Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Click here to return to the '10.6: Snow Leopard DVD is full OS X install disc' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
10.6: Snow Leopard DVD is full OS X install disc
Authored by: TonyT on Oct 17, '09 05:49:25AM

>You quoted section C which relates to Leopard Upgrade Licenses.

Only because it applies. Apple only sells an upgrade disk. Clearly stated on the Apple Website.
I'm amazed at the lengths that people go to (based on these posts) to convince themselves that they've done nothing wrong in order to save a hundred bucks.



[ Reply to This | # ]
10.6: Snow Leopard DVD is full OS X install disc
Authored by: mantrid on Oct 17, '09 06:14:45AM

> Apple only sells an upgrade disk.

So your position is that section C applies to all 10.6 disks, and that all 10.6 disks require a prior installation of Leopard.

That is clearly incorrect considering the first sentence of section C begins "If you have purchased an Upgrade for Mac OS X Leopard license...", the "If" indicating that other types of license to which section C does not apply exist. Furthermore, section A. begins "Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, unless you have purchased a Family Pack or Upgrade license for the Apple Software"... again implying that section C only applies to a subset of cases.

And if you are claiming that Apple only sells an upgrade disk and therefore must have Leopard preinstalled regardless, that means even if 10.4 users buy a Box Set, they would still be ineligible to install it since they don't already have Leopard.

With no indication on the packages as to what licenses are in effect, the situation isn't nearly as black and white as you assert. All Apple would have to have done to make it clear is put "Single Use" license or "Upgrade License" on the box.

Oh, and for the record, I haven't paid a cent for Snow Leopard so it's all academic to me.



[ Reply to This | # ]
10.6: Snow Leopard DVD is full OS X install disc
Authored by: TonyT on Oct 17, '09 07:09:21AM

>So your position is that section C applies to all 10.6 disks, and that all 10.6 disks require a prior installation of Leopard.

No, Apple used the same disk, however, per the SLA (which users agree to) , Tiger users must use the Mac Box Set.

All legalese aside, Apple's intent is perfectly clear.

>Oh, and for the record, I haven't paid a cent for Snow Leopard so it's all academic to me.

Oh, so I guess I should 'interpret' that statement to mean that you borrowed a friends disk to install on your machine. Or do you mean that you use Windows? I guess its up to me to decide.



[ Reply to This | # ]
10.6: Snow Leopard DVD is full OS X install disc
Authored by: mantrid on Oct 17, '09 09:09:44AM

> All legalese aside, Apple's intent is perfectly clear.
How convenient that you choose to set aside the "legalese" when your interpretation of the license agreement has been challenged after you attempted to subject all Apple disks (unwittingly including Box Set customers in the sweeping statement) to clause C. You can't set aside the "legalese" because when it comes down to it, the "legalese" is the only thing relevant to this discussion. The clauses are outlined clearly in the license agreement but the relationship between the clauses and which products they apply to is not.

As you said in your other post, leaving the "family pack" versions out of the discussion, there are $9.95 (or free for the software if you call that shipping and handling), $29 and $169 packages available for purchase to upgrade to Snow Leopard. There are only two relevant clauses in the license agreement, "A: Single Use" and "C: Upgrade", but there are three packages. Which versions fall under which clauses? Quoting the passage you yourself quoted,
> The Snow Leopard single user license will be available for a suggested retail price of $29 (US)

That sure sounds to me like Section "A: Single Use", more so than section "C: Upgrade", applies to the $29 disk. Are you still unwilling to concede that there is ambiguity? Since this seems to tie the specific product to the specific clause in the license agreement, I think that weakens the case for your interpretation that clause A does not refer to the $29 version although I wouldn't consider the quote to be binding as much as the actual license agreement and what is on the box.

> Oh, so I guess I should 'interpret' that statement to mean that you borrowed a friends disk to install on your machine. Or do you mean that you use Windows? I guess its up to me to decide.

You can "decide" all you want, but you need to learn that what you "decide" doesn't change the reality. The fact of the matter is I don't own a compatible Mac so I have no intention of acquiring Snow Leopard, have not acquired it to date, and therefore have not paid a cent for it. But do you see how you took an ambiguous statement, fitted it to your own preconceptions and didn't hesitate to make insinuations based on it? You have thrown around some inflammatory statements in this thread directed toward other members. I think you have established your credibility level.



[ Reply to This | # ]
10.6: Snow Leopard DVD is full OS X install disc
Authored by: TonyT on Oct 17, '09 09:41:42AM

You can rationalize a theft to your hearts content, but it will not change the fact that the user is granted a limited non-exclusive license as long as such computer has a properly licensed copy of Mac OS X Leopard already installed on it.

Whatever makes you sleep at night.....



[ Reply to This | # ]
10.6: Snow Leopard DVD is full OS X install disc
Authored by: TonyT on Oct 17, '09 09:57:58AM

>That sure sounds to me like Section "A: Single Use", more so than section "C: Upgrade"

Sorry, you can't pick and choose. A and C are not mutually exclusive. Based on your flawed logic, "C." would never apply.

Unless Leopard is installed on your Mac, you cannot legally use the $29 package.



[ Reply to This | # ]
10.6: Snow Leopard DVD is full OS X install disc
Authored by: mantrid on Oct 17, '09 04:09:26PM

> You can rationalize a theft to your hearts content
What theft are you talking about? You can't be referring to me, despite your earlier insinuations, since I clarified that I don't own and can't even install Snow Leopard. If you are generalizing by using the indefinite article, I'm not rationalizing any thefts on behalf of any other posters since the licensing terms have not been properly defined. If Apple were to post a revised EULA or started marking new 10.6 boxes appropriately and people vioated the terms, I certainly would not condone such actions although I wouldn't think badly of anyone who purchased earlier. So why do you think I would have trouble sleeping? Lets get this cleared up. Who are you accusing of theft?

> Sorry, you can't pick and choose. A and C are not mutually exclusive.
Are you sure? What is your Apple employee ID, and have you been authorized to make statements on their behalf? Unless you are connected to Apple, the fact is you don't know any more than the rest of us. Let's see, so you imply that the $29 disk is covered by C (in addition to the A which your Apple>Ars quote matches to). Where does it say that about C and the $29 disk in the license, disk or box? The Box Set is only covered by A but not C? Which paragraph is that in? Who is the one guilty of picking and choosing here? A and B are certainly mutually exclusive. But A and C aren't? C reiterates what is stated in A and adds the Leopard requirement which gives the impression that it is a separate class of license that is distinct from A and B.

> Based on your flawed logic, "C." would never apply.
Why is that? Your logic in arriving at that conclusion is flawed. Nothing I have said would exlude C. from applying to the $9.95 Mac OS X Snow Leopard Up-To-Date upgrade package (that's the one where you only pay shipping and handling). I can certainly see why Apple would insist that users owned Leopard to be eligible for the license that gives you the OS for free. To be eligible, one would have to have bought the last of the Leopard Macs after Snow Leopard was announced and since such systems would have had Leopard pre-installed, the restriction makes sense in that context. In contrast, gouging Tiger users by forcing them to buy a $169 box set seems distinctly un-Apple like. Nothing you have said definitively states that C applies to the $29 disk. It doesn't require any logic at all to engage in your preferred tactic of saying something over and over again, but it isn't a convincing argument and saying it over and over doesn't alter reality. It was your earlier flawed logic that made C apply to all disks (">Apple only sells an upgrade disk") that would have made it impossible for Tiger users to upgrade directly. Actually, if your logic were correct, it would mean Apple marketing would be promoting non-compliance of their own EULA, so I think it is fair to say a trend is emerging with respect to the calibre of your logic.



[ Reply to This | # ]