Evan on Engineering Software

I click Accept without reading the license. I don't care what the terms say, since vendors will never enforce them against me.

For example, Autodesk prohibits use of its software outside of the country it was purchased in. Will the notebook computers of Canadians and other foreigners be checked at Autodesk U for geographically-illegal software? No.

All that matter is that the number of software licenses roughly matches the number of computers.

I never read them. The only thing that concerns me is the ability to re-sell the software should I decide to. Now even though you cannot with most if not all vendors this has been over and over again shown to fail in the court system and people can re-sell no matter what they tell you. Now that being said I think the only thing that may hinder your rights is the cost of a good lawyer. When the CAD companies realize that the end of the gravy train is coming and the users will publicly humiliate and degrade them online for unfair practices with the lawyer speak EULA's they hide behind, hurting their bottom line, they will come to the table with the users and WE will establish what the rules are not THEY will establish the rules. The first vendor to do this will likely be the winner as it is the right thing to do. My thoughts...

"At first, It occurred to me to "out" the vendor, and tell everyone why the license agreement is so egregious."

Only a small handful of CADCAM users actually care.

When you do something, like what you thought about doing, you're really only doing it for a few. If you care about the few rather than how you are viewed by software companies or other bloggers you should do it.

Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA
www.jonbanquer.wordpress.com

I agree with Jon on this Evan; if the products licence agreement has real issues it should be 'outed'. I loaded Think3's software after reading its licence agreement with licence requirements I did not like to find out if they were true or not as well as to trial the software, for of some customers. When I saw what they were doing I contacted them and let them know why they had gone wrong, un-installed their products and told the customers not to touch it! That what consultants do and should do - as should industry commentators.

In Autodesk's case they made unjust changes, to their licences, long after many of us were heavily committed to their products. We can't walk away and Autodesk WILL NOT negotiate. So I not only read their documents, I understand them but in my case I have taken action on several fronts to address their unconscionable behaviour and the result of that can be read in http://miletter.blogspot.com.

As for ignoring licence agreements; this is stupidity and very poor business practice. All who don't like like what they read should speak out very loudly; if more supported my stance it would be better for all.

Because of what I have done, I probably stand as the only person - in the world - that sells, uses, supports and trains others in the use of Autodesk software and, do so without having any obligation to Autodesk or their unconscionable, unjust an unenforceable licence agreements; with the exception of copyright, which of course does not require a licence agreement to support its enforceabilty.

In RalphG's blog posting 'Do we report bad news' he touches on the subject of whether or not to say something bad about products. My response is that it is industry participants and commentator responsibility to do so!