My mom has a copy of iWork, could I install it on my iMac?

[flopticalcube]

My problem is that I should be able to install software on two computers that I own and I am the sole user of. I don't care if the price to do this is reasonable or not; there should be no price difference between this and buying it for one computer.

I know the CD analogy is somewhat flawed, but I can play a CD in the CD player in my room, or the one in my car, or somewhere else. Software should not be tied to hardware, it should be tied to people (if tied to anything).

You are allowed to do this. Simply uninstall the software from the machine you are not using it on. Just because you think you should be able to use it does not make it your right to use it. Having said that, I am sure Apple knows that people will do this to a reasonable degree and that is why, to date, they haven't used any sort of activation method.

The problem with the CD analogy is that you are not installing anything with a CD or DVD. With software you are actually making a copy of the disk contents onto your hard drive. It is that action that the license agreement "prohibits" you from doing more than once at any one time.

 

[Astral Cars]

You are allowed to do this. Simply uninstall the software from the machine you are not using it on. Just because you think you should be able to use it does not make it your right to use it. Having said that, I am sure Apple knows that people will do this to a reasonable degree and that is why, to date, they haven't used any sort of activation method.

The problem with the CD analogy is that you are not installing anything with a CD or DVD. With software you are actually making a copy of the disk contents onto your hard drive. It is that action that the license agreement "prohibits" you from doing more than once at any one time.

Okay, so what if I have two computers that are mine and only mine and I want to rip a CD onto both of them? That's acceptable, right?

 

[flopticalcube]

Okay, so what if I have two computers that are mine and only mine and I want to rip a CD onto both of them? That's acceptable, right?

As long as there is no license agreement which says to the contrary, I would consider that to be fair use. Like I said, Apple probably knows that some people will be doing this and doesn't really care, therefore there is no activation. Its when it gets out of hand that the problems arise and that's the problem with posts that say "its your software, you can do anything you want with it" because it quickly degenerates into "I purchased a copy of Leopard, can I lend the disk to 35 friends so they can install it too?"

 

[Psychmike]

You are allowed to do this. Simply uninstall the software from the machine you are not using it on. Just because you think you should be able to use it does not make it your right to use it. Having said that, I am sure Apple knows that people will do this to a reasonable degree and that is why, to date, they haven't used any sort of activation method.

The problem with the CD analogy is that you are not installing anything with a CD or DVD. With software you are actually making a copy of the disk contents onto your hard drive. It is that action that the license agreement "prohibits" you from doing more than once at any one time.

I'd like to venture a little off topic and talk about software EULA's generally. This isn't a comment on Apple specifically.

I applaud your ethics but for me there are larger moral issues at stake. Many software and music companies have attempted to apply draconian licensing agreements that fly in the face of centuries of common law that have defined fair usage. This includes attempting to circumvent the doctrine of first sale through EULAs. Some major companies' spokespeople have said that they believe you should have to buy a separate copy for each device you own. Many companies are now requiring users to pay an ongoing licensing fee lest the software you already own be deactivated.

One could say that I should only use software if I agree to the EULA but my view is that a contract is only enforceable if it is legal. Legality isn't just defined by what's on paper. It's defined by the legislature and the judiciary.

I'm not trying to pick nits. Whereas perhaps people were most concerned about governmental restriction on individual rights a few centuries ago, these days, many people are concerned with corporate intrusion into human freedom.