Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Rab Mush · Nov 1, 2007, 05:57 PM

Me and four friends are splitting the Leopard family pack thing (the one that costs $199) and I got a few questions...

Would each person get an install disc? Would there be any problems that we haven't noticed? Does apple consider this.... cheating? Thanks!

JustinHorne · Nov 1, 2007, 05:58 PM

It's one disc, and you are just technically buying 5 liscenses.
I think just about everyhting is exactly the same, even the box.
It's just that technically, on the normal version, you are only allowed to instlal it to one omputer.

Person Man · Nov 1, 2007, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by Rab Mush

Me and four friends are splitting the Leopard family pack thing (the one that costs $199) and I got a few questions...

Would each person get an install disc? Would there be any problems that we haven't noticed? Does apple consider this.... cheating? Thanks!

Yes, it is cheating/stealing. The license says the computers have to be in the same household. There is only one disc in the package.

JustinHorne · Nov 1, 2007, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by Person Man

Yes, it is cheating/stealing. The license says the computers have to be in the same household. There is only one disc in the package.

Oh, it does?
Huh.

Well, there you go then.

peeb · Nov 1, 2007, 06:31 PM

The 5 pack is the same as the 1 pack. You are buying a household license.

Person Man · Nov 1, 2007, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by JustinHorne

Oh, it does?

Here is a link to the license.

Originally Posted by Mac OS X License Agreement

2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.

B. Family Pack. If you have purchased a Mac OS X Family Pack, this License allows you to install and use one (1) copy of the Apple Software on up to a maximum of ﬁve (5)
Apple-labeled computers at a time as long as those computers are located in the same household and used by persons who occupy that same household. By "household"
we mean a person or persons who share the same housing unit such as a home, apartment, mobile home or condominium, but shall also extend to student members who
are primary residents of that household but residing at a separate on-campus location. The Family Pack License does not extend to business or commercial users.

Emphasis mine.

So, people living under the same roof qualify. The only exception to the "under the same roof" is if a student member of that family is away at school.

Examples: The Jones Family. Mom, Dad, Billy, and Susie. Each of them has a computer. They all live in the same house. They can each legally install the software on their computers. They can not give the fifth license to Grandma who lives next door (or anywhere else).

The Smith Family. Mom and Dad and Johnny. Erica is away at college in England, and Sara lives in an apartment in New York, working at a restaurant while trying to break into the Broadway acting scene. All five have computers. Mom, Dad, Johnny, and Erica are eligible for the family license. Sara is not, even though she's in the same family, she's not in the same household and not away at school.

Joe, Bob, Eric, Jimmy, and George are friends renting and living in a house together. None of them is related to each other. They pool their money and buy a Family Pack. They are legally able to use it because they live in the same household.

Lisa, Mary, and Molly (LMM) live in an apartment together. Missy and Hannah (MH) live in a different apartment. All five are friends. LMM or MH can buy and use the family pack, but they can't share it outside of their own apartments.

These are LEGAL restrictions to the use of the software. Apple has not put any TECHNICAL restrictions in place to enforce them.

peeb · Nov 1, 2007, 07:05 PM

Apple users tend to be more respectful of software licensing. Since I switched over, I have gone from a WinPC with a bunch of, well, you know, to entirely legal software now. Maybe it has something to do with feeling like I really value the quality, but it has a lot to do with the fact that software developers on the Mac tend to be more trusting. There is less 'phoning home', less stupid DRM and software and OSs that need activation etc, and its important that we play our part to keep it that way. If a lot of people pirate Leopard, it will result in subsequent releases being more of a pita. Do the right thing.

Cadaver · Nov 2, 2007, 12:33 AM

Originally Posted by peeb

Do the right thing.

Quoted for emphasis.

Nodnarb · Nov 2, 2007, 02:13 AM

I know people feel very strongly about this. I mean, if these guys pay the $199 and use it only between the 5 of them, I see no problem with that. Hey, better that one of them spending $116 (from a fake edu account) and sharing it with more than 5 people. It's hard to believe many people in this situation would pay $129*5 when it isn't necessary. I think the family license is an adequate solution to this situation.

peeb · Nov 2, 2007, 02:34 AM

It's a matter of conscience, for sure, and not the worst thing in the world, I think it's well worth the 109 that Amazon is selling it for though.

MacosNerd · Nov 2, 2007, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by Nodnarb

I know people feel very strongly about this. I mean, if these guys pay the $199 and use it only between the 5 of them, I see no problem with that.

Why stop there, since they're stealing. Why not do away with spending the 199 and just download it.

I mean in essence they're doing the same thing. Just because you don't see the problem with it, doesn't mean it isn't stealing.

Parky · Nov 2, 2007, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by Nodnarb

I know people feel very strongly about this. I mean, if these guys pay the $199 and use it only between the 5 of them, I see no problem with that. Hey, better that one of them spending $116 (from a fake edu account) and sharing it with more than 5 people. It's hard to believe many people in this situation would pay $129*5 when it isn't necessary. I think the family license is an adequate solution to this situation.

The point is spending 5 * £129 IS necessary to be legal and not be a thief.

peeb · Nov 2, 2007, 09:39 AM

On a slightly different tack, I heard about a lot of people who had pre-ordered, and downloaded anyway, because it was quicker, but had paid for it.

Wiskedjak · Nov 2, 2007, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by peeb

Apple users tend to be more respectful of software licensing.

I think that's a load of bull. Some of the best collections of serial numbers are Mac only (Serialbox). I live in both worlds, and haven't found there to be any difference in respect for software licensing between Windows and Mac users. If anything it's easier to pirate in the Mac platform, given that you could just copy applications from one computer to another without the need for an installation CD. Only a few software developers have started changing this practice recently.

The fact that Apple doesn't have it's OS protected by a serial number, suggests to me that they are more concerned about people pirating Quicktime than they are about people pirating their operating systems. After all, the OS is often used by Apple as a tool to promote the sale of hardware.

peeb · Nov 2, 2007, 10:44 AM

Maybe you're right - I was speaking only from my own experience and the people I know.

iomatic · Nov 2, 2007, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by MacosNerd

Why stop there, since they're stealing. Why not do away with spending the 199 and just download it.

I mean in essence they're doing the same thing. Just because you don't see the problem with it, doesn't mean it isn't stealing.

OK, then; good suggestion.

At least give them some credit for buying a license that nearly matches the correct parameters.

peeb · Nov 2, 2007, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by iomatic

OK, then; good suggestion.

At least give them some credit for buying a license that nearly matches the correct parameters.

Sure - if Apple was using the RadioHead model of pricing.

MacosNerd · Nov 2, 2007, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by iomatic

OK, then; good suggestion.

At least give them some credit for buying a license that nearly matches the correct parameters.

ok, instead of stealing 5 licenses they're only stealing 4

Besides, didn't the wording "Family Pack" kind of give it away that its for familes

Mithras · Nov 2, 2007, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by peeb

On a slightly different tack, I heard about a lot of people who had pre-ordered, and downloaded anyway, because it was quicker, but had paid for it.

The only issue I have with that is if you use BitTorrent, because while you download you're simultaneously making it available to others.

Nodnarb · Nov 2, 2007, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by iomatic

OK, then; good suggestion.

At least give them some credit for buying a license that nearly matches the correct parameters.

That's my point. I'm not saying it's right, but I'm saying instead of living in fantasy land where everyone will spend $129 for leopard, I find this more respectable than the 5 of them downloading it from torrent for free.

Originally Posted by MacosNerd

ok, instead of stealing 5 licenses they're only stealing 4

Besides, didn't the wording "Family Pack" kind of give it away that its for familes

As stated by Person Man, it has nothing to do with families. I guess it could be more accurately called "Household Pack".

Again, not saying it would be right, just saying I can't imagine those 5 guys reading this thread and saying oh, ok, well instead of paying $40 each and still being semi-legal, lets pay $130 each to be legal. The options are just to easy for college students to do that... as I said, I have more respect for them buying the $200 family pack than the $116 or the "free" version.

iREZ · Nov 2, 2007, 02:42 PM

what about 5 roommates that live under the same household, is that ok for a family pack seeing how they all live under one roof?

Nodnarb · Nov 2, 2007, 11:46 PM

Yes

peeb · Nov 3, 2007, 12:30 AM

It's 'household', not 'family'.

Person Man · Nov 3, 2007, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by iREZ

what about 5 roommates that live under the same household, is that ok for a family pack seeing how they all live under one roof?

Yes. It's one of the examples I posted, above.

zaghahzag · Nov 3, 2007, 01:48 PM

On a somewhat side note, I applaud apple for not putting in annoying and irritating licensing restrictions. For those of us who pay for the OS, it's such a relief to not have to deal with that crap.

On the other hand, apple's hardware needs an apple OS, and it shipped with one, so apple doesn't lose much by not forcing people to deal with license #s. The license number is built into your mac.

But it's really nice to be able to fix my friend's OS install with my disk and not have to worry about having to find his # somewhere. (unlike windows.)