Autodesk Clarifies Licensing with New Products

[jaberwok]

While I know that Autodesk is trying to keep piracy from happening (like with AutoCAD 2004 and below) it is putting a strain on their customers...While some CAD makes the business money, the portion that I am in is a cost...Marketing makes all the money because they make the sales, not us...While we support Marketing by providing CAD documents (like Manuals to use our product), we cost money to maintain and bring in no sales...It is hard enough for me to persuade management that we need to upgrade from P3 800 Mhz machines to run AutoCAD 2006 let alone get them to buy me a Laptop or workstation for home...

Unfortunately, many companies see the design/draughting as a cost. This is, IMHO, only due to the (unreal) attitudes of the accountants. I have worked for one of the biggest engineering companies in the world and they had design/draughting configured as a cost centre in such a way that it was not possible for it not to show a loss!
We need more realistic accountants. No, not more accountants.

[Steve Johnson]

Let's take a completely literal approach to the following (from 2007 EULA):

1.8 “You” means you personally (i.e., the individual who reads and is prompted to accept this Agreement) if you acquire the Software for yourself or the company or other legal entity for whom you acquire the Software.

3.1.2 Additional Installation. Except with regard to Educational Institutional, Student and Evaluation Versions only, You may Install and Access a second copy of the Software on the hard disk of a second Computer owned by You or under Your control provided that:
(i) the original and second copies are used only by the same person;
(ii) the second copy is Installed and Accessed only on either (a) with respect to Network Versions, a redundant server that makes the Software available for use only when Your primary server on which the active Software copy is Installed becomes inoperable, or (b) a notebook computer or other non-server computer away from Your usual work location for the purpose of enabling You to perform work while away from Your usual work location;
(iii) only one of the Software copies is Accessed at any one time; and
(iv) both copies of the Software are Installed and Accessed exclusively with the copy protection device (if any) supplied with the Software.

Quite literally, this means the person who picks the I Agree button during an installation is "You" and can install and use a copy on their own personal home computer, because it is under that person's ("Your") control. Ownership is not relevant if you have control: either will do according to the EULA.

So, if you do the install, you're fine to install and use at home as long as the work copy isn't being used concurrently. In fact, if someone else does the install, but you come along during the process, sit down for 5 seconds and pick the I Agree button, you're still fine. Of course, this does not apply to deployments that are created by one person and used by another to do the installation: the person creating the deployment is the only "You" in that case, because they picked the "I Agree" button.

Remember, this is taking a completely literal legalistic approach of the EULA, which is the only thing with any legal standing. The "clarification" (which is nothing of the sort and only muddies the waters) does not constitute part of the agreement and is completely irrelevant.

From a practical point of view, there is no way of Autodesk proving who the person was who picked that button, so it's impossible to police. From an even more practical point of view, if you as a user are doing the right thing and you know that a given license is only being used by one person at a time, what do you think are the chances of Autodesk even wanting to go after you?

Every time Autodesk appears to clamp down on legitimate use like this it only encourages piracy.

[Brian Myers]

Let's take a completely literal approach to the following (from 2007 EULA):

They seem to make changes with every version with that EULA.
Yet technically I believe its agreed that the person that pushes the EULA should be the person its registered to. After all, that's the only way they actually know who you are. So by pushing the EULA button its like signing your signature to an agreement, the name on that agreement is the person the software is registered to. Other than that, I think you are spot on.

[Ogre]

They seem to make changes with every version with that EULA.
Yet technically I believe its agreed that the person that pushes the EULA should be the person its registered to. After all, that's the only way they actually know who you are. So by pushing the EULA button its like signing your signature to an agreement, the name on that agreement is the person the software is registered to. Other than that, I think you are spot on.

But remember, the person who clicks the "Yes" button is a representative of the company...The Company itself holds the license because they bought it...With any good company they will have a PO for it and can prove it...Therefore it is the company's seat that was used to legally install on the employee's workstation (also owned by the company) and the employee OKed the EULA, therefore, being a representative of the company, signed the company's name...

This is a very vague problem...Truthfully, I think that companies that have licenses should have the IT person or employee that OKed the EULA sign a statement or something that signifies that he is a representative of the company and the company owns the license as well as the workstation that the program was installed...This will help the EULA stick to what it describes and not allow for loose interpretations...

Maybe that should be an amendment to the EULA stating that if this program is to be installed on a company's workstation and the company owns the license, then the person that agrees the the EULA is a representative of the company...That would help to ensure that the only workstations that the software is installed belongs to the company, not the individual who clicked "Yes"...I think that will help clarify the "Extra Seat" problem...

Just an idea...

[Brian Myers]

But remember, the person who clicks the "Yes" button is a representative of the company...

That's a good point! But the person to whom its registered would also be an employee of the company. In other words, as long as it was in company name the "registered" individual wouldn't matter. So would you sign your own name in the "registed to" areas when you click the EULA? If an employee leaves the company after agreeing to the EULA would their replacement be able to use the software the same as as the individual that "signed" the EULA? Would you need to update your records each time an employee leaves?

Ohhhh... my head hurts.... Actually I think we understand the meaning, just the wording if anything caused things to get more vague with 2007...

[Steve Johnson]

To further complicate matters, the person doing the installation may not even be employed by the company. That's the case with the installs I do: I'm on contract, through my own company, then through my pimp, to the company that is contracted to do the IT here. That company then provides services (including mine) to the company that is the actual owner of the software. I create the install deployments using that company's contact details, specifying an actual employee of the company on the form. Other people, also part of the IT company (not the software owner), then use those deployments to install AutoCAD.

I'm "You", according to the EULA. I'm officially the only one who is allowed to take a copy home and use it (I don't need to, so it's moot). I'm the EULA agreement acceptor, so I have this right, even though I am not employed by the software owner. Real employees who need to take their work home are not officially allowed to do so, not even the person whose name appears on the form and gets sent to Autodesk every time an install happens.

I remember the good old days when I bought Borland's Turbo Pascal and the license agreement was fair and made complete sense. It said I could use the software "like a book", i.e. as long as it was only being used in one place at one time by one person, I was OK. That's impossible to police too, but at least it's reasonable and doesn't make me feel like a criminal when I'm doing the right thing.

[CADMama]

Without reading this entire thread - does this shed a different sort of light on the subject?

[jaberwok]

Without reading this entire thread - does this shed a different sort of light on the subject?

For the single-seat, stand alone situation, I'd say yes, much clearer.

[Opie]

For the single-seat, stand alone situation, I'd say yes, much clearer.

And then we have the Multi-seat Stand-Alone License and the Network License