[aehaas]

I just got Aperture and was trying to move pictures around from my desktop to my MBP. I installed Aperture on both. NO joy. It only allows one copy to be running at a time. Even PhotoShop and Quark allow a desktop and portable to open and use the one serial numbered program at the same time (while connected through a network).

This is a real annoyance. Anybody else feel this is not acceptable?

aehaas

[mac128k-1984]

No doesn't bother me. I'm not even sure the EULA allows you to run Aperture on more then one computer and even if it did I see the logic in that approach.

[Hi I'm Ben]

No it's completely acceptable since that's the way the license works. That's why they have family packs of OS X... and why companies have to purchase enterprise licenses of software instead of 1 copy. With licensed software it's meant to be installed on one machine at a time unless specified by the distributor otherwise.

I think it would be humorous if you were to call Apple and complain though.

[Mastrap]

Common practice. Try it with Office - same result.

[real]

Very common remember you don't own any of your software you buy a licence for it. also remember this is a pro app not a consumer app.

[Scifience]

I think the way Aperture's license works is perfectly reasonable. If you read the fine print, even most of the programs that allow you to have two copies installed on two different machines make it very clear that you aren't allowed to have both copies in use at the same time.

[Mike Peel]

I just encountered this exact same problem. There seems to be an issue with the EULA, though - it says that "This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on one Apple-labeled desktop computer and one Apple-labeled laptop computer so long as both computers are owned and used by you." It then goes on to say "This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time", which directly contradicts the first. I can find no mention that you cannot run the software on multiple computers at once.

Does anyone have any suggestions of a way to follow this up with Apple, preferably without involving lawyers?

[mac128k-1984]

Yeah,
Just run only one version of Aperture at a time.

[gnomexp]

There is no way to follow up with lawyers. Apple is right. You agreed to purchase the software license, the very one that specifically states that you cannot use it on more than one computer. There is no legal recourse, because you agreed to a contract.

If you want to move the files, use Export or some other option, or transfer the files yourself physically.

[Mike Peel]

The issues I have are that:

1. The EULA, which is the only contract I have agreed to, contradicts itself as to whether Aperture can be installed on more than one computer.

2. Nowhere does it say that I cannot use the software simultaneously on two computers (excluding the contradiction in point 1).

... unless I'm missing something?

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by Mike Peel 

The issues I have are that:

1. The EULA, which is the only contract I have agreed to, contradicts itself as to whether Aperture can be installed on more than one computer.

2. Nowhere does it say that I cannot use the software simultaneously on two computers (excluding the contradiction in point 1).

... unless I'm missing something?

I believe the intent is to allow photographers to use the application while away from thier desktop. I think you're reading too much into the eula. You can use it on one desktop and one laptop provided you own both and you cannot run them at the same time. Likewise you cannot install the application on two desktops or two laptops, you can only install on one desktop and one laptop.

[Thinine]

Why do you have to have it running on both machines at the same time just to transfer photos?

[CaptainHaddock]

Originally Posted by aehaas 

This is a real annoyance. Anybody else feel this is not acceptable?

I'm with you. But anyway, something like LittleSnitch can probably prevent Aperture from announcing its presence over your network.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Thinine 

Why do you have to have it running on both machines at the same time just to transfer photos?

Good question.

[Peter]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaddock 

I'm with you. But anyway, something like LittleSnitch can probably prevent Aperture from announcing its presence over your network.

I think that'd be breaking the EULA and is therefore not allowed to be discussed on MacNN.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Peter 

I think that'd be breaking the EULA and is therefore not allowed to be discussed on MacNN.

Using LittleSnitch to prevent applications from broadcasting information onto a network is most certainly not in violation of any EULA, nor is there any reason it shouldn't be discussed here in public.

You can discuss potential force and usage of hammers in a public space without that amounting to manslaughter.

Would you ban discussion of hammers from MacNN?

Apart from that, the EULA is not legally binding in many places in the world, including Europe.

[Peter]

think

[brokenjago]

"This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on one Apple-labeled desktop computer and one Apple-labeled laptop computer so long as both computers are owned and used by you." It then goes on to say "This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time",

I cannot see how it contradicts itself at all. It says one computer AT A TIME.

[SLiMeX]

Why can't you just burn a disc or DVD of all the images, then take it over to the other computer?

[ph0ust]

Originally Posted by brokenjago 

I cannot see how it contradicts itself at all. It says one computer AT A TIME.

it is a conradiction since it says "EXIST", not run or be operated simultaneously.

most of you people must have no legal experience whatsoever, given that you just want to say it's ok without encouraging apple:
1) to be competitive against... how about adobe which is their most obvious competitor;
2) to get their legal act together considering there appears to be a contradiction in their own contract.

i love apple as much as anyone else, but it is just too ironic that people side with them as blindly as neo-cons get behind the president bush.

[CaptainHaddock]

Besides, US law doesn't require a license for using software, just distributing software.