A Licensing Question
-
Once upon a time, when software was sold to a user, the user had the right to make a copy if, for instance, he used it at home and used it on a laptop. This was considered fair use so long as there was no possibility of two people using the product at the same time. That, quite reasonably, would require two copies to be purchased. Now I'm not sure what the rules state, or rather what the sellers can reasonably expect to enforce. As we all know, lots of contracts have language that has no validity under the law, and courts will not enforce them. I'm sure EULAs are no different in this respect. Suppose I use a product at home for work, but also need to use it at work for the same purpose. Since there is no way for me to be in both locations at once, an analogous situation applies - one user, one copy of the software in use. Since there is no chance of both computers being in use at the same time, is it technically legal to install the same software on both machines under one license?
"A Journey of a Thousand Rest Stops Begins with a Single Movement"
Roger Wright wrote:
Since there is no chance of both computers being in use at the same time, is it technically legal to install the same software on both machines under one license?
Well obviously it depends on the software and it's license, but generally speaking most licenses have a clause to allow this.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
-
Once upon a time, when software was sold to a user, the user had the right to make a copy if, for instance, he used it at home and used it on a laptop. This was considered fair use so long as there was no possibility of two people using the product at the same time. That, quite reasonably, would require two copies to be purchased. Now I'm not sure what the rules state, or rather what the sellers can reasonably expect to enforce. As we all know, lots of contracts have language that has no validity under the law, and courts will not enforce them. I'm sure EULAs are no different in this respect. Suppose I use a product at home for work, but also need to use it at work for the same purpose. Since there is no way for me to be in both locations at once, an analogous situation applies - one user, one copy of the software in use. Since there is no chance of both computers being in use at the same time, is it technically legal to install the same software on both machines under one license?
"A Journey of a Thousand Rest Stops Begins with a Single Movement"
Roger Wright wrote:
is it technically legal to install the same software on both machines under one license?
Technically there is no difference between legal and technically legal :-D Actually, it is only legal if the Euala says so (many Borland products used to, some Microsoft products -MSDN - Still do) or a court says so. Practically - how would anyone know (well there's always WGA and Microsoft update to rat on you but that is avoidable).
-
Once upon a time, when software was sold to a user, the user had the right to make a copy if, for instance, he used it at home and used it on a laptop. This was considered fair use so long as there was no possibility of two people using the product at the same time. That, quite reasonably, would require two copies to be purchased. Now I'm not sure what the rules state, or rather what the sellers can reasonably expect to enforce. As we all know, lots of contracts have language that has no validity under the law, and courts will not enforce them. I'm sure EULAs are no different in this respect. Suppose I use a product at home for work, but also need to use it at work for the same purpose. Since there is no way for me to be in both locations at once, an analogous situation applies - one user, one copy of the software in use. Since there is no chance of both computers being in use at the same time, is it technically legal to install the same software on both machines under one license?
"A Journey of a Thousand Rest Stops Begins with a Single Movement"
-
Once upon a time, when software was sold to a user, the user had the right to make a copy if, for instance, he used it at home and used it on a laptop. This was considered fair use so long as there was no possibility of two people using the product at the same time. That, quite reasonably, would require two copies to be purchased. Now I'm not sure what the rules state, or rather what the sellers can reasonably expect to enforce. As we all know, lots of contracts have language that has no validity under the law, and courts will not enforce them. I'm sure EULAs are no different in this respect. Suppose I use a product at home for work, but also need to use it at work for the same purpose. Since there is no way for me to be in both locations at once, an analogous situation applies - one user, one copy of the software in use. Since there is no chance of both computers being in use at the same time, is it technically legal to install the same software on both machines under one license?
"A Journey of a Thousand Rest Stops Begins with a Single Movement"
email the sales contact for the software company and ask if you need a second license. I've got a several small app/utilities and always got "If you're the only person using it at work one license is sufficient" IIRC one restricted it to being the only person at home as well, while the others didn't care if others in my household used it.
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
-
Roger Wright wrote:
is it technically legal to install the same software on both machines under one license?
Technically there is no difference between legal and technically legal :-D Actually, it is only legal if the Euala says so (many Borland products used to, some Microsoft products -MSDN - Still do) or a court says so. Practically - how would anyone know (well there's always WGA and Microsoft update to rat on you but that is avoidable).
Rob Graham wrote:
Technically there is no difference between legal and technically legal
But legally there is a difference. :-D
My .NET Business Application Framework My Home Page My Younger Son & His "PET"
modified on Monday, November 24, 2008 1:38 PM
-
Roger Wright wrote:
is it technically legal to install the same software on both machines under one license?
Technically there is no difference between legal and technically legal :-D Actually, it is only legal if the Euala says so (many Borland products used to, some Microsoft products -MSDN - Still do) or a court says so. Practically - how would anyone know (well there's always WGA and Microsoft update to rat on you but that is avoidable).
Rob Graham wrote:
Technically there is no difference between legal and technically legal
Sure there is; while it's technically legal to post a sign in the parking lot "Not responsible for damage" it has no legal standing in court. :-D In this case I'm considering whether it's legal in the practical sense to install VS2008 at work, since all the programming I'm likely to do is for work, there is no one capable of even opening the program here but me, and my home machine sits lonely in the den all day with no one to play with while I'm here at the office. If any company on earth would have a EULA forbidding this perfectly sensible use, I'd expect it to be Microsoft or Apple. But I thought I'd check around, since I know that MS does allow this for MSDN.
"A Journey of a Thousand Rest Stops Begins with a Single Movement"
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Technically there is no difference between legal and technically legal
Sure there is; while it's technically legal to post a sign in the parking lot "Not responsible for damage" it has no legal standing in court. :-D In this case I'm considering whether it's legal in the practical sense to install VS2008 at work, since all the programming I'm likely to do is for work, there is no one capable of even opening the program here but me, and my home machine sits lonely in the den all day with no one to play with while I'm here at the office. If any company on earth would have a EULA forbidding this perfectly sensible use, I'd expect it to be Microsoft or Apple. But I thought I'd check around, since I know that MS does allow this for MSDN.
"A Journey of a Thousand Rest Stops Begins with a Single Movement"
Roger Wright wrote:
I know that MS does allow this for MSDN.
Does that include corporate volume licensing or only individually bought licenses?
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
-
Once upon a time, when software was sold to a user, the user had the right to make a copy if, for instance, he used it at home and used it on a laptop. This was considered fair use so long as there was no possibility of two people using the product at the same time. That, quite reasonably, would require two copies to be purchased. Now I'm not sure what the rules state, or rather what the sellers can reasonably expect to enforce. As we all know, lots of contracts have language that has no validity under the law, and courts will not enforce them. I'm sure EULAs are no different in this respect. Suppose I use a product at home for work, but also need to use it at work for the same purpose. Since there is no way for me to be in both locations at once, an analogous situation applies - one user, one copy of the software in use. Since there is no chance of both computers being in use at the same time, is it technically legal to install the same software on both machines under one license?
"A Journey of a Thousand Rest Stops Begins with a Single Movement"
I like the ReSharper private license. You can install it on as many machines as you want, but it checks if another copy with the same key is running elsewhere (OK, but coding without networks is not much fun).
-
Roger Wright wrote:
I know that MS does allow this for MSDN.
Does that include corporate volume licensing or only individually bought licenses?
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
That I don't know. I've never worked for a company willing to pay for it.
"A Journey of a Thousand Rest Stops Begins with a Single Movement"
-
Once upon a time, when software was sold to a user, the user had the right to make a copy if, for instance, he used it at home and used it on a laptop. This was considered fair use so long as there was no possibility of two people using the product at the same time. That, quite reasonably, would require two copies to be purchased. Now I'm not sure what the rules state, or rather what the sellers can reasonably expect to enforce. As we all know, lots of contracts have language that has no validity under the law, and courts will not enforce them. I'm sure EULAs are no different in this respect. Suppose I use a product at home for work, but also need to use it at work for the same purpose. Since there is no way for me to be in both locations at once, an analogous situation applies - one user, one copy of the software in use. Since there is no chance of both computers being in use at the same time, is it technically legal to install the same software on both machines under one license?
"A Journey of a Thousand Rest Stops Begins with a Single Movement"
The position of copyright in law, when it comes to computer software, is that the legal author (the software company) retains all the rights to make copies of the software. Copying the bits from the install disk is making a copy. Loading the software from disk is making a copy. You do not purchase the software. You purchase a license to make copies of the software. The terms under which you are allowed to make copies are set out in the license agreement that you make with the company. I am not a lawyer, but that is my understanding of copyright law when it comes to software. Courts could decide to strike out terms that they consider are unduly harsh, and in some cases the wording is incompatible with the jurisdiction's copyright law ('no reverse engineering' clauses have no effect in the EU, for example), but if they struck down the whole license it would leave you with no rights. So, if the wording of the EULA, or your local copyright law, says you're allowed to make a copy on your home computer, then you are. Otherwise, no.
"Multithreading is just one damn thing after, before, or simultaneous with another." - Andrei Alexandrescu
