Dance Sucka!

Anyone who has used a software application of most any type has dealt with licensing the application, and I am sure we would all agree that some vendors do it really well, putting the interests and convenience of the customer first, and others not so well, putting the interests and convenience of the customer somewhere well below their own.

Let me start by simply stating the following: I believe if you purchase a software application you should be free to install and use it on any computer you own or use, and on as many computers as you own or use, such as a home computer, another computer at work at different location, and so on, without having to uninstall the application on other computers first. Further, it should be easy to do so and the software vendor from whom you purchased the application should be willing to enthusiastically assist you in the process.

Now I am not saying you should be able to buy a single license of an application and install it on multiple computers for multiple people to use at the same time, but if it is a matter of necessity or convenience to have the application installed on multiple computers such that the license is never in use simultaneously by more than one person, then such use is completely in line with the the spirit of the license agreement – or it should be! Technically, you should be able to keep the software in use continuously, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, as long as it is not used by two people concurrently. Further, if it would be legal to use the software on one computer if you uninstall it from another computer first, when the use would be the same either way, then it seems punitive to force the honest customer to inefficiently uninstall and install the software over and over again. This reminds me of the outlaw villain in the old west who shoots at the victim's feet making him dance, but in this case the "victim" is the customer.

Here are a few examples of software license agreements that explicitly prevent common usage that is both convenient for the customer and typically completely adheres to the intent of the license agreement:

SolidWorks
“If you have paid the license fee for a single user license, this Agreement permits you to install and use one copy of the Software on any single computer at any time (i.e., if you change computers, you must de-install the Software from the old computer before installing it on the new computer)”
Link to SolidWorks license agreement.

Autodesk's AutoCAD“…You may Install and Access one (1) copy of the Software on one
(1) individual Computer, solely for Your internal business needs. You may not allow the Software to be Accessed, operated, or viewed from, or Installed or uploaded to, other Computers through a network connection. Except as otherwise explicitly permitted, You may not Install or Access the Software other than on one (1) Computer at a time.”
Link to AutoCAD license agreement.

Now here’s one that puts the customer first:

The TurboTax license agreement (End User License) for the Basic, Deluxe, Premier, and Home & Business versions allows you to install TurboTax on all computers owned by you (at home or work).

And here are the operative sections from Alibre’s license agreement:

You may install, use, access, display, run, or otherwise interact with ("RUN") this copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, or any prior version for the same operating system, on a single computer, workstation, terminal, handheld PC, or other digital electronic device ("COMPUTER"). The primary user of the COMPUTER on which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is installed may make copies for his or her exclusive use on other computers.

Alibre, in fact, provides a simple and automated process for obtaining additional license grants for additional computers.

Most vendors rationalize extremely restrictive and inconvenient licensing policies as necessary to prevent illegal use and piracy, however, anyone who plans to pirate software can easily obtain a “crack” for essentially any application from a number of sleazy software pirates on the web.

This brought to mind that old saying associated with gun control that goes something like this: “Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns.” Here’s a twist on the saying directed at software vendors that I think is fitting to the topic being discussed:

“Make software licensing restrictive and inconvenient and only honest customers will be restricted and inconvenienced.”

Comments

[raphg]

Other than freeware, Borland International had one of the most beloved license agreements:

"Treat this software like a book."

In other words, it can be installed multiple times, but only one person reads (uses) it at a time.

Some software vendors seem to be as frightened as uptight parents who think greater control over their kids will force them to turn out better.

[not2six]

I certainly agree with you ideas here. If the bad guys want to get around the copy license mechanism they will.

[mli]

Finally an approach to licensing that I can understand! Like most lemmings on install I click 'I agree' to endless pages of restrictions I neither agree to nor understand. This approach makes sense, I buy it I use it--wherever and however I need it as long as only one person is using it at a time.

[Bill Shook]

This license and a reasonable price for an excelent product are the reasons I bought and continue to support Alibre. I work at home, at the office and on the road/air. It is easy because of the license.

Thanks Alibre

[Rebecca Cleeton]

I found your article VERY TRUE AND VERY REFRESHING. I, my coworkers, and employees with the Parent Company we branched from, found ourselves jobless and in the middle of a Terrible Disaster, including Hostile take-over's and Human sacrifice by Jumping Ship, BECAUSE OF LICENSING PROBLEMS WITH AUTODESK'S AUTOCAD!
Autodesk sent an undercover employee into The "Parent" Engineering Firm in Walnut Creek, California around seven years ago. What? Are we, the Customer buying their Software, in High School with a Narc Sent to Spy on the Software Owners? The funny thing is that until the last month before Autodesk took LEGAL action, all employees of the Parent Engineering Firm were all using the same release and all releases were kept up to date.
I know because I was in charge of a Very Large Client and it was on the check list, as it would take the collaboration of all 3 Firms ( Parent Company, the small one I worked at nearby and our Seattle sister company) in order to reach the High demand and Intense Deadline! Every employee was on the same release of Autocad and had proper seat privileges (licensing).
However, about a month after that deadline, "POP!", "WHOP!", "POW!' - "WHAT IS THIS"?
Licensing Issues put the "Parent" Engineering Firm UPSIDE DOWN and our VERY Small Firm OUT OF BUSINESS!
It is about time that these issues be addressed, because AutoDesk is NOT the only one targeting and PUNISHING THIER OWN CUSTOMERS, but also the INDUSTRY THAT USES THEIR PROGRAMS! Thank for a MUCH NEEDED and Very well written Subject!
Because, if Software Company's Licensing does not change, taking care of their customers needs and best interest, that Software Company's Employee's might also be looking for new job's, just as those 500 Employee's of the Engineering Firm had to do, AFTER THEIR NARC CAME IN AND SET UP DEMO PACK'S ON VARIOUS COMPANY WORKSTATION'S! BUT, NOT ON OR INTO THE LOCKED SERVER ROOM, I might add!!!
Come on Autodesk! Get With the Program! Now, It looks like we may just have a new LEADER! One that cares for their customer!

[SF Midland]

Again one more reason for everyone to make the move to ALIBRE DESIGN!!!! I was a slave to Autodesk's software for too many years so it's time for a change. I know Alibre is going to have a profound affect on the market in my area of Texas once the word gets out. Alibre has ALWAYS!!! cared about my intrests as a user and I freely promote thier products every chance I get. I challenge ANYONE out there to tell me that Autodesk or Solidworks will provide the same level of support on such a personal level directly. NO...you have to deal with the dreaded re-seller that has his own intrests in mind and his own schedule. Way to go ALIBRE DESIGN keep up the good work!!!!

[TDS]

Well stated,
Having both my desktop and laptop
licensed gives me the ability to
work at home and convey conceptual
design ideas to clients.
It's just a matter of time before
Alibre breaks through the ill mentality of managers that cad users should be held captive not only in licensing but utilizing the best cost effective software.

[Philip]

Interesting. I love reading these blogs and following the links.
Here is an excerpt from the SolidWorks License agreement. Doesnt this say that i can have another copy (same single license) at home?
I think this is fantastic and in line with what you are saying!
Thank you.

"If the Software is permanently installed on the hard disk or other storage device of a computer (other than a network server) and one person uses that computer more than 80% of the time it is in use, then that person may also use the Software on a portable or home computer while the original copy is not in use."

[Keith Pedersen]

I have to agree that some software companies are guilty of wielding their license agreements (and their forced-obsolescence policies) over the user base like a club. If you had to put your finger on the one word that made Bill Gates rich, that word is not "Windows", it is instead, "Versions".

I'm now on my 4th CAD system, and I've seen all manner of licensing schemes. Thank goodness I'm now using Solidworks, which allows me to install the software as many places as I want, and leave it installed, so long as I'm using it in only one place at a time, (in complete agreement with your stated guidelines). While I can install it anywhere, as a stand-alone user, I am allowed to leave the license 'activated' on TWO computers at a time - the good-faith assumption made by the CAD company is that I'll only use 1 of those machines at a time.

What I didn't know, and found to be very, very odd, is that (following the link you provided to their EULA) the Solidworks web-site has a boiler-plate license agreement that states just the opposite - that only 1 machine can be installed at a time. I've been using the software since 1998, and at no time has that statement of the EULA ever been implemented, or enforced. I have to wonder how much of the rest of the factoids that float around in blog-land are like this - technically correct, but of no practical value.

[R.Paul Waddington]

A commonsense attitude to EULA has to be a vendors priority when writing these documents and Greg's comments and some replies go very close to expressing that sentiment.

Compiling EULA that are too difficult to fathom, complex or intrusive, coupled with the fact few users - if any - read them is a waste of time and resources, but a bigger question exists; are EULA enforceable? I believe they are not and therefore - relative to Greg's article - whether you load a piece of software on one or more system is, in the main, irrelevant.

Whilst there are those who believe EULA are enforceable I doubt there is a single person, or vendor, that can prove the argument. At the moment ALL vendors rely on users 'thinking' they are bound, but if push came to shove vendors would need to defend their position, it is not automatic. The EULA I read for the software I use are not contracts (despite a misleading statement, saying they are, in the opening paragraphs). At best they are a guide as to how the vendor would prefer the users to behave and apply their software. Indeed to tell a customer a EULA is enforceable may well be deceptive.

My personal dealings in this area, with the 'largest', bears out what I have just said: it is not my preferred way of working but I have rejected their EULA in writing; are still using their software and am yet to be hammered. Tho' it may happen now ;-)

Alibre's and Greg's approach and willingness to at least discuss openly this issue is a great one to see and as his article suggests, and some commenter's would probably agree, if EULA are thoughtfully written - considering all stakeholders - then it is more likely the 'rules' defined by the EULA will be respected and followed; whether they are enforceable or not need not even enter the picture.

It's a control thing; vendors can either work with their users or 'try' to control them. As a user/consultant and reseller I know which I would prefer!

[Michael Thompson]

I find this commentary to be very interesting. I believe that most people would agree that common-sense (but still well-defined) licensing makes for good business. What amazes me is that we continue to see businesses creating their own licensing agreements. This is like software developers writing their own ATAN function for each new application. Why reinvent the wheel so many times? Wouldn't it make better sense to have a consortium-defined end user license agreement version X.X that you can point your customers toward? Several general classes of agreements could be constructed from highly restrictive to no restrictions. All that it would take for this kind of idea to work is for a few big players to get on board. The small companies will quickly follow suit because it is less hassle than creating their own agreement.

[gordon rigg]

Now wouldn't that std license agreement be a good idea.
how about an independent 3rd party rating the EULA so we can see that they are Class A, Class B or Class C depending on how restrictive they are. Then the consumer could make an informed choice ahead of purchase (no, it probably won't work with specialist softwares like CAD).