Installing more copies than licences 1

[garwain]

My company has several different compilers, like borland delphi, MS visual studio, etc, and we have 1 or 2 copies / licences depending on whether one or both programmers use the software.

My question is where does the situation cross the ethical line?

If with delphi, I am the only programmer who uses it, is it wrong to install it on both my work machine and my home machine? I can only use on machine at a time and on both machines it is only used for work related purposes.

What if we only have 1 licence for visual studio and 2 employees that like to use interdev when working on web pages? The 2 that work on web pages never work on them at the same time, so the software is only being used by 1 person at a time. Is it still wrong to install it on 2 machines?

What if there are 2 shifts of workers in an office, and everyone has their own desk and computer. Is it wrong that the employee that works from say 8-4 uses the same copy of MS Office as the person across the hall who is in from 4 - 12? They are not both using the software at the same time. This one could even be legal if they were to uninstall and resinstall every time they left/returned to their desk...

I really don't care whether or not it's legially right or wrong (in all cases I know it is wrong according to the contract that came with the software) What I want to know is whether or not it's right for the vendor to specify that software can only be installed on one machine at a time. I would prefer to see licences that do not restrict the number of machines but only restrict the number of users that can use the software at one time.

 

[MasterRacker]

The vendor owns the product and can license it any way they want. That's the nature of capitalism. It "right" for them to do whatever pleases them. If the customers don't like it, they won't buy it. It's ethically and legally wrong to use the software in any way prohibited by the EULA shipped with it. Period, no exceptions.

That being said, I would agree (and I think just about everyone would) that simultaneous use licenses are the best way to go from an end user standpoint. In an ideal world everything would license that way.
Jeff
I haven't lost my mind - I know it's backed up on tape somewhere ....

 

[gunthnp]

no there a few court case right now that look like if the eula infringes on ones rights the the eula is no good and you don't have to follow it so this is a good topic

the eula is the not the end all thank goodness

can you ethically break the law in this case
is what you are asking I would not think so on this issuse

because a law is stupid does not make it in unethical like the speed limt breaking it is still wrong even though most people do I would think the same goes here gunthnp
Have you ever woken up and realized you where not alive.

 

[monkeylizard]

garwain, that's a topic that to my knowledge has not been decided in court.

Buy your licensing when you can in a 'concurent' rather than 'per seat' license. That way, if you have 100 employees but only 25 will be using MS Office at any given time, then you only have to buy 25 'concurrent' licenses instead of 100 'per seat' licenses.

Unfortunately, this usually isn't an option except for software that's written for Network purposes (like Client licenses to connect to a server or database).

I wish like Masteracker that more software was sold in 'concurent' fashion

Monkeylizard
-Isaiah 35-