'm grumbling that parts of it were broken and didn't work as advertised. The seller deceived me about the product. It didn't do what it said on the box. (But I have not grumbled about the licence agreement, which is fine by me.)
Regarding 10.2 being when OS X became useable - this is an opinion not a fact. It might be true, it might be widely held, but it is in no way part of the software license agreement. What you note here is akin to saying:
"I bought an Oldmobile Alero and I do not feel the performance matched what it should be, therefore, GM should give me a Bravada or an Intrigue."
That is well ... nuts. The license was for a particular version of the product - your expectation when you bought the license was that it was for a particular version. On this point you were not misled. To say the product did not itself did not live up to your expectations, OK. That is fair, but it does not entitle you to another product.
On the note of 10.1 Server not being resellable for a good price ... that is generally the fact with software. So goes the world, things depreciate, standards change, and while we may or may not find it convenient, I fail to see how it is a company's fault if their product does not resell well because it is later considered outmoded. My car depreciates thousands of dollars when I remove it from the lot even a mile - does that somehow mean the car dealer or car maker owes me? No - it is a market pressure and has nothing to do with them.
Bollox again. Outmoded is one thing. Broken out-of-the-box is quite another. I don't want to sell a Puma Server which doesn't work. Nor do I want a refund for it. I just want to upgrade it for a reasonable and affordable fee to a newer version which does work. Paying for a brand new server licence is neither a reasonable nor affordable fee. (This has nothing to do with the family-pack, of course.)
It's not a 10.2 Family Licence. It's an addendum which varies a Mac OS X single user licence. That's the point. I thought Apple had written a family licence, and put it in the box instead of the single user licence. That's what I thought I had bought. Gawd knows, they have enough lawyers to call on. But they didn't. They wrote an independent addendum instead. That's what I find they have sold me. It creates these peculier complications.
Don't claim to be honest when you are knit picking EULAs to try and find justifications to claim your 10.2 family license somehow applies to 10.3, 10.4, and later yet to be announced versions.
Licences can be thoroughly awkward. I recall the time when we added a second cpu to our SPARCstations, then were informed by Sun that we had to buy a second Solaris licence - at great expense - for each box so upgraded - on the grounds that the box was in Sun's eyes now running two copies of Solaris simultaneously. This was a slightly surprising take on the concept of Symmetric Multi-Processing, and one which Apple have happily not pursued in marketing DP G4s and G5s.
Oh - and those words in english also apply to what one is doing when they are trying to get more than they paid for.Just offering you the courtesy of allowing you to back up your statements with facts. My mistake.
If you want to keep arguing, try doing it in a mirror. I'm not interested in wasting anymore time on this.
And as far as citing court cases? You have access to Google, feel free to look, I am not inclined to do your research for you.
GWW
-- 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
-- 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
