I know under most software copyrights a person is not supposed to
re-sell software for which they received an upgraded version at a
I'm not aware of anything prohibiting giving away (as in free) old
software no longer being used. Is that also illegal?
But how many who buy or sell on eBay or ship motors on ROL pay much
attention to the law? (putting on nomex flame suit now)
Larry Lobdell Jr.
Think of it this way.. Does anyone post WinNT 4.0 disks on the net for
free? (at least on Usenet), saying "I don't need this any more, so feel
free to use it, and here's the CD key....".
You bought a license to use it, and part of the agreement is probably
that the license is non-transferable. That means you can't even give it
away. I'd check with Apogee before you offer to give their software
away on a public news group, even if it's an old version.
People not in the software business are often confused when they "buy"
software. Rarely do you "buy the software", but only a license to "use"
the software, based on the agreement that most people simply "click
through" when installing it.
Let's say you buy a license to "XYZ", then give the disks to someone,
who gives the disks to to yet someone else. Three people are running
the SW on a single license. It's called theft, even if the three people
don't use the same SW at the exact same time. The author of the
software lost 2/3 of the license fee that they've earned.
You can give the disks to someone else, but you probably can't give away
the license to use it.
That's why big vendors are locking the SW to a specific machine. People
like Apogee don't have the code in place to do this, but giving away
software outside of your license, is kind of like stealing candy bars at
the local 7-11 because the person behind the counter can't see it, but
in this case, the person behind the counter is the owner.
Not excited (no need to calm down), but a software developer for almost
I really don't like it when someone, due to not reading the the
agreement that they click "I agree to this" when installing SW, doesn't
understand (or read) what they agree to.
It's theft in many cases when the disks are even just "given away"
And BTW, I am also a L3 (for a few years), and have used rocksim since
The problems that many have run into is that they don't set the CD
(coificent of Drag) correctly. The default in RS used to be way off for
If Apogee still has a "shareware/limited" version available, try that
too. (but check the CD setting!)
But the more I think about AZ, tying software licenses to machines is
kind of unfair. System boards and hard drives can fail and when they
do should I have to buy all new software?
How is someone giving away an old copy of some software different than
me giving a book which I have read to my friend? Should we not lend
books to friends any more?
-Just a thought.
AZ Woody wrote:
That's why the license agreement or "EULA" for the SW is important.
With SW, it can be installed for user "A" and the disks are given to
user "B" and installed.
With a book, if user "A" gives the book to user "B", there's no way user
"A" can still read the book! Not the same with software!
Basically, with SW, the user doesn't buy the book, but only the license
to read the book. The Disks or CD are only the media on which the book
is delivered, and not the rights to the content.
As far as switching MB's etc, software is evolving to the point where
the point where the license can be transfered to the new HW, but is then
disabled on the old HW. That's like "giving a book to a friend", but
isn't widely used today.
In the real world, if someone gives/sells you a set of disks, it's kind
of like xeroxing an entire book and giving the copy to a friend.
No, it is more like "Xeroxing" the book, and _you_ keep the "Xerox" copy,
but give the original to the friend. I am basically agreeing with AZ, just
turning it around a bit.
The copy is morally the illegal portion. Software companies have now written
language that makes it illegal to give the "book" in whole or part, to the
friend at all, whether or not you keep and use it, and whether or not you
are trading money or other goods/services for it.
If people would always delete/stop usage of said software, then licensing
transferral would not be such a big issue. But a significant enough portion
of people do not maintain that kind of integrity with relation to software,
using excuses like "M$ makes too much money anyway" or various other
mis-guided thoughts and understandings; they do not actually complete the
That is why most companies made licensing NON-TRANSFERRABLE (it is usually
displayed in upper case intentionally in the licensing agreements).
However, those terms can be legally moved and stretched, such as in the case
when a company buys software, and then another company buys that company.
There is still only one set of software in use, and the license has in
effect been LEGALLY been transferred to another entity.
That is also why a company-owned license should NEVER have an individual's
name in the registration, even if the software seems to tell you to. The
name of the company *IS* the owning entity, and also is the company in
question. In court, the company is the legal owner, an entity in and of
itself, *especially* if the company is publicly owned, without a designated
private or limited ownership. In the case of small private ownership, what
name you put should be considered carefully, just in case you ever desire to
sell the company and its' assets. I *would* put the name of the owner if it
is a home-based sole proprietorship type business, as you can upgrade your
equipment and software, and still move the old box into the ownership of the
home for use by family, but you still cannot install a second copy using the
same license on the new hardware, if you keep the existing box installed
with that software.
However, the debate is still out on whether it is legal for a company to
sell existing stock of software, even if it is unopened and unused. Parties
on both sides of this issue wage very good arguments. It basically comes
down to this: did the company pay full over-the-counter price for the
software and then not open it, or did they purchase in volume discounted
modes? It's all tied up in the shrink-wrap.
The software industry actually has more in common with the video/movie
industry. It is illegal for you to rent a movie and then show it at a large
party or gathering, or to keep passing it from house to house without those
houses paying royalties to see it. The mentality is "just compensation".
When the movie has been out long enough, the industry does not chase their
rights as much, as they have made a significant profit from the idea and
plot and act. Some movies tank, but not that many. That is why the video
release is usually held while it plays in the higher-paying movies houses.
But the common theme is this: it is illegal to make a copy of it at all, as
that copy is by majority used for the sole purpose of piracy.
For me personally, it comes down to this: If it is something I will use,
then I should pay for it. I should not expect to get someone elses work for
free. I don't believe in getting something for nothing. There has to be
balance in the transaction. But I also believe in willing proxy, where
someone can make that balance for another, provided they purposefully and
knowingly did it or allowed it; such as forgiving a debt, or buying
something for someone else, or taking care of someone who is incapable of
some real need either temporarily or permanently.
~ Duane Phillips.
Open source does not equal "free-ware"; it just means that you get the
source code with whatever pricing and distribution terms the creator or
That is just the *beginning* of the open source confusion. There are 4 or
so semi-standards of open source licensing models that are main-stream, but
not every open source vendor outfit offers in accordance to those licensing
I would not call that easier, productive, or logical...; it's just another
paradigm... on a far more inconsistently defined model.
Even in the models that more closely resemble "freeware", the concept only
works well when those who use the software contribute to the effort.
Bottom line: one still should read the license agreement.
2nd bottom line: one should still not expect to get something for nothing.
If one expects others to provide the solution and do not compensate that
community in some equitable fashion, whether by time, code, feedback, and/or
etcetera, then that entity is a drain on that community. Laziness,
"something for nothing", theft of code or concept, or even purchasing the
rights to the originating company (see Oracle buys InnoDB), has killed more
than few "open source" projects.
So we are still set with the same needs and issues whether or not you have
proprietary or opensource.
~ Duane Phillips.
If all software was Open Source, things like Rocksim wouldn't get
developed. I have no doubt that Apogee viewed it as a product they
could develop, sell the license, and make money.
By ignoring licensing, you're not only screwing the "distributor", but
also the person/company responsible for the development of that
software. It's theft.
"Open source" is nice, but in reality, most software isn't "open" and
I've developed various apps for Linux, and you can BUY the license from
me to use them! Even though Linux is "open", that doesn't mean that all
that runs on that system is also "free".
I really wish that folks would actually read the EULA when they install
They think that software is "freeware" or "shareware", or is theirs to
They are the same folks that would get quite P.O.ed if someone gave away
their own work for free!
Duane Phillips wrote:
Woody, et all,
I am not interested in being a thief. I realize the
software/music/video industry has an expensive problem with
unauthorized duplication and distribution (theft).
Let's go back to the book analogy. I agree that photocopying and
giving away is theft because it results in 2 (or more) copies of a book
being in use when only one has been paid for. However, suppose I buy
and read a book that then goes out of print. Later I buy a revised and
updated edition of that same book and give the old copy to a friend
(I've done this). Since I paid for both copies no one is being
defrauded or stolen from.
I checked the RockSim V4 disks and they're copyrighted, so no copying
and re-distribution is allowed. But I couldn't find a EULA, either on
the disks or in their files. However, the "RockSim - Getting Started"
page that came with the program says
"Congratulations! You are the owner of the most powerful rocketry
software on the marker today." This is open to interpretation but I
take it to imply that I actually own the software and not just a
license to use it.
After using this software for some time I decided to upgrade and paid
the price to get V7. Thus I now have two versions of RockSim, both of
which I paid for. I no longer use V4 and have no other copies of it on
disk or on any of my computers. If I give V4 to a friend the
author/distributor is not defrauded or a victim of theft because I
already paid him/her for both versions. V4 is now unavailable ("out of
print") from the supplier, and I would guess it's unlikely the supplier
would upgrade it anymore. It just seems reasonable to me that I could
give V4 to someone without defrauding anyone. Besides, it seems likely
that Laura will buy the current version some time in the future. After
all, V4 is functional but is limited in what it does compared to V8.
According to Kurt earlier in this thread, Apogee modified their
software agreement and I believe this is probably due to the advance of
technology. In 1998 my "new" computer came with a CD-Rom but does
anyone ever buy a computer without a CD-RW drive these days? They have
made illegal copying of anything electronic soo much easier and
software companies are trying to adjust to the new circumstances, but
I think they will fail. Why? I may be cynical but it seems to me that
ethics have been replaced by the utilitarian desire to make life easier
for me, no matter what it costs someone else. I hope I'm wrong but I
haven't seen much evidence to the contrary lately, so I guess we're
going to have to live with increasingly restrictive EULA's in the
future. And unfortunately some people will ignore those too.
Larry Lobdell Jr.
Tim VanMilligan did change the licensing scheme to Rocksim. They
give you a licensing file that tags your installation. They don't mind
if you use it on more than one machine for your own use. Or if you gork
your machine and need to re-install.
I have copies on a server and a laptop I use in the field. I'm the
only one that uses it and I have not nor will I ever give it to anyone
else to use on their own machine.
Absolutely, although there is not much call for NT 4.0 these days. It
still does not make it right.
Life is too short to read that stuff. Still, I remember catching
father installing some cheap simple software. He was on the phone
with their tech support going through the installation step by
agonizing step, and even read the license agreement back to the
Depends on "XYZ", but the odds are the author has already been fully
compensated and only the publisher and distributors get cheated.
It's not like stealing candy bars at all. It is more like
photocopying a journal article, and paying for the paper copies, but
not sending the journal its fee.
Not at all. This is not something merely "read"... it is accomplishing work
on the persons' behalf... a license to use a tool... something more akin to
a rental fee of the tractor that pulls your trailer and gets one from point
a to b.
To fit your analogy, one would turn and reprint the written work or article,
and claim the article as their "owned" work, without giving the originator
due credit... plagiarism.
~ Duane Phillips.
I use RockSim 7.0 and I have an earlier version that you can have free
if you want. It's v. 4.0 and is on two 3-1/2" diskettes. I would
think it still works.
Please let me know if you're interested. I'm in AZ.
Larry Lobdell Jr.
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.