"Used" licenses reselling

[trixian]

Well, I was under the impression that this was a ruling for all EU countries mandated through the EU consumer protection agency (the correct name eludes me).
The fact that the solution is "half arsed" at this moment, is more telling of the legislative systems where this occurs than of the issue at hand.

I agree that under the conditions you outline, this all becomes really impractical for regular consumers, at least when they all stand alone, but most of us agree that there should be clear and concise rules for this. We (hopefully) see that transferring a license to use a piece of software professionally is different than buying a song online, and should have the same rights as purchasing a tool for other professional work. Regardless if it is impractical now, this is what we (should) aim for and will hopefully be the end result in the long run.

I also think that bringing in issues as whether or not a license is node-locked or not is just clouding the issue. What is the logical argument for this license being node-locked and not standalone\floating. Can you argue this without biasing towards the developers "lack of planning\lack of skills\lack of ethics\more money" side of the argument? Treating all licenses equal is the only fair way, and ensures that one can make some good and well thought out legislation on the matter. This would not work if one has to take into account that some licenses should be allowed to be locked to a motherboard or MAC address.

[instinct]

Well, I was under the impression that this was a ruling for all EU countries mandated through the EU consumer protection agency (the correct name eludes me).
The fact that the solution is "half arsed" at this moment, is more telling of the legislative systems where this occurs than of the issue at hand.

If i read the links posted by Preisler right it is not even finally judged. It is a clearification of the EU court as requested by a german court. This is no national law by this i think? I am not a law expert by any means tho heh.

I agree that under the conditions you outline, this all becomes really impractical for regular consumers, at least when they all stand alone, but most of us agree that there should be clear and concise rules for this. We (hopefully) see that transferring a license to use a piece of software professionally is different than buying a song online, and should have the same rights as purchasing a tool for other professional work. Regardless if it is impractical now, this is what we (should) aim for and will hopefully be the end result in the long run.

I also think that bringing in issues as whether or not a license is node-locked or not is just clouding the issue. What is the logical argument for this license being node-locked and not standalone\floating. Can you argue this without biasing towards the developers "lack of planning\lack of skills\lack of ethics\more money" side of the argument? Treating all licenses equal is the only fair way, and ensures that one can make some good and well thought out legislation on the matter. This would not work if one has to take into account that some licenses should be allowed to be locked to a motherboard or MAC address.

Most licenses are node-locked. Floating licenses are not locked on a "node per copy" basis, but the licenses is still tied to the license server. So unless you sell your whole license server, you're out of luck. Also as posted before i seriously doubt that "this" will be the end result in the long run. Here's a quote from an analysis of the ruling. We are seeing this already. And i consider it even worse:

One major concern for users – the cloud presents the next big lock-in. Why? Users do not own their licenses. This ruling may lead to all software publishers to deliver software via access in the cloud. In effect, no on-premises software would ever be sold again and users could only rent their software. This unforeseen ramification could prove even more costly as vendor lock-in will increase unless cloud users are granted protections in the market.

So if a software is only available under a "rent" or "subscription" license there is no reselling or transferring at all i guess. And you get all the downsides of the stupid cloud. Slowclap.

Regards,
Thorsten

[Preisler]

Well, I was under the impression that this was a ruling for all EU countries mandated through the EU consumer protection agency (the correct name eludes me).

I think it only rules for private users and not corporative users...

@Torsten
I might not yet have seen the downsides of the Cloud - please enlighten me
We just bought access for the Adobe Creative Cloud last week and so far it seems great.

[super gnu]

the thing with the cloud is... you stop paying, no more software. they put up the prices, you have to pay, or... no more software. they go bust (unlikely in the case of adobe i know) - no more software. basically you dont own anything in this case.

and having never used "creative cloud" i assume you dont actually -need- an active internet connection to use it ?

the whole concept of "the cloud" has come about as a way for software companies to make more money, and take all control away from the users. pretty soon the "wonderful" cloud will mean you dont have a single app to call your own and will be totally dependent, constantly, on the kind providers of your software "services"

[instinct]

There are a LOT of issues with the "cloud". On the "server side processing" part of the equation (e.g. 123Catch by Autodesk) there are all the usual NDA, security issues. On top it increases processing time a LOT because of the data needing to be sent around the world and back. Last but not least reliability and availability over the internet is not exactly up to par with local systems.

As for "cloud" for licenses here's a few in regards to Adobe cloud as you mentioned that one yourself.

- No more perpetual licenses. Stop paying, stop using. Price increases, Vendors going out of business etc. Your problem.
- Pricing. If you're not using the majority of the packages (say only Photoshop) you are paying more than before rather quickly (depending on the setup and previous licenses around a year or so). From then you get to pay a lot more money rather soon. Especially if you used to skip a version here and there.
- You do not get any "cloud" benefit. As i understood and was written on the Adobe Forums by Adobe staff, there still is no floating licenses. I mean they are offering a CLOUD version of their software that is node-locked? Seriously? But they stated that if you plan to change machines often, you should buy another license.
- Currently you do not need a permanent internet connection for the license. If they transfer parts of the software to the cloud (like with the mentioned 123Catch) you will do so, and reliability/availability is subject to MANY factors not under my control (let alone NDA and security issues).

Regards,
Thorsten

[NicoC]

Ok, guys. Chaos Group reacts in a very fair, clever way. FYI I've just received an email from french Chaos Group Support - below is an extract:

"Hello Nicolas,

Thank you for the links and recall the recent case law.
Our goal is obviously not to complicate the task, or to take a position contrary to the law.
We have reconsidered our position based on these elements and allow you to legally reselling.
"

I wish every software editor could be so fair ... anyway, thank you Chaos for not being stubborn on this sensible point !

Regards.

[instinct]

Good to see this resolving.

[Neilg]

Glad to see it's being resolved.

[NicoC]

Not that it matters, but this is the threat I was talking about. 'let me do things my way or i'll just pirate your software' ?


Glad to see it's being resolved for you though

Hmm you're right, I agree it can be seen as a threat, even a childish one. The fact is that I didn't write it thinking about threatening anyone ... hopefully it was just a, certainly awkward, way to say that if we can't resell used / second hand (whatever how one should call it) software licenses for any reason, staying legal can be a very expensive, wracking, and binding way to go ! so yes, in a certain way, using pirate software would be much more attractive ... arf I wish I could explain my point of view in my native language, that would certainly limit the misunderstandings
Well, in a word, you weren't totally wrong, I wasn't totally right neither ... sorry if any offense.

Regards.

[Neilg]

None at all - apologies for jumping on you about it. I just now figured that's what you meant and I read it too strongly, that's why I edited it out.

[3ddesign]

There is a tone in some of the replies here that disturb me so please indulge me to share some very strong feelings. While it is near impossible to interpret a person's true intent, I'm fairly confident super gnu wrote this with at least some contempt for software companies.

a way for software companies to make more money, and take all control away from the users.

As if "companies" were this big faceless entity that exists only to feed upon us, the humble helpless masses. My wife used to work for such an entity. But they did have faces. And families that had to eat and pay bills. And customers that tried to rip them off, which meant that the employees had just a little less money to buy food and pay bills.

I'm sad that NicoC's company went under. But does that mean that he should hurt someone else's company and make their employees suffer? It isn't just big corporations that are selfish. It can be anyone who thinks somebody "owes" them something. It's the whole "us versus them" syndrom that seems to be playing out between the humble masses and the fabled elite who hold all the power. But in my experience, the "all powerful monsters" turn out to be just like us and in the end, our battles turn out to be "us verses us." - Craig

[instinct]

Very very good point.

[super gnu]

i feel terrible now

it did sound a bit harsh.. i guess i am quite annoyed with autodesk at the moment and its colouring my view somewhat..

i basically meant, in less strong language, that the "cloud" model is much more beneficial to the seller than the customer, and is being pushed as a benefit to us.. i dont believe this is the case when it comes to software that is quite happy being run/licensed/installed locally. obviously there are cases where it provides added functionality, and i have no issue there, but this and the whole "app store" concept give me the creeps.

[3ddesign]

...i guess i am quite annoyed with autodesk at the moment and its colouring my view somewhat..

Oh, well, if it's Autodesk you're talking about, I might just agree with you.

[NicoC]

But does that mean that he should hurt someone else's company and make their employees suffer? [...] It can be anyone who thinks somebody "owes" them something.

In my case, you could hardly be more wrong ... really.