So, about software licensing and license agreements

[ras.s]

I put this here in the Everything Else forum, because I think this fits the best since in one way or another we're computer musicians.



I guess the too long; didn't read-questions I have are -- what do you think about software licensing? Do you have negative experiences? Do you view it neutrally or is it to you something of a necessary evil?

I understand it's different matter whether you're a developer or a end user -- yet there's certainly a lot of overlap, because every developer is also an end user and often end users, while perhaps not developers, they are some sort of creators, atleast in our little bubble of audio software. I'd like to hear opinions from both camps.

Can you come up with an alternative for the current scheme of things? Is there any alternative to using software without agreeing on licensing? And I'm not talking about pirating, that's not an option. Is it possible for us to own the software we use?




I think it's an important subject to discuss, because more or less all of us are computer musicians and certainly all of us deal with software.

I personally view it as a necessary evil, yet I can't think of an alternative. At this time, I cannot use music software without giving away my rights. I don't like that, but I'm willing to compromise, because I wish to create music. To me it's a moral conflict: as it is, atleast in this aspect of my life, I appreciate my wants more than my needs.


I guess something that I would really like about software is some kind of assurance that I can use the software indefinitely. OSX users are familiar with the situation that updating the operating system quite likely leads to other pieces of software not functioning properly anymore. That's not an issue, if the software is actively developed, but it's a major issue if that isn't the case. And that situation isn't entirely unfamiliar to Windows users either.

Free software (in the libre sense, not in proprietary freeware sense) might come closer to that end, but not all the way. And free software cannot guarantee that, because software that is provided in source code form, well, any developer knows what's it like. Libraries change, environments change, compilers change, even programming languages change. I could make the necessary changes to keep the software running, but I can't because my knowledge in that area is limited. Hoping that someone somewhere will eventually make the changes isn't exactly time well spent. Obviously the problem with free software is also that there aren't any commercial developers making audio software that is free (in the libre sense) and the benefit of commercially developed software is that someone is really working hard to get their pay, pushing up the quality within a certain timeframe. It's understandable: free software is hard to monetise. But if that would happen that someone would develop commercial free software, it would be the exact opposite from the situation we're in now, in which the end user has to agree to give up their rights and blindly trust the developer.

Software compiled for Windows seems to be the most reliable for the long term, but there's no guarantee that's going to be the way in the future either. The safest bet might be to create a virtual machine and install copies of software there and hope that if/when I need to run that virtual machine, it's able to perform in real time.

Perhaps it is too much to ask to have "vintage software" run indefinitely. The nature of computing and software development is that it keeps changing.





This topic was inspired by few comments in another thread where a person claimed they own the software they buy. But that just isn't the case. When people pay for a piece of software, they pay for the license to use it, not for exchanging ownership. When we install something, there's always that End User License Agreement that pops up and which we have to agree on before installing the software. And most often that license has three major points in it:

a) it states who owns the copyright
b) it states that the license owner has no rights, but plenty responsibilities
c) it states that the creator of the software has all the rights, but no responsibilities


I think a lot of issues people even here on KVR are having are rooted in those license agreements. You're not getting support? The license agreement says what you paid for is provided as it is, so stop complaining. Now that you've tried it, you don't like the copy protection mechanism? That's the way it's going to be, so stop complaining. Found bugs? Doesn't mean anyone is obliged to listen to you. Can't transfer your license? Well there was probably something about that in the license agreement.

In the thread I linked I mentioned three behaviours that can be deemed as invasive: software calling home, software searching the hard drive and deleting files and software installing files that are unnecessary for the software to run. All of those things have been discussed on KVR (those are links to various threads) and the general consensus seems to be that people don't like those things. Yet, sure we can talk about it here, but the developers have no obligations. If we as licensees agree to their terms, we give up our rights and have to accept whatever it is the software does.

And just today there was another thread in the Effects forum where a person complained about a company changing how they handle license transfer -- perhaps the company changed the license in the mean time? Atleast they've changed their policy, which we just have to abide by, because we've agreed to license their software.




It's a difficult subject. Of course this audio software sector is a tiny part of the larger world of all software. Those invasive behaviours are all built in Windows 10, for example. And the terms we agree when we sign up to various web services aren't much different.


And I do understand the developer's point of view. Of course they want to be acknowledged for their works and of course they want to make a deal that atleast hypothethically prevents the person who gets a license from sharing that license. And of course they don't want to be held accountable if that person is so stupid that they somehow manage to destroy their entire house by misusing the software.

And most often even if the license says that basically the licensee can't expect support, KVR alone is proof enough that there are plenty of developers who are very diligent about providing support. There's examples of people going way beyond of what they've promised to keep the customer satisfied. And not forgetting that some pieces software seem to be upgraded for years without charging extra.

But agreeing on that the maker of the software is not liable in any possible scenario is still quite something. Imagine a piece of electronics that is built shoddily, and while you're in the kitchen preparing some coffee, your studio worth of 20k euros and your next gold record gets burned down because the manufacturer didn't comply with standards for electronic devices. Yet, if a software's uninstaller happens to delete your entire plugin folder and along with it plugins that are no longer available, there's no one to hold liable. "Too bad, sorry about that" is enough. In the first case, you'd probably contact your insurance company and they might provide for you and after that they'd get in contact with either the importer or directly the manufacturer of that faulty electronics. But who has insurance against misbehaving software? Is such a thing even possible, because we already agree that it definitely is not the developer's fault if any damage occurs.



For those interested, here are few links on the history of software licensing:
http://templeton-interactive.com/blog/i ... licensing/
http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise17.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_soft ... se#History

This aspect of computing hasn't really changed dramatically over the time computers have been around. License agreements have been around for a long time and they might not be going away, either.



What are your thoughts on license agreements? Good, bad, ugly?

[ShawnG]

I guess I'm just not sure that any of the problems you describe are actually solved by ownership rather than license agreement, in many cases your license agreement would just be replaced by a warrantee that would have many of the same caveats. Also, just because a license agreement may indicate that a product is sold as-is in no way can legally shield a company in the case that a defective product causes material harm to the end user. The problem with software though, is that it does not exist in a vaccuum, in your deleted plugin example, even if you were able to prove that a specific bug in the software coding caused the issue (as opposed to a corrupted registry key, or hard drive failure on the user's home machine) there would be no reasonable expectation for the company to be forced to remunerate you for anything other than their own product. users are reasonably expected to backup important files regularly. none of this would change in the event of ownership, and particularly if you are talking about the ability to modify open source files, the ability for the developer to provide support would be far less, not more.

[rod_zero]

You don't give up any rights, EULAs can state what ever they want but that doesn't mean they stand a chance in a court. LAW IS ABOVE EULAs, and you can't give up rights, that's a principle in modern law.

If anything users are way too timid, for example Image Line refusal for license transfer could be simply contested with calling the local customer protection agency. Same from spectrasonics. They have to comply or risk loosing bussiness.

Do you think most of this little companies has the money to go to court? Of course not, the day a lawsuit gets in to their door you will see their draconian EULA's reviewed.

When users don't get support or are simply traited unfairly in the USA or the EU they should get in touch with the local Consumer protection agency and fill a complain, if the company refuses to answer then it would be the time to sue. I think if users get together to fill a class action or fund a lawsuit it would get companies really scared.

[jancivil]

There is exactly one case in my experience where the EULA and 'the developer has all the rights and no responsibilities' figures: NI Kore 2. They abandoned it after breaking functionality, and the very functionality I bought it for. The language in the EULA aside (a can of worms I won't open), there is sufficient precedent in the US for that to be a colorable action. It would never happen, I mean the probability of it is vanishing as they say, for a number of reasons. OTOH one could sue a lesser entity, ie., with less clout. EULA itself is not law. Most of us would prefer not to have a case tried against us. SO. I think the concern as stated here is valid in itself, but the discussion isn't productive. I think 'my rights', not having them, as a moral issue seems strange to me. It's a product that the creator of and/or the investors in claim ownership of and licensing is all you get. It's not very unlike someone creates a musical composition, and an entity may license it under terms. It's different in that it's typically less involved than software as a product and a piece of music as a property is sold, often enough. But, I don't expect ownership of something like that for 50 or 400 bucks, strictly from a license seems fair.

As to Apple breaking compatibility, it does happen that one needs the new OS to run x and now y fails in it. I cloned a drive behind it. I don't know what owning the plugin or application does to make that any different.

[Orbit-50]

Companies own the rights to their software and owe the consumer nothing beyond a working product. The license can be termed at any time as per the Eula. The money paid to the developer is for a license to be granted to the user to be allowed to use their software. That's all it is. Not own it, but to just use it. Because one pays which actually is not even that big of an amount of money in most cases, does not give the end user the right to do anything he or she wishes with the software. That is up to the owner of the product (the developer, not the end user) to decide whether license transfers are allowed. It's a privilage, not a right. Even the courts know this. Image-Line and other companies have every right to use these practices. Many, many people don't worry about that trivial policy and still purchase these softwares. Nothing is going to change this. Just enjoy the sofware licenses purchased, and that's that.

[ATN69]

Companies own the rights to their software and owe the consumer nothing beyond a working product. The license can be termed at any time as per the Eula. The money paid to the developer is for a license to be granted to the user to be allowed to use their software. That's all it is. Not own it, but to just use it. Because one pays which actually is not even that big of an amount of money in most cases, does not give the end user the right to do anything he or she wishes with the software. That is up to the owner of the product (the developer, not the end user) to decide whether license transfers are allowed. It's a privilage, not a right. Even the courts know this. Image-Line and other companies have every right to use these practices. Many, many people don't worry about that trivial policy and still purchase these softwares. Nothing is going to change this. Just enjoy the sofware licenses purchased, and that's that.

Well, that's not really all true. EU courts ruled that the license is your private property because that is what you buy. As you said, the user don't own the software but the license, giving the user the right to use the software. More about that can be found in the article below. So it mean I have good chances to win in court in Europe anyway.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120 ... cant.shtml

[GHOST19]

EULAs are necessary to state exactly what is sold. Most of the time it's a personal license for unlimited use (still what's a personal use of the software has to be defined).

I agree with previous posters: EULAs are no law and are in fact almost always filled with illegal clauses and courts have recently ruled against overly complicated and obfuscated license agreements.

On top of that every developer who doesn't translate his EULA in French has any license agreement void of any value in France, and I'm sure that's the same in a lot of other countries.