Rockwell rant (“RSLogix Project Migrator”)

[rootboy]

Just a word of warning for those of you that are thinking about installing version 3.0. In the very end of the EULA, there are some significant restrictions to using the program.


From the EULA:

"LICENSE ADDENDUM TO END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR RSLOGIX SOFTWARE
RSLogix License Restriction:

If the Software is RSLogix, this License does not grant You the right to provide
or utilize the Software as part of or in connection with a third party service or
software application that interacts with the Software: (a) without You manually
inputting all commands (e.g. local or remote keyboard emulation without manual
keyboard input would be prohibited); or (b) by providing or applying automated
instructions or scripting technology to the Software."

And it goes on from there...


No thanks, my own "home-grown" program does the I/O rack creation, automatic I/O comment entry, search & replace, duplicate check, and PCE error correction for errors 109 & 110 (timer errors).

For those of you that have done program conversions before, getting something that will "compile" in RSLogix is only half of the battle. You have the PCE errors to deal with, the I/O to import (properly, the default will indeed get your I/O in there), getting the old I/O comments attached to your new tags, doing the search and replace to replace the aliased (converted) tags to your tags. A heck of a lot of work, and Rockwell now wants you to do it manually. Again, no thanks.

 

[BITS N BYTES]

The "myth" of AB products continues!!

 

[rootboy]

The "myth" of AB products continues!!

Completely draconian, and probably unenforceable.

I don't think that the DMCA isn't going to help them here, and courts have held up the use of intermediate code as fair use. And the program clearly creates intermediate code.

After all, the end "product" (the converted file) is almost always defective.

So the "customer" has to fix the resulting output. It's like Ikea banning the use of an electric screwdriver to assemble their furniture.

What's left? I don't think "Because we said so" is going to stand up in court.

Of course you give up a lot of your rights once you hit the "I Accept" button.

 

[Ken Roach]

Does your home-grown software work on the *.L5K or *.L5X project file formats, or does it automate keyboard and mouse scripting in Studio 5000 itself ?

While I don't quite understand why the prohibition on keyboard scripting in RSLogix 5000 is part of the EULA for the Project Migration utility, it doesn't seem like it would apply to the majority of the tools I have seen created by RA integrators to do this sort of work.

 

[Aabeck]

To me it sound like a liability reduction.

In case something happens using some code from another source, RA can say they are immune from the impending lawsuits that you know will follow, because they said it shouldn't have happened. Otherwise, how will they ever know if you do violate this clause?

 

[rootboy]

Does your home-grown software work on the *.L5K or *.L5X project file formats, or does it automate keyboard and mouse scripting in Studio 5000 itself ?

It works on the .L5K files. It also uses the .PC5 file for reference (for instance, determining the timebase from the .PC5 file is the easy way to go).

And it's compiled VB.Net code, so I'm not using a macro generator inside (or out) of Studio 5000.

But it could be argued that my VB program was nothing more than an enhanced script. Basically I'm automating the steps required to do this manually.

While I don't quite understand why the prohibition on keyboard scripting in RSLogix 5000 is part of the EULA for the Project Migration utility, it doesn't seem like it would apply to the majority of the tools I have seen created by RA integrators to do this sort of work.

I was more annoyed more than alarmed. The title of that section stating it's purpose to remove previously granted rights seemed to be a bit heavy-handed.

To be fair, it looks like there is some sort of grandfather clause further allowing you to continue on (or it might just be hopeful reading on my part).

 

[rootboy]

To me it sound like a liability reduction.

In case something happens using some code from another source, RA can say they are immune from the impending lawsuits that you know will follow, because they said it shouldn't have happened. Otherwise, how will they ever know if you do violate this clause?

I don't think so. I now remember what I suggested might be a grandfather clause was actually restrictions on limiting the use to "in-house" projects only.

It's clearly aimed at throttling competition.