Who legally owns the software

I've transferred the software many times through the legal change method as linked by Mickey and described by Ken Roach. They couldn't be more correct and pertinent to the original post.

I would make a separate O.T. thread to fight about EULA's. Mickey and Ken Roach took care of the original problem stated in this thread already...

L D[AR2 said:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/12/news/briefs.php

Click to expand...

Aha! See, I bet there was no EULA for that loaf of bread, which means someone should sue the baker.

-jeff

Aha! See, I bet there was no EULA for that loaf of bread, which means someone should sue the baker.

Ah but then you would have to eat your own cooking

At least we wouldn't have a world with dangerous loafs of bread roaming the streets.


-jeff

Gotta say I have never read a license agreement.

I figure if I have the discs or dongle, then I own it.

Well, sounds good in theory!

Then there was AutoCAD R14.

One morning, everyone woke up, and there ACAD stopped working.

Well, except those who lied to the computer as to what the date really was.....

I like the way Stephen at Entertron operates. the software is FREE. I can't remember if he has a software licensing agreement. But then, since the software is FREE, any agreement would be pretty simple and easy to understand.

Sounds like time for another poll.

Well.. I'm unlikely to use the software as it's many versions behind.

Even so if I did would they really be bothered, I beleive it would be classed as a civil not criminal offence & what would any court make of it, people buy all sorts of things second hand, they don't have to register it with the manufacturer (only in the case of cars etc. & thats with the government).
Would they really prosecute?, after all I have nothing of any value (previous spouses saw to that).
does a licence agreement congered up by companies really have any legal standing in such cases.
I would think that such a grey area, the cost would not really be worth it. after all to purchase software like this is not an attempt to "rip" it off or make a profit out of re-sale of dodgy goods, indeed if I have a rockwell product then I'm going to encourage any customer to buy their equipment.
Anyhow I do not need the software, I hope to stay with my present employer or at least be employed by a company until I retire as I'm getting too old to run my own business in this field, I don't need the hassle.
Better to promote IMO they give the software away!.

I will throw my 2 cents worth in, may not help, but here it is.

Many people buy new cars every year or so, lets say you buy a Mercedes CLK coupe of cabriolet. Does that mean you own the right(s)to build and re-sell them?

Software is no different, if you legally buy a copy of any software then you can use it BUT you do not have the right to copy or modfify it and redistribute.

The car or the software are yours to use within their capabilities but it is also up to you to maintain them so they can perform within their capabilities.

MY NON AB BASH aspect. I hear people complain about AB, Siemens, and other software prices all the time BUT never think twice about purchasing a personal vehicle that cost s $30K or higher when they could have bought one just as reliable for half that.

My thoughts are that those vehicles may be a necessity but you buy what you want, not what is needed.

In the case of Step 7, RSLogix, ACAD, Windows etc. it is purely a case of need, without them you COULD not make the money to purchase the car of your choice. At least in many cases.

We will use RSLogix500 as a simple example. It can cost what, $2000 more or less? How many projects does it take to pay for that business investment?

You buy a car you have to have insurance (100's a year), then do regular maintenance; which can be 100's a year but have an issue with having "insurance" (per se) with software that can or does provide your income.

If in business it is all about ROI. If working for someone ele it is about doing what is necessary for the benefit of the company. Paying less does not mean it may allow you to do more or better, it all depends.

The people that create software are no different from those that build machines with plc's or those that build cars. They need the ability to prevent others from building (or selling) the same exact thing based on what they have done.

I don't think the auto comparison is relevant. Automobiles have always largely been open-source. There are tons of manuals out there telling you how the engine and pretty much everything on the car works. The computer chips are a little more guarded, but AFAIK, every car with a computer has an aftermarket programmer too. You are also completely free to modify your car in any way you want. The only people that try to limit that are the government, and if you go too far you just cant drive it on thier roads.

I think the day is coming when they will go after the parky's of the world just on general principles. Right now the lawyers have thier hands full with the real pirates, but once thats stopped, do ya think they're all going to resign and go back to fighting parking tickets?

-jeff

who owns it?

Bottom line is in most cases, THEY own it, you purchase limited rights to use it and nothing else.

Ron's car analogy is close, but you can still sell a used car in pretty much any condition without revoking the buyer's right to try to drive it. Now the buyer certainly won't have the right to have his used car updated to the latest model free of charge by the OEM.

I was quite surprised to see the license transferability from AB. That is something that they surely don't have to provide, and I am glad to see that they do. Now, getting up to the latest version, I am sure, won't be free, but for the cost of a support contract may be the least expensive way to go.

OkiePC said:

I was quite surprised to see the license transferability from AB. That is something that they surely don't have to provide, and I am glad to see that they do.

Click to expand...

An extremely common (especially in my experience) scenario of this is the following:

1) End customer buys a PLC-controlled machine from OEM. Customer realizes he needs the software for the future, so he adds the software into the cost of the machine's PO.

2) OEM buys the software TODAY for PLC software development. (AB requires the OEM to license it to the buyer at time of purchase.)

3) Machine gets built, programmed, and ships to end customer.

4) OEM has no reason to keep the software anymore for this machine since it is completed and is now in the end user's possession, so he transfers the license to the end user. Now end user is on the hook for software updates, etc. (as he should be)

If OEM wishes to purchase his own copy to keep "in house", that's his own business.

Big advantage for a system integrator for the above-described scenario is that he is always purchasing the latest and greatest software at the time of the project, and never holds on long enough to require upgrades at additional cost. EXCEPTION: Projects taking longer than a year from software purchase to license transfer.