License Issues

[Dale]

While purchasing MA3, I actually read the license. I think there are some things that need to be changed:

Issue #1:
I may only:

"(i) use one copy of the Software on a single computer.
(ii) use the Software on a second computer provided that only one copy of the Software is in use at any time."

Now, Jim has said: "You are welcome to run it on all the computers in your house with a single Key Code."

So, that part of the license probably needs to be changed.
=========

(Relatively minor) Issue #2:
I may only:

(iii) make one copy of the Software in machine-readable form for backup (archival) purposes only. You must reproduce on such copy Sach Enterprises, Inc's copyright notice and any other proprietaryt legends that were on the original copy of the Software.

Now, I (and many folks that I know) have various belt-and-suspenders backup methods that make more than one copy. And also, (being picky), I don't know how to write the copywrite notice on most of my backups - particularly those saved on "the cloud". I would guess that the appropriate copyright notice(s) are actually embedded in the software executable (or installer) somewhere.

Anyhow - that restriction looks like some modifications would be helpful.
================

Issue #3:
The license says I may not:
"(iii) use a previous version of the Software after you have received an upgraded revision of the Software as a replacement for the prior version through a promotion offering advantages to upgrade, or transfer or assign such previous version of the Software to another".

I don't wish to argue about the wording. I'm sure that the upgrade version of the software that I received through a promotion offering advantages to upgrade, was not intended as a replacement for the prior version. But I suggest (to keep the lawyers happy) that the policy be made a bit more clear.
===============

(Somewhat picky) Issue #4:
I may not:
"(iv) permit other individuals to use the Software except under the terms listed above."

It's clearly intended to run on the computer, and I believe that the installer installs it so that it can be used by all users of the computer.
=================

Issue #5:
I may not:
"(v) reduce the Software to a human-perceivable form in any manner or through any process."

I read that to say that the "screen captures" and "photographs" that folks have been posting, are prohibited by the license. But perhaps I don't understand what it means.

Either a better (properly restrictive) explanation should be used, or this restriction should be deleted.

======================
Yes, I know that "nobody really reads the license".

[henemly]

Interesting but probably don't really matter.

[Dale]

Originally posted by henemly:

Interesting but probably don't really matter.  

I'm interested in why.

[Nicki]

#3 , yeah that's kind of clear as mud . I think it means trying to pass off earlier versions as new ones to dupe someone , but am dying to hear just how wrong I am , lol .

#4 , maybe that means we must not be party to any piracy . Fair enough .

#5 , Erm - yeah , that's kind of , well . Maybe it came through Google translator from another language where it actually wasn't just gibberish . It's a beautiful screensaver , but don't look at it , lol !!!

But #2 though , might have been applicable 10 or 15 years ago . Nobody seriously keeps just one backup do they ?

I add this just from the curiosity of finding out the real meaning .

[feldon34]

Re (iii):

use a previous version of the Software after you have received an upgraded revision

If someone downloads MA3 and finds it does not work on their PC, can they still use 2.6?

Of course most software license agreements are unenforceable but still it would be nice to have the language polished here.

[Jim Sachs]

Our policy is: If someone downloads and purchases MA3, then finds that it won't run on their machine (they should have tried it before paying), they can recieve a free v2.6 Key.

[Dale]

The current installer version (9M software) has a much-improved license, and addresses most of the issues I pointed out earlier. The ones apparently not deemed worth changing were:

Originally posted by Dale:

Issue #3:
The license says I may not:
"(iii) use a previous version of the Software after you have received an upgraded revision of the Software as a replacement for the prior version through a promotion offering advantages to upgrade, or transfer or assign such previous version of the Software to another".

I don't wish to argue about the wording. I'm sure that the upgrade version of the software that I received through a promotion offering advantages to upgrade, was not intended as a replacement for the prior version. But I suggest (to keep the lawyers happy) that the policy be made a bit more clear.
===============  

Apparently, it's OK to run MA2.x even if you've upgraded to MA3

Originally posted by Dale:

Issue #5:
I may not:
"(v) reduce the Software to a human-perceivable form in any manner or through any process."

I read that to say that the "screen captures" and "photographs" that folks have been posting, are prohibited by the license. But perhaps I don't understand what it means.

Either a better (properly restrictive) explanation should be used, or this restriction should be deleted.  

That seems to still read the same way. I suspect it's intended to preclude folks making (and selling) DVDs of MA3 running.

I'd say this issue is closed.

[Jim Sachs]

Yes, it's fine to run MA2.x and MA3.

The second item is to prevent reverse-engineering, translation back to C-code, etc.

[Dale]

I would have never guessed that "(v) reduce the Software to a human-perceivable form in any manner or through any process." meant "reverse-engineering, translation back to C-code, etc."

Nor do I understand the reason for that restriction, given the other license provisions.

Oh, well - that's why the lawyers get big jars of peanut butter.

[rps]

Originally posted by Dale:

I would have never guessed that "(v) reduce the Software to a human-perceivable form in any manner or through any process." meant "reverse-engineering, translation back to C-code, etc."  

In this case "the software" means the delivered/downloaded/purchased executable. The rest of it is "lawyer-speak" for "reverse engineering".

Originally posted by Dale:

Nor do I understand the reason for that restriction, given the other license provisions.  

Because the other restrictions govern usage (how and where you can run the program); this restriction protects Jim's intellectual property, by prohibiting other people from reverse engineering his code and using it to create their own screen savers. (For instance, giant clams in outer space...)

Also, with respect to the restriction on using an earlier version of MA: I believe the point is that, having purchased MA3 for my computer, I can't take the 2.6 version and give it to my Sister for her computer.

~Ralph S.

[Dale]

Originally posted by rps:

In this case "the software" means the delivered/downloaded/purchased executable. The rest of it is "lawyer-speak" for "reverse engineering".

Because the other restrictions govern usage (how and where you can run the program); this restriction protects Jim's intellectual property, by prohibiting other people from reverse engineering his code and using it to create their own screen savers. (For instance, giant clams in outer space...)

~Ralph S.  

There are actually several other restrictions that are not about usage, but:

By "other license provisions", I meant this one:

YOU MAY NOT:

(i) convert, modify, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble (except to the extent applicable laws specifically prohibit such restriction), or create derivative works based on the Software.

...which seems to explicitly speak to reverse engineering, and:

(ii) modify, network, rent, lend, loan, and distribute, or create derivative works based upon, the Software in whole or in part;

...which seems to explicitly speak to giant clams in outer space.

But I'm not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV).

There is one other "license issue" that would drive lawyers crazy - the issue of unilateral changes to license terms, after product purchase.

[clifdene]

Is there any possible hope that we could eventually concentrate on the clams?

[Dale]

Originally posted by clifdene:

Is there any possible hope that we could eventually concentrate on the clams?  

The only license issue that at all involved Jim was #1, which has been fixed.

I'm presuming that Jim is able to mostly ignore the rest of this discussion, by forwarding any meat to the Prolific lawyers for their attention.

So, except for questions about the clams in this license thread, license discussions shouldn't cause foreign clam disease.

[Bigmouse]

can someone split/move the discussion of the clams from this topic, totally unrelated, I seldom review the "Lincense Issues" topic which is meaningless to me. and I just found the discussion of clams is hidden here.

[feldon34]

Clams development progress got its own thread:
https://www.feldoncentral.com/forums...ead.php?t=4816

[sccannon]

Wow!! I didn't realize people actually read the license agreements. I'm impressed!!

[Dale]

Originally posted by sccannon:

Wow!! I didn't realize people actually read the license agreements. I'm impressed!!  

Thanks (I think). But I only do that when asked to thoroughly test something.