Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

abeato6 · Oct 22, 2007, 04:29 PM

HAs anyone bough previous Mac OS X famiy packs? because I'd like to know how many DVDs come with the pack.... is it only one? or are there five discs for each computeR?

Big Mac · Oct 22, 2007, 04:40 PM

I think it's just one.

abeato6 · Oct 22, 2007, 04:42 PM

well.. u sure?... cause i really want to know this information.. anyone else might know who wants to share it here?...

0157988944 · Oct 22, 2007, 04:53 PM

It's one, that you can install 5 times. Why would they put out 5 when they can just do one?

evildede · Oct 22, 2007, 05:13 PM

Do you have to buy the family pack if I want to install on both of my computers or can I just buy the single user version and install on both? Is there something that makes it impossible to install the single version on more than one computer? Reason I am asking is that I will be buying a new Mac soon and since Leopard will probably be free with it, I'd rather exempt myself from having to buy it now and save some money.

abeato6 · Oct 22, 2007, 05:27 PM

dont u hear a voice in your mind telling you that PRObAblY that's illegal...

..

mduell · Oct 22, 2007, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by evildede

Do you have to buy the family pack if I want to install on both of my computers or can I just buy the single user version and install on both? Is there something that makes it impossible to install the single version on more than one computer? Reason I am asking is that I will be buying a new Mac soon and since Leopard will probably be free with it, I'd rather exempt myself from having to buy it now and save some money.

Doing so would be against the terms of the license, so we can't talk about it here on MacNN.

mdc · Oct 22, 2007, 05:59 PM

Technically (read: not legally) you can buy the singly user copy of 10.5 ($129) and install it on as many computers as you can get your hands on.
There are no serial numbers or product activations for Mac OS X.

Again, technically, not legally.

Cadaver · Oct 22, 2007, 06:32 PM

I purchased the 10.4 family pack. Came with one install DVD and I think a second disc of developer apps. Also purchased family packs of iWork and iLife '08. One disc each.
I expect 10.5 to be the same way - one disc, five licensed installations. We'll find out on Friday, since I ordered the family pack version of Leopard. I have 5 machines I plan on installing it on (my Mac Pro, my MBP, wife's MacBook, older daughter's rev. C 12" PowerBook G4 and my twins' iMac G5).

hab · Oct 22, 2007, 07:51 PM

10 years ago on my Windoze discs at work, it was explicit that you were permitted one desktop install and one mobile (laptop) install per site license. Is that still the understanding others have on the Apple side of the divide?

Cold Warrior · Oct 22, 2007, 07:56 PM

no

one install

0157988944 · Oct 22, 2007, 07:56 PM

Um... no. 5 Licenses is 5 installs. I think it's always been that way. Unless your work had some special deal.

SoBayJake · Oct 22, 2007, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by hab

10 years ago on my Windoze discs at work, it was explicit that you were permitted one desktop install and one mobile (laptop) install per site license. Is that still the understanding others have on the Apple side of the divide?

Single User = One license = one machine.
Family Pack = Five licenses = five machines in the same household.

Your work might have had a site license, which allowed that. As far as I know, nothing from Apple (retail channel wise) allows that.

gradient · Oct 22, 2007, 08:01 PM

Originally Posted by evildede

Do you have to buy the family pack if I want to install on both of my computers or can I just buy the single user version and install on both? Is there something that makes it impossible to install the single version on more than one computer? Reason I am asking is that I will be buying a new Mac soon and since Leopard will probably be free with it, I'd rather exempt myself from having to buy it now and save some money.

If Leopard is like previous OS versions, the install disc that comes bundled with your new Mac will only work in that computer, not in other computers you may own. There are always devious workarounds, of course, but those shall go unspoken.

Dork. · Oct 22, 2007, 08:05 PM

There were some old retail Microsoft licenses (Perhaps Office 98?) that permitted you to install the app on one desktop and one laptop, which was specifically spelled out in the license.

As far as the OS X Family Pack goes, previous versions of the Family Pack were exactly identical to the Single-User Pack, with three importaqnt exceptions:

- A sticker on the box that identifies it as the Family Pack
- A small sheet of paper which is a EULA addendum, modifying the standard EULA to permit up to 5 installs in a household
- Of course, the price.

In all other respects, they are identical, including which system discs are included.

I've bought the Family Pack for 10.3 and 10.4, and plan on buying it for Leopard. I've often wondered if I could sell just the EULA Addendum sheet to someone who already had a single-user retail copy of OS X, with the end result being that they buy the right to use the OS on multiple computers from me, but I still have the right to use it on one....

Cold Warrior · Oct 22, 2007, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by adamfishercox

Um... no. 5 Licenses is 5 installs. I think it's always been that way. Unless your work had some special deal.

yeah, on the family pack. Hab was referencing his Windows days and one desktop, one mobile install on a Windows installation disc with a single license. I was clearly drawing the distinction with a Mac OS X single license.

peeb · Oct 22, 2007, 08:14 PM

Do the right thing. Apple users tend to be more honest about this, and so we have an OS that basically trusts us (unlike all the phoning home activation bs in Vista). You can install it multiple times, but it's bad karma.

gradient · Oct 22, 2007, 08:30 PM

I do wish Apple would sell a 2-license pack for exactly this purpose. There are a lot of people out there, like the OP and myself, who have one desktop and one notebook. I'll ultimately buy the five-pack but I can see a lot of people just buying the single license and pirating the rest. If there were a 2-license version for say 149 USD, it would probably sell pretty well.

0157988944 · Oct 22, 2007, 08:31 PM

The Family Pack is a cheap way to buy two licenses. It is $199, so that means you're buying one, and getting one for $70.

peeb · Oct 22, 2007, 08:48 PM

Not even. It's 189 at Amazon right now.

shaun3000 · Oct 22, 2007, 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by mdc

Again, technically, not legally.

I wasn't aware violating the terms of a license agreement was necessarily illegal. Sure, you might lose in a lawsuit, but I don't think you'll be charged with any crime.

peeb · Oct 22, 2007, 10:32 PM

That would be copyright infringement, not license breach.

shaun3000 · Oct 22, 2007, 10:34 PM

Only because you agree to the license which says you're not allowed to do it. It's not copyright infringement.

0157988944 · Oct 22, 2007, 10:35 PM

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior

yeah, on the family pack. Hab was referencing his Windows days and one desktop, one mobile install on a Windows installation disc with a single license. I was clearly drawing the distinction with a Mac OS X single license.

The um... no wasn't directed at you... I started typing before you had posted.

peeb · Oct 22, 2007, 10:35 PM

I'm not so certain. Can you back that up at all?

0157988944 · Oct 22, 2007, 10:37 PM

Talking to me, or shaun?

peeb · Oct 22, 2007, 10:39 PM

Shaun, unless you want to take a crack at it.

0157988944 · Oct 22, 2007, 10:42 PM

Heck, why not.

I don't think installing OS X on two computers where you only bought one copy is a copyright infringement. You're not taking OS X and selling it as your own or attempting to copyright it yourself. I'd say that installing OS X twice after buying it once is unethical at best, and it could get you in trouble if they actually care enough to sue. I think before they sue anyone, they're going to try out licensing codes.

peeb · Oct 22, 2007, 10:46 PM

Well, that's an interesting opinion, I wondered whether you could point me to anywhere that would back that idea up with a legal argument.

0157988944 · Oct 22, 2007, 10:49 PM

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that installing an OS once more than you paid for is not copyright infringement. I think theft would be the right word.

U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright Law

(a) Criminal Infringement. - Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either -

(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or

(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,

Neither really applies.

peeb · Oct 22, 2007, 10:51 PM

Well, I'm not saying you're wrong either, but I'm wondering what makes you think this - what have you read that leads you to this conclusion?

beez1717 · Oct 23, 2007, 03:39 AM

if you want to be evil, then you would do (censored for legal reasons)

now the world can go out and do as I say and be happy

(whole post was a joke)

Dork. · Oct 23, 2007, 10:00 AM

The database ate my post earlier this morning, so you all get treated to the brief version:

Any and all copying by anyone other than the copyright holder is subject to copyright law and can be infringement if done without the explicit permission of the copyright holder. (Note that Fair Use exemptions do exist, but these are technically still infringements on copyright, just ones that do not leave you liable for damages.)

Technically, just the act of copying a computer program from a hard disk or a CD into RAM is covered under copyright, and can be considered infringement if permission is not explicitly granted. This is how EULA's came about in the first place -- a technical and narrow reading of copyright law would say that even if the software is sold, it cannot be used without an explicit grant of the right to copy into RAM or onto your hard disk, which the EULA gives you. In exchange for that right, though, most EULA's take so much of your rights back that it's almost laughable. (My GameCube game licenses in the documentation actually state in the fine print that making backup copies of the disks is not allowed, because it is not necessary to play the game!)

Of course, if there was ever a case for the government to step in and clarify things, this is it. Since software can only be used by copying into RAM, it makes sense to give consumers a blanket right to do that for their own personal use, within the scope of using the software. Or, at least, give this the same Fair Use status that other uses have. But Congress does not feel compelled to act, probably because as long as EULAs are around, the problem is solved, sorta.

SSharon · Oct 23, 2007, 10:21 AM

Dork: sounds like those of us that use mirrored boot drives are in trouble! I've got all my applications on 2 drives.

jk. but really, this is clearly infringement so buy the family license and be done with it.

Dork. · Oct 23, 2007, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by SSharon

Dork: sounds like those of us that use mirrored boot drives are in trouble! I've got all my applications on 2 drives.

jk. but really, this is clearly infringement so buy the family license and be done with it.

It's all because the copyright law was created before something like computer software existed, which needs to be copied in order to be used. Before that, items like books, maps, and musical recordings could simply be used without being copied first.

When they went to update the law, they tilted it wildly toward the copyright holders at the expense of the public. Things like the Sonny Bono act and the DMCA come to mind.

abeato6 · Oct 23, 2007, 05:10 PM

look how this thread has shifted from the main point

no problem

my question got answered

shaun3000 · Oct 23, 2007, 06:39 PM

mdc · Oct 23, 2007, 07:45 PM

Originally Posted by abeato6

look how this thread has shifted from the main point

Welcome to MacNN

abeato6 · Oct 23, 2007, 08:18 PM

anyway... since we are off topic

.. i've heard on rumor websites that time machine only works with a hard drive that is only available for it.. meaning i can only use it with time machine... is that true? how is that possible?

0157988944 · Oct 23, 2007, 08:20 PM

No, it creates it's own folder, so you can store stuff on the rest of the drive.

ghporter · Oct 23, 2007, 10:16 PM

"Legal" can be used to identify an act that is sanctioned either by civil or criminal law. "Illegal" is almost always used in reference to criminal law, as in "it's against the law to steal so that's illegal." Violation of civil law is still "against the law" but generally it's referred to in terms of contract violation.

So no more pedantic "it's a violation but that doesn't make it illegal" stuff, ok? Instead of being so picky about the language, maybe we should be telling the OP "a single license is authorized for a single machine, and the family pack comes with five licenses-with the stipulation that the installations are confined to a family or family-like group." Which actually answers the question. We could also say "there's nothing in the distribution media that prevents it being installed on more than one machine, nor is there any "activation" mechanism like with Windows. But it's WRONG to violate the terms of the agreement, and it hurts Apple, so who wants to hurt Apple?"

abeato6 · Oct 23, 2007, 11:14 PM

Originally Posted by adamfishercox

No, it creates it's own folder, so you can store stuff on the rest of the drive.

100% sure?... i want to be really sur eon this because of this depends me buying an external HDD... thanks in advance

mdc · Oct 24, 2007, 12:00 AM

Back up the whole family.
The moment you choose a Time Machine drive, a single folder is created on the drive. Inside this folder is a subfolder for each Mac being backed up. (Yes, multiple Mac systems can share the same backup drive.) And within each subfolder is another list of folders — one for every backup performed on that Mac. Time Machine uses a standard file system to store all of its information. Nothing hidden anywhere.

That's from Apple's Time Machine page.

Time Machine uses it's own folder per machine being backed up to the drive. You are free to use the rest of the drive as you wish. The only side effect is that the other data you're putting on said drive will not be backed up, since Time Machine does not back up the back up drive.

abeato6 · Oct 24, 2007, 06:52 AM

ohh ok, convincing enough

thanks guys!

Lacie here I come

!

amagab · Oct 24, 2007, 03:47 PM

Check out your local university bookstore. My university bookstore is selling Leopard for only $79.

danbrew · Oct 27, 2007, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by adamfishercox

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that installing an OS once more than you paid for is not copyright infringement. I think theft would be the right word.

U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright Law

Neither really applies.

Quite frankly, it does. "private financial gain" is the $79 you saved by not buying the family pack or a 2nd copy for $129.

I WAS the One · Oct 29, 2007, 11:50 PM

well... I just install the new version on the most recent Mac and leave the oldest with the previous OS most of the time... so...

thunderous_funker · Oct 30, 2007, 05:43 AM

I have the Leopard family pack. One DVD. One booklet introducing you to features in Leopard. Snazzy box. That is all.

Mac4Decade · Oct 30, 2007, 12:44 PM

The family pack comes with one disc. Apple's printed receipt doesn't even say "Family Pack". "Family Pack" or any reference to it is represented on the side of the OS 10.5 box next to the bar code. No special serials or anything are needed to install them.
An Apple store employee told me if you install the single user on more than one computer on a network, the Software Update either won't update or will recognize the "illegal" computer running the second OS 10.5...

Person Man · Oct 30, 2007, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by Mac4Decade

An Apple store employee told me if you install the single user on more than one computer on a network, the Software Update either won't update or will recognize the "illegal" computer running the second OS 10.5...

That's not true. There are no serial numbers, so how are computers on the network going to distinguish between two copies of the same thing?

Besides, I bought the family pack. My brother bought the single license. We compared disks. Identical. In every way, physically, and electronically.

Now, OS X *SERVER* uses serial numbers, so maybe that's what the Apple Store employee was talking about.