Out of curiosity, where do you stand on ripping DVDs you've purchased?
Well, since I don't travel a lot, don't have a long commute and don't have any kids, I haven't had any need for ripping DVDs. I've been buying Blu-rays in favor of their DVD counterparts and many come with digital copies, but I haven't watched or used any of them yet. All that said, I guess one could rationalize ripping a DVD under "fair use" if it would still be for private personal use but that's a grey area. The one thing I will say is that Hollywood is insane if they think people will buy multiple copies of the same title simply to be able to use it on a home media server or equivalent. And, given what they're doing with many Blu-ray titles, I don't think they expect you to. If every movie came with a digital copy, then I think there would be a lot less call for ripping your own DVDs.
I don't think you can call someone a thief, who takes the effort to figure it out how to run his favorite OS on a computer model category Apple is obviously too lazy to offer!
No matter how thin the MBA is, a 13" screen notebook is NOT a netbook .
Apple thinks they know what people want, but the exploding number of netbook hackintoshs proof them WRONG!
Apple's financial results tells me Apple knows what they are doing. It doesn't matter if you really want an Apple-branded netbook. If they don't make one, too bad. That doesn't make pirating OS X (even if you paid for it) any more justified.
I think the interesting aspect of all this, which was mentioned earlier, is the fact that Apple doesn't own all the copyrights to the code base of OS X. I also find interesting that no one has gone after Apple for not providing access to the source code of the Intel kernel, which is, as far as I know, still based on the Mach BSD kernel. It is my understanding that they should have to provide the source code because it is Open Source, however, I'm more familiar with the terms of GPL licensed software and there may be loopholes in the BSD license that give them an out.
BSD style licenses only require that the original authors are attributed. There are no loopholes in those licenses: they explicitly allow that.
Examples:
3 clause BSD license
Quote:
Copyright (c) <year>, <copyright holder>
All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* Neither the name of the <organization> nor the
names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products
derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY <copyright holder> ''AS IS'' AND ANY
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL <copyright holder> BE LIABLE FOR ANY
DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND
ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
ISC license
Quote:
Copyright (c) Year(s), Company or Person's Name <E-mail address>
Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any
purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
It is unfortunate that many people think all open source code has to be licensed with conditions similar to the GPL. While the GPL certainly serves a purpose, it does not serve every purpose, even when restricted to the domain of free software.
Regarding Apple, even though Apple doesn't have to, most of the BSD licensed code in OSX does have the source publicly available, and GCC and other GPL'd software have the source code and modifications posted in the same place as the source for the BSD code.
You can copy something for personal use and that is a valid form of Fair Use. If I copy a magazine article to read later at my house, that is a fair use. If I copy it and then send it to a bunch of people, that is not.
However, if you copy the entire magazine in the library and take it home to read later, that is also not fair use. That's probably the closest think to what the Hackintosh people are doing. They're not excerpting a small amount of OS X. They're copying the entire thing for their own use - in violation of Apple's intent and the license agreement (and, in the case of the people using the $30 version of SL, the statement that it's an upgrade , not a full version).
BSD style licenses only require that the original authors are attributed. There are no loopholes in those licenses: they explicitly allow that.
Examples:
3 clause BSD license
ISC license
It is unfortunate that many people think all open source code has to be licensed with conditions similar to the GPL. While the GPL certainly serves a purpose, it does not serve every purpose, even when restricted to the domain of free software.
Regarding Apple, even though Apple doesn't have to, most of the BSD licensed code in OSX does have the source publicly available, and GCC and other GPL'd software have the source code and modifications posted in the same place as the source for the BSD code.
Like I said, I wasn't familiar with the specifics with BSD licensing, so I now stand educated. I won't get into a software licensing debate because it is way too religious, however, you can see where companies would like BSD because it allows them to be good community players - when they want to be. GPL on the other hand requires them to be a full-time community player by contributing back source code improvements. Which approach is better I'll leave up to the reader, but there are advantages to both approaches.
Like I said, I wasn't familiar with the specifics with BSD licensing, so I now stand educated. I won't get into a software licensing debate because it is way too religious, however, you can see where companies would like BSD because it allows them to be good community players - when they want to be. GPL on the other hand requires them to be a full-time community player by contributing back source code improvements. Which approach is better I'll leave up to the reader, but there are advantages to both approaches.
Clearly the one that encourages them to be a community player is best.
However, if you copy the entire magazine in the library and take it home to read later, that is also not fair use. That's probably the closest think to what the Hackintosh people are doing. They're not excerpting a small amount of OS X. They're copying the entire thing for their own use - in violation of Apple's intent and the license agreement (and, in the case of the people using the $30 version of SL, the statement that it's an upgrade , not a full version).
Please educate us where in the Copyright law that there is a limit to what you can copy for personal use. The law has been posted from several times here and no where has there been such a stipulation.
There is so many different ways in how to build a Hackintosh, that I don't care to comment one way or another on whether a particular approach is any more legal than another and frankly it doesn't really matter because unless they change non-Open Source code, they haven't violated copyright only Apple's EULA.
Frankly I don't know why you all care so much about whether they violate Apple's EULA or not because it doesn't effect you - you (and I) still got an upgrade for $30 so it can't be hurting Apple too much. Me, I'll stick to my MacBook and wait it out until Apple finally decides to come out with a desktop that works for me. Till then, I'll run both my MacBook and my Windows 7 desktop that each play their own role in my computing needs.
Like I said, I wasn't familiar with the specifics with BSD licensing, so I now stand educated. I won't get into a software licensing debate because it is way too religious, however, you can see where companies would like BSD because it allows them to be good community players - when they want to be. GPL on the other hand requires them to be a full-time community player by contributing back source code improvements. Which approach is better I'll leave up to the reader, but there are advantages to both approaches.
I don't wish to get into a debate either. My point was that not all developers have the same goals. Some want others to share back, other simply want the code to be used by as many people as possible (even if they're selfish). They are good reasons for either and developers should choose the license that suits their needs. While I'd rather not conform my beliefs to those of any one religion, there are quite a few I'd rather partake in over the GPL vs BSD vs non-free arguments; those are just plain silly.
Clearly the one that encourages them to be a community player is best.
Then you should be as mad as hell with them because they sure didn't pick the GPL. Closing or hiding the source to the Intel kernel isn't exactly being a community player seeing how Open Source allowed you to accomplish what you have so far. I certainly can understand wanting to prevent piracy, but there are lots of more community friendly ways they could of done that. Crippling support for the Atom processor (the point of the story these posts are all attached to) is another poor example of Apple's support of the Open Source community.
Getting back to the direct topic, could this simply be a matter of Apple setting themselves up for 64-bit on older Macs? Apparently 10.6.2 has new 64-bit drivers for the older intel 945 chipset, something commonly used in netbooks today. Could it be that the kernel has just been modified to run in 64-bit mode, while the Atom is only a 32-bit processor?
Then you should be as mad as hell with them because they sure didn't pick the GPL. Closing or hiding the source to the Intel kernel isn't exactly being a community player seeing how Open Source allowed you to accomplish what you have so far. I certainly can understand wanting to prevent piracy, but there are lots of more community friendly ways they could of done that. Crippling support for the Atom processor (the point of the story these posts are all attached to) is another poor example of Apple's support of the Open Source community.
I guess the GPL didn't encourage them to be a community player.
Getting back to the direct topic, could this simply be a matter of Apple setting themselves up for 64-bit on older Macs? Apparently 10.6.2 has new 64-bit drivers for the older intel 945 chipset, something commonly used in netbooks today. Could it be that the kernel has just been modified to run in 64-bit mode, while the Atom is only a 32-bit processor?
Of course, you seem like the sort of person who's word (your personal integrity) is worthless.
You bought that DVD with conditions attached. Those conditions are that the DVD is to used on only Apple hardware. You had to tell a lie to even install it. Hence, your word is meaningless.
If Apple were selling its operating system to PC owners, it should charge between 500 to a thousand dollars. Perhaps, that is the way to nip this illegality in the bud. Apple should charge an outrageous sum with a rebate attached to people who register their legitimately Apple hardware. Then if the Mac OS is put out on Bit Torrent, then anyone who is using the Mac OS illegitimately can be sued in small claims court for the difference between what they bought the upgrade DVD for and the legal price. Should be a slam dunk case.
You're living in a dream world. People aren't going to pay 1000.00 for an OS and wait for a rebate. Apple stands no chance of suing anything if they buy a full version copy and do not attempt to resell the copy to make a profit. While they may try they cant control anything you do for private use.
This is a non issue anyways it takes a good bit of knowledge to create a hack to install OSX on a PC. Your averager netbook buyer could care less about installing OSX
I'm looking at the $49 Snow Leopard family pack box right now.
"Upgrade" appears nowhere on the package. I have installed it on two Macs here as an upgrade from 10.5, and on two others on freshly-formatted drives (after backing them up with Time Machine).
[...]
Apple have sold upgrade disks in the past. This is not one of them.
From the Apple Store:
"Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard - Family Pack
Upgrade from Mac OS X Leopard with Snow Leopard [...]
Snow Leopard is an upgrade for Leopard users and requires a Mac with an Intel processor."
\t
"Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard - Family Pack
Upgrade from Mac OS X Leopard with Snow Leopard [...]
Snow Leopard is an upgrade for Leopard users and requires a Mac with an Intel processor."
Non sequitur much?
That's not what it says on the package, outside or inside. You *can* install it as an upgrade on a system currently running Leopard (or Tiger, for that matter, since the earliest MacBooks and MacBook Pros predate Leopard). Leopard being installed is not a prerequisite, explicit or implied.
The statement "Upgrade from Mac OS X Leopard with Snow Leopard [...]" is descriptive, not prescriptive.
Statements on Apple's online store, or in their brick and mortar siblings, don't change what's printed on/in the retail package itself.
Nor do they make any difference to the fact that you can very well install SL on a Mac with a completely-scrubbed hard drive. The which would be a bit of a problem for a pure upgrade.
Yes, then Apple can be like Dell, a company that has to sell a lot of computers to scrap by. Further, Apple's customers can be like Dell customers who according to Dell often times regret the purchase of a net book. If Apple were to offer a low cost net book many of the sales would be to Mac users who would have bought a higher end Mac with higher over all margins if it were not for the net books. Last I checked, Apple just had it's highest profitable quarter in it's history all while not offering the low costed net books.
Quote:
Originally Posted by camroidv27
So, sell an Atom based netbook for 600 bucks. Margins kept in hand
No, I don't think it's a non sequitur at all. You clearly understand that it is an upgrade product, yet engage in a quibble about whether it says it here or there and what does it really mean.
Yes, you can install it on a clean hard drive, because it's sold with the understanding that you have already purchased a Mac so have a right to install the upgrade and because Apple chooses not to make it's user's lives more complicated than necessary.
You know you're in the wrong, ethically and legally, so please don't pretend to innocence.
Comments
It's a start...
Out of curiosity, where do you stand on ripping DVDs you've purchased?
Well, since I don't travel a lot, don't have a long commute and don't have any kids, I haven't had any need for ripping DVDs. I've been buying Blu-rays in favor of their DVD counterparts and many come with digital copies, but I haven't watched or used any of them yet. All that said, I guess one could rationalize ripping a DVD under "fair use" if it would still be for private personal use but that's a grey area. The one thing I will say is that Hollywood is insane if they think people will buy multiple copies of the same title simply to be able to use it on a home media server or equivalent. And, given what they're doing with many Blu-ray titles, I don't think they expect you to. If every movie came with a digital copy, then I think there would be a lot less call for ripping your own DVDs.
If I'm not mistaken, the Dell Mini 9/10 works PERFECTLY as an OS X machine and can be had for under $300. Can't argue with that
Well, if dog-slow speed and poor battery life is considered "PERFECTLY" then I guess so.
This is a big logic jump
And you somehow find that appalling here on AI?!?!
I don't think you can call someone a thief, who takes the effort to figure it out how to run his favorite OS on a computer model category Apple is obviously too lazy to offer!
No matter how thin the MBA is, a 13" screen notebook is NOT a netbook .
Apple thinks they know what people want, but the exploding number of netbook hackintoshs proof them WRONG!
Apple's financial results tells me Apple knows what they are doing. It doesn't matter if you really want an Apple-branded netbook. If they don't make one, too bad. That doesn't make pirating OS X (even if you paid for it) any more justified.
The debate started regarding whether Mac OS was copyrighted material or not
I think they only need to give access to the code they modified not the code they created. I think they do otherwise we would have heard about it
Forgot a link: http://darwinbuild.macosforge.org/
That is the UNIX underbelly that allows OS X to be all it can be!
I think the interesting aspect of all this, which was mentioned earlier, is the fact that Apple doesn't own all the copyrights to the code base of OS X. I also find interesting that no one has gone after Apple for not providing access to the source code of the Intel kernel, which is, as far as I know, still based on the Mach BSD kernel. It is my understanding that they should have to provide the source code because it is Open Source, however, I'm more familiar with the terms of GPL licensed software and there may be loopholes in the BSD license that give them an out.
BSD style licenses only require that the original authors are attributed. There are no loopholes in those licenses: they explicitly allow that.
Examples:
3 clause BSD license
Copyright (c) <year>, <copyright holder>
All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* Neither the name of the <organization> nor the
names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products
derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY <copyright holder> ''AS IS'' AND ANY
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL <copyright holder> BE LIABLE FOR ANY
DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND
ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
ISC license
Copyright (c) Year(s), Company or Person's Name <E-mail address>
Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any
purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
It is unfortunate that many people think all open source code has to be licensed with conditions similar to the GPL. While the GPL certainly serves a purpose, it does not serve every purpose, even when restricted to the domain of free software.
Regarding Apple, even though Apple doesn't have to, most of the BSD licensed code in OSX does have the source publicly available, and GCC and other GPL'd software have the source code and modifications posted in the same place as the source for the BSD code.
You can copy something for personal use and that is a valid form of Fair Use. If I copy a magazine article to read later at my house, that is a fair use. If I copy it and then send it to a bunch of people, that is not.
However, if you copy the entire magazine in the library and take it home to read later, that is also not fair use. That's probably the closest think to what the Hackintosh people are doing. They're not excerpting a small amount of OS X. They're copying the entire thing for their own use - in violation of Apple's intent and the license agreement (and, in the case of the people using the $30 version of SL, the statement that it's an upgrade , not a full version).
BSD style licenses only require that the original authors are attributed. There are no loopholes in those licenses: they explicitly allow that.
Examples:
3 clause BSD license
ISC license
It is unfortunate that many people think all open source code has to be licensed with conditions similar to the GPL. While the GPL certainly serves a purpose, it does not serve every purpose, even when restricted to the domain of free software.
Regarding Apple, even though Apple doesn't have to, most of the BSD licensed code in OSX does have the source publicly available, and GCC and other GPL'd software have the source code and modifications posted in the same place as the source for the BSD code.
Like I said, I wasn't familiar with the specifics with BSD licensing, so I now stand educated. I won't get into a software licensing debate because it is way too religious, however, you can see where companies would like BSD because it allows them to be good community players - when they want to be. GPL on the other hand requires them to be a full-time community player by contributing back source code improvements. Which approach is better I'll leave up to the reader, but there are advantages to both approaches.
Like I said, I wasn't familiar with the specifics with BSD licensing, so I now stand educated. I won't get into a software licensing debate because it is way too religious, however, you can see where companies would like BSD because it allows them to be good community players - when they want to be. GPL on the other hand requires them to be a full-time community player by contributing back source code improvements. Which approach is better I'll leave up to the reader, but there are advantages to both approaches.
Clearly the one that encourages them to be a community player is best.
However, if you copy the entire magazine in the library and take it home to read later, that is also not fair use. That's probably the closest think to what the Hackintosh people are doing. They're not excerpting a small amount of OS X. They're copying the entire thing for their own use - in violation of Apple's intent and the license agreement (and, in the case of the people using the $30 version of SL, the statement that it's an upgrade , not a full version).
Please educate us where in the Copyright law that there is a limit to what you can copy for personal use. The law has been posted from several times here and no where has there been such a stipulation.
There is so many different ways in how to build a Hackintosh, that I don't care to comment one way or another on whether a particular approach is any more legal than another and frankly it doesn't really matter because unless they change non-Open Source code, they haven't violated copyright only Apple's EULA.
Frankly I don't know why you all care so much about whether they violate Apple's EULA or not because it doesn't effect you - you (and I) still got an upgrade for $30 so it can't be hurting Apple too much. Me, I'll stick to my MacBook and wait it out until Apple finally decides to come out with a desktop that works for me. Till then, I'll run both my MacBook and my Windows 7 desktop that each play their own role in my computing needs.
Like I said, I wasn't familiar with the specifics with BSD licensing, so I now stand educated. I won't get into a software licensing debate because it is way too religious, however, you can see where companies would like BSD because it allows them to be good community players - when they want to be. GPL on the other hand requires them to be a full-time community player by contributing back source code improvements. Which approach is better I'll leave up to the reader, but there are advantages to both approaches.
I don't wish to get into a debate either. My point was that not all developers have the same goals. Some want others to share back, other simply want the code to be used by as many people as possible (even if they're selfish). They are good reasons for either and developers should choose the license that suits their needs. While I'd rather not conform my beliefs to those of any one religion, there are quite a few I'd rather partake in over the GPL vs BSD vs non-free arguments; those are just plain silly.
Clearly the one that encourages them to be a community player is best.
Then you should be as mad as hell with them because they sure didn't pick the GPL. Closing or hiding the source to the Intel kernel isn't exactly being a community player seeing how Open Source allowed you to accomplish what you have so far. I certainly can understand wanting to prevent piracy, but there are lots of more community friendly ways they could of done that. Crippling support for the Atom processor (the point of the story these posts are all attached to) is another poor example of Apple's support of the Open Source community.
http://netkas.org/?p=243
Then you should be as mad as hell with them because they sure didn't pick the GPL. Closing or hiding the source to the Intel kernel isn't exactly being a community player seeing how Open Source allowed you to accomplish what you have so far. I certainly can understand wanting to prevent piracy, but there are lots of more community friendly ways they could of done that. Crippling support for the Atom processor (the point of the story these posts are all attached to) is another poor example of Apple's support of the Open Source community.
I guess the GPL didn't encourage them to be a community player.
Getting back to the direct topic, could this simply be a matter of Apple setting themselves up for 64-bit on older Macs? Apparently 10.6.2 has new 64-bit drivers for the older intel 945 chipset, something commonly used in netbooks today. Could it be that the kernel has just been modified to run in 64-bit mode, while the Atom is only a 32-bit processor?
http://netkas.org/?p=243
That is the best theory I?ve read.
Thieves?
IP thieves, for sure.
Of course, you seem like the sort of person who's word (your personal integrity) is worthless.
You bought that DVD with conditions attached. Those conditions are that the DVD is to used on only Apple hardware. You had to tell a lie to even install it. Hence, your word is meaningless.
If Apple were selling its operating system to PC owners, it should charge between 500 to a thousand dollars. Perhaps, that is the way to nip this illegality in the bud. Apple should charge an outrageous sum with a rebate attached to people who register their legitimately Apple hardware. Then if the Mac OS is put out on Bit Torrent, then anyone who is using the Mac OS illegitimately can be sued in small claims court for the difference between what they bought the upgrade DVD for and the legal price. Should be a slam dunk case.
You're living in a dream world. People aren't going to pay 1000.00 for an OS and wait for a rebate. Apple stands no chance of suing anything if they buy a full version copy and do not attempt to resell the copy to make a profit. While they may try they cant control anything you do for private use.
This is a non issue anyways it takes a good bit of knowledge to create a hack to install OSX on a PC. Your averager netbook buyer could care less about installing OSX
From the Apple Store:
Originally Posted by steveH
I'm looking at the $49 Snow Leopard family pack box right now.
"Upgrade" appears nowhere on the package. I have installed it on two Macs here as an upgrade from 10.5, and on two others on freshly-formatted drives (after backing them up with Time Machine).
[...]
Apple have sold upgrade disks in the past. This is not one of them.
From the Apple Store:
"Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard - Family Pack
Upgrade from Mac OS X Leopard with Snow Leopard [...]
Snow Leopard is an upgrade for Leopard users and requires a Mac with an Intel processor."
\t
"Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard - Family Pack
Upgrade from Mac OS X Leopard with Snow Leopard [...]
Snow Leopard is an upgrade for Leopard users and requires a Mac with an Intel processor."
Non sequitur much?
That's not what it says on the package, outside or inside. You *can* install it as an upgrade on a system currently running Leopard (or Tiger, for that matter, since the earliest MacBooks and MacBook Pros predate Leopard). Leopard being installed is not a prerequisite, explicit or implied.
The statement "Upgrade from Mac OS X Leopard with Snow Leopard [...]" is descriptive, not prescriptive.
Statements on Apple's online store, or in their brick and mortar siblings, don't change what's printed on/in the retail package itself.
Nor do they make any difference to the fact that you can very well install SL on a Mac with a completely-scrubbed hard drive. The which would be a bit of a problem for a pure upgrade.
So, sell an Atom based netbook for 600 bucks. Margins kept in hand
Non sequitur much?
No, I don't think it's a non sequitur at all. You clearly understand that it is an upgrade product, yet engage in a quibble about whether it says it here or there and what does it really mean.
Yes, you can install it on a clean hard drive, because it's sold with the understanding that you have already purchased a Mac so have a right to install the upgrade and because Apple chooses not to make it's user's lives more complicated than necessary.
You know you're in the wrong, ethically and legally, so please don't pretend to innocence.