Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Second hand Jag going cheap!

ump3

ump3

macrumors member
Original poster
Jul 4, 2003
97
0
Does anyone know the legal ramifications of buying OSX10.2 second hand? as long as it is not installed on a mac it is ok to buy? what if at one time in its life its been registered with Apple couldn't that cause problems for the new Jag owner?

thanks
 
OSX != Win XP. Registering Jaguar does not involve a serial code or in any way link a particular copy with a particular user. Apple does not make it difficult to install the OS on multiple machines as it trusts it's users. If you buy a second hand copy of Jaguar it will work fine, but it is only legal to sell it if you remove it from the machine you installed it on first.

Note that just because you can install it on multiple machines does not make this legal. You are meant to buy one copy for each machine (or the cheapo 3 license pack Apple were selling)
 
Personally I think thats dumb. I have two macs, both running OSX (one came with the machine I purchased, the other was then installed from that)

I think its silly to have to pay for two freakin liscences in the same house. OSX should just be a benefit for owning a mac. We sure pay enough for the machine to deserve that, at the very least.
 
Originally posted by agreenster
Personally I think thats dumb. I have two macs, both running OSX (one came with the machine I purchased, the other was then installed from that)

I think its silly to have to pay for two freakin liscences in the same house. OSX should just be a benefit for owning a mac. We sure pay enough for the machine to deserve that, at the very least.
Click to expand...

well, apple does offer a family license for those who wish to be honest. But there's no reason for apple, or any other software company, to allow you to install their software on as many machines as you want simply because it happens to be easy to do. But as was already posted, apple doesn't bother with serial numbers and things like that, so if thats how you really feel, there's nothing stopping you.
 
Originally posted by agreenster
Personally I think thats dumb. I have two macs, both running OSX (one came with the machine I purchased, the other was then installed from that)

I think its silly to have to pay for two freakin liscences in the same house. OSX should just be a benefit for owning a mac. We sure pay enough for the machine to deserve that, at the very least.
Click to expand...

you know, you might think it's dumb, but it's still illegal. paying "enough" for machines still does not justify installing illegal copies. consumers can't just arbitrarily define "deserve." the terms are set by apple and we are supposed to abide by them...

apple does provide the family pack so you can install os x on multiple computers without having to pay the full price for each... when you purchased the old mac without os x, you didn't pay for os x. the new macs with os x has the jaguar price built in it.

[bad analogy warning]

is it okay to steal from someone just because they are filthy rich?

[edit] that said, you can get away with installing illegal copies without much repurcussion, if you are a personal user. if you are at an institution or a business, i strongly suggest abiding by the rules.[\edit]
 
I think licenses should be good for a household, instead of individual ppl. If someone owns 2 computers then I can't see why someone would have to buy two copies of the OS. Plus having 2 computers with the same OS copy on it is equal to 2 users using one computer.
 
I bought OS X - I will use it as I see fit

The software vendors need to recognize the rights of individuals who legitimately buy software.

If I own 3 machines, and only "I" use each of these machines then I have every right to install software which I have purchased. This is a peeve of mine and I will stand up and fight for this, in court if necessary (some of you evidently dont care).

Here is a good example of how the Software Industry has manipulated our laws:

For those people (me) who buy music on Apple's Music Store, are they entitled to listen to it on one machine? No, Apple & the Music Industry say you can install it on multiple (3) locations. What gives the Software Industry more rights than the Music Industry. I find it incredible that we as consumers have allowed this to happen.

Good day to all you programmers! And good ridance to Microsoft.
 
Actually, most software licenses allow you to have two copies of a piece of software. One copy is the copy installed on your hard disk and the copy that you actually use. The other copy is an archived copy that you don't actually run.

Basically that means you are allowed to install one copy to the hard disk and then you get to keep the installer discs.

Note, however, that doesn't mean you are allowed to install it on three machines even if you are the sole user of those machines. To do so would exceed your maximum number of installed copies.

To be honest, I think that in any home, home office, or business employing fewer than six people, a single license should be a site license.
 
i don't want to flame or insult but when you buy software, you don't own it. you are licensed to use it as defined in the license you purchase and agree to.

you are not entitled to doing whatever you see fit, much like you cannot use rented dvd for public showing.

while i am against M$ style of licensing which starts by assuming the users to be guilty of piracy, it's important to make sure we know what we are and are not (supposedly) entitled to do.

yes, you can (and will) get away with installing jaguar on two machines off one license - but that doesn't make it right or justifiable. if you don't like the licensing, you should complain to the software company and/or boycott the product. using an illegal copy does nothing to the company to change the practice you don't like.

it's like mp3 piracy. you can complain all you want about the absurd cd prices... the correct response to fight against this is to boycott buying cds and NOT downloading illegal copies from p2p. it's still piracy no matter what kind of justification you give it.

[edit] i came off a little harshier than i intended. i don't think it's morally wrong to install jag on more than one computer you own and use one at a time. it's not my intention to pass judgement on those who do. i just wanted to say that it's not legal. (mp3 piracy, i find a little more unacceptable.) [\edit]
 
Well I install copies of Windows and Mac OS I own on all the machines I own (I own 3 PCs and two Macs). I know that you are only meant to install on one machine at a time, but I only use one copy at a time so I don't have any problem with it. The problem with buying multiple liscences is that I am only a student and mainly build computers, so the cost of the OS (on PCs anyway) costs about 1/3 of the overall cost of a machine.
 
Originally posted by gopher
Is that supposed to be a joke? That archive and install has saved my skin several times.
Click to expand...

I wasn't questioning your assessment of the utility of the Archive and Install option, that is indeed very good

I was obliquely stating that the Update CDs are full install CDs that have been crippled.
There were a few Apple C&D letters sent to Websites that instructed how to get around it
 
Originally posted by seesaw
I wasn't questioning your assessment of the utility of the Archive and Install option, that is indeed very good

I was obliquely stating that the Update CDs are full install CDs that have been crippled.
There were a few Apple C&D letters sent to Websites that instructed how to get around it
Click to expand...
Oh yes, I heard about those, but I think those were just the 10.1.x update CDs, not the 10.2.x update CDs.
 
Ok, here's a question. I've been wondering about the legality behind this for a while now and I'm stumped. Here's the situation, I have a copy of virtual pc installed (legally) on my powerbook. My wife also uses my powerbook and has her own user ID. Now when I ran virtual pc the first time in my "world" I had to install and register Windows with M$. I had to do it again when I ran it in my wife's "world". Does that mean I should have 2 licenses for windows? It can't mean that can it? It works fine, so I don't know what to think.
 
Different versions of Windows had different license agreements. I suggest reading your version over carefully to find out how many computers can legally hold the same copy of Windows at once. XP has an activation system which works over the net and prevents you from going beyond the legal limit.
 
Well, technically it's only being run on one computer, I just had to install it twice. I suppose if the M$ police haven't shown up, or my version of windows works in both places, I'm ok.
 
licenses

I have been thinking about this issue a lot lately. Problem is, when we say what is legal, we have to look at who determined the law. That would be the software companies. Whether you own the software or simply have a license is all a matter of semantics. What if record labels were to suddenly decide that we were only licensing the music and we could only play a CD on one CD player. How many of us would put up with that? Right now I can download my music CD's to my computer and still play them on my home stereo, or my car stereo or even a friend's stereo. I am not supposed to make copies and give them away or sell them, but I can listen to my CD whenever I want and wherever I want. With the example of renting a movie - I can play that movie wherever I want - friends house, my house, on my Mac. Again, I can't copy it or sell it or sell tickets. The software industry is fairly new, and they have made their own rules. Just because they define something as stealing, doesn't make it so. These new rules are made so the companies can make money. What is the difference between buying the single license for Jaguar and the family? Nothing but the money - right? If I load Jaguar on 2 machines, I have not stolen anything, nor have I deprived Apple of money that should go to them. If I download a CD from Kaaza though, I have deprived an artist of money for work they created. I think people must go with their own conscience on this issue and think about what harm they are or aren't inflicting.
 
Re: licenses

Originally posted by applebum
The software industry is fairly new, and they have made their own rules. Just because they define something as stealing, doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...

...except that you legally agreed to abide by those rules. if you don't agree with it, you aren't supposed to sign it. so yes, just because they say it's stealing does make it so.

it's all a matter of semantics, to a degree, i agree. however, any "explanation" you give is simply an excuse/justification. whether that's morally "right" or "wrong" is up to you to decide, but legally, it's wrong and there's no way around it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back