TheSwamp
CAD Forums => CAD General => Topic started by: iliekater on December 17, 2006, 09:26:04 AM
-
In the last years I face a great problem without managing to solve it . You see , many of my drawings , when printed , have around them a printed message saying "Produced by an eductional program" . This problem occurs becouse I have copied inside them some blocks which I made years ago in an older version of AutoCAD . I can't avoid inserting those blocks becouse they are too many and took me too long to make them . The version I am using now is not educational , so can I get rid of that message ?
At least I wish I could get rid of that message on my initial drawing which contains all objects that I made as blocks , so that I can remake them ...
-
The last I knew, the only way to get rid of this was to enlist your reseller and present your case to Autodesk which will get you a one-time fix. I think only the reseller can run the fix for you.
-
They claim to know anything ...
-
In the last years I face a great problem without managing to solve it . You see , many of my drawings , when printed , have around them a printed message saying "Produced by an eductional program" . This problem occurs becouse I have copied inside them some blocks which I made years ago in an older version of AutoCAD . I can't avoid inserting those blocks becouse they are too many and took me too long to make them . The version I am using now is not educational , so can I get rid of that message ?
At least I wish I could get rid of that message on my initial drawing which contains all objects that I made as blocks , so that I can remake them ...
Save the drawing as R12.dxf. Open the R12.dxf and save it as whatever.dwg. The message should disappear.
-
Another option I've read somewhere is that opening using 'recover' and saving again in some versions will fix it. Another option is to do the same using an Intellicad product (or OpenDWG perhaps) that seems to fix it.
hth
-
Oh , it seems I once again wrote something wrong . In my previouw post I meant "They say they DON'T know anything" .
Anyway ,I will try this next morning on the berou . However , I wonder if AutoCAD 2004 , which we use , will giv me the opportunity to save on R12 format ... I also thought of saving on other format or even opening the dwg file with other pogram , but I thought you would lough if I'd say that !
-
just remember to use 'recover' to open them ;)
-
You see , many of my drawings , when printed , have around them a printed message saying "Produced by an eductional program" . The version I am using now is not educational , so can I get rid of that message ?
Not while remaining compliant with your EULA.
-
Can you attach one of the files?
I'd be willing to see how Microstation handles it. :-)
-
Can you attach one of the files?
I'd be willing to see how Microstation handles it. :-)
... or ProgeCAD maybe?
-
If you wopuld read your EULA, you would find that using elements created with an educational version of the product in a commercial file is a violation of that agreement. Continuing to use those blocks can get your license revoked.. They must be re-built using a commercial version of the product.
-
It seems that the problem was solved simply by saving the file on an R12 dxf format and reopening and saving it as dwg !
-
It seems that the problem was solved simply by saving the file on an R12 dxf format and reopening and saving it as dwg !
That still doesn't exempt a user from the EULA.
-
If you wopuld read your EULA, you would find that using elements created with an educational version of the product in a commercial file is a violation of that agreement. Continuing to use those blocks can get your license revoked.. They must be re-built using a commercial version of the product.
What would be the purpose of this I wonder? Are there entities that come with the educational package that don't come with the full version? I just can't see why that would be an issue on Autodesk's part.
-
It does make you wonder... is a line a line regardless of which version?
And how far do you have to go to re-create these? I mean is copy/pasting sufficient or would you make them re-draw each line. I guess the question is:
who really owns these files? Autodesk?
-
What would be the purpose of this I wonder? Are there entities that come with the educational package that don't come with the full version? I just can't see why that would be an issue on Autodesk's part.
The issue is that the Educational version is either very low in cost or even at times free depending on the situation. As a result, some companies or consultants will attempt to purchase them instead of actually buying a version of the software. This may sound like Autodesk is being greedy, but in reality Autodesk states upfront that you are getting this software at the cheap price because you are not going to use it for financial gain... just to learn the product and to produce drawings for school, etc. They put this educational "stamp" in the drawing to keep people from using it for financial gain when they agreed to not use the program in that way. Yes, the way mentioned in this thread does work since it pre-dates the educational stamp... but as stated in the EULA, doing it this way can create legal issues since technically your firm shouldn't be profiting from work created in such a version even if it was not created specifically by your firm.
-
who really owns these files? Autodesk?
You own the content and the file, but you also agree to use this data in a non-profit way and agree to keep the stamp on the file if any of the data was created in an educational version.
-
I have an interesting question.
If you take a drawing with a single line created in an educational version, then insert that drawing into a new drawing, the new drawing becomes infected. What happens when you delete and purge the offending block from the drawing? Is the content of the original non-educational version now tainted with the educational version stamp?
Incidently, one fact that I do know is that there is no seperate binaries for Educational version or full version. The version you get is based upon the serial number and authorization code used. I remember reading something a while back that reported the different versions were locked or unlocked based on that information. Of course they may have changed that for the newer versions.
-
.....This may sound like Autodesk is being greedy, but in reality Autodesk states upfront that you are getting this software at the cheap price because you are not going to use it for financial gain... just to learn the product and to produce drawings for school, etc.
I don't think this sounds like they are being greedy. That part makes sense. But I would think that when someone purchased a full price seat it would automagically be able to take that stamp off since you now have paid for the full price version.
... but as stated in the EULA, doing it this way can create legal issues since technically your firm shouldn't be profiting from work created in such a version even if it was not created specifically by your firm.
But this is just silly. The firm is profiting from the knowledge gained from using that version also.
-
What happens when you delete and purge the offending block from the drawing? Is the content of the original non-educational version now tainted with the educational version stamp?
Yes.
-
Then one could argue that the software is indeed flawed.
Lets look at it this way ... I work hours upon hours on a drawing, (we have an educational version in the office for training purposes) A noob in training inadvertently opens and saves a block from our block library. (This block is xref'd into thousands of drawings). So, we unknowingly already have a reference to an "educational version" block in all of our drawings. Since all of our plots are done automagically, we wouldn't know they are infected until we plot them. Mind you, we did nothing more than use the licenses consistent with the EULA, (as consistent as you can anyway, forgoing the "cannot profit", as by learning the software you incur a defacto profit), but now we have a serious problem. All of our drawings are now corrupted. Sure, we could attempt to isolate the block(s) affected and remove them from the server, but that will be a monumental task.
I have a serious problem with this scenario as it could conceivably happen. Following the EULA to the letter, yet still falling victim to the dreaded plot stamp.
-
Then one could argue that the software is indeed flawed.
The concept is to keep you from buying one legal version and 29 student versions for the rest of your staff. Then at the end of the project simply importing it into your legal version and your Student stamp is removed.
This forces you to be a stricter manager in terms of licenses and managing your standards, but it keeps your firm legal. Its not a flaw, its designed to keep your firm's software/licensing more within the letter of your contractual agreement with Autodesk. (I understand your way of viewing it, this is just the reason they've implemented it... and typically it hasn't been a huge issue in most offices over the past decade.)
-
And how far do you have to go to re-create these?
To comply with EULA, from scratch.
who really owns these files? Autodesk?
It not a question of ownership of the file, but the version from which the file was created.
-
But I would think that when someone purchased a full price seat it would automagically be able to take that stamp off since you now have paid for the full price version.
Then one could contract hundreds of drawings on educational versions and pay for a single seat to upgrade them all into compliance.
... but as stated in the EULA, doing it this way can create legal issues since technically your firm shouldn't be profiting from work created in such a version even if it was not created specifically by your firm.
But this is just silly. The firm is profiting from the knowledge gained from using that version also.
Autodesk is offering educational versions of the product at extemely low (or no) cost with the stipulation that those using that product will not compete commercially with guys, like you, that have paid for the full use of the product. The other option afforded Autodesk in protecting your investment, is charge full price for educational versions.
A nearby university used educational versions of the product and student users to under-bid a small local engineering firm for a retail outlet center design. By the time the state put a stop to the effort, (for violations of several dozens state statutes) the small engineering firm had laid-off 2 designers. Fortunately for those guys, the heavy industry in the area is booming and they went right to work elsewhere. Unfortunately that left the small firm scrambling for qualified help to accomplish the task. There's plenty of competition from outsourcing to third world countries, we don't need to compete with educational versions as well.
-
Ditto CADaver's comments.
Then one could argue that the software is indeed flawed.
Lets look at it this way ... I work hours upon hours on a drawing, (we have an educational version in the office for training purposes) A noob in training inadvertently opens and saves a block from our block library.
That is a management problem. EDU versions have no business in a commercial office environment. Regardless, Autodesk gives you one chance to make a mistake.
-
FYI .. I do not have an edu version in my office. I used the scenario merely to spark discussion on the subject. The simple resolution should be that Autodesk should never ever let an educational version be purchased by a commercial establishment period. If they wished to maintain some semblance of uniformity in the marketplace, a better solution would be to limit the importation of these drawings into full versions. I know for a fact that if AutoCAD can notify a user that the drawing is from an educational version, then the software should be able to easily prevent one from importing such into a drawing created by a fully licensed version. Clearly that is not the case and to a degree they (Autodesk) are exacurbating the problem by allowing it to happen. Of course for those who will use it in a commercial business, they don't care anyway. It is only those of us who actually care about the licensing issues and attempt to remain within the EULA.
-
I had never seen or would like to have in here any of those virus alike protections via the educational product message, what it is interesting, is that appears that they have a better success applying that virus and not protecting the real software better.... but it may be marketing politics.... :o)
-
Keith, while I have never had one of these infected drawing to test with, it's my understanding that, starting with version either 2006 or 2007, Autocad now at least warns the user they are about to use a drawing from the educational product. I think it even advises what the consequences will be if they continue (i.e. the watermark). This is far better than what it was before where there was no warning whatsoever.
-
FYI .. I do not have an edu version in my office. I used the scenario merely to spark discussion on the subject. The simple resolution should be that Autodesk should never ever let an educational version be purchased by a commercial establishment period.
They don't "let" a commercial establishment purchase the program, though they don't forbid it either. They "allow" students to buy fully functional programs at a much reduced cost.
If they wished to maintain some semblance of uniformity in the marketplace, a better solution would be to limit the importation of these drawings into full versions.
That would have been nice, but they chose to inform users instead. Which is a step up from earlier methods where you didn't know there was a problem until you plotted the file.
I know for a fact that if AutoCAD can notify a user that the drawing is from an educational version, then the software should be able to easily prevent one from importing such into a drawing created by a fully licensed version. Clearly that is not the case and to a degree they (Autodesk) are exacurbating the problem by allowing it to happen.
Probably, however, you are responsible for protecting your files. Knowing this is an issue (and has been for some time) one should take all the necessary steps to protect one's files.
Of course for those who will use it in a commercial business, they don't care anyway.
Some do, some don't. Sometimes it's just a case of a guy building a couple of blocks at home on his edu version then bringing them to the office. Nothing malisious, just too unprofessional to read his EULA.
It is only those of us who actually care about the licensing issues and attempt to remain within the EULA.
And Autodesk is using us to police this problem. Right, wrong or indifferent, that's the current status.
-
Oh boy ! When I started this topic I din't image the magnitute it would take . Anyway , here are some things I'd like to share with you :
1) If you enter any object of an "infected" file into a good one (no matter how : copy-paste , as block or a Xref) you get a dialog box conform which you have to confirm its insertion , while it warns you that if you do that , the file from now on will have the "educational bla bla bla" stamp . Thus , one cannot insert anything my mistake .
2) I am not going to use those blocks for financiar purposes . I am going to give them for free .
-
the file from now on will have the "educational bla bla bla" stamp .
Yup, that's what it does.
2) I am not going to use those blocks for financiar purposes . I am going to give them for free .
Whoever you give 'em to, can't use 'em either.
-
Just to ask a side question here;
How many files are we talking about?
Are they in one directory or many directories?
Perhaps rather than trying to interpret/validate/etc... the EULA, maybe it would be a better solution just to write/help write a program that would go through these drawings replacing the "educational cells blocks" with valid blocks.
-
Just to ask a side question here;
How many files are we talking about?
Are they in one directory or many directories?
Perhaps rather than trying to interpret/validate/etc... the EULA, maybe it would be a better solution just to write/help write a program that would go through these drawings replacing the "educational cells blocks" with valid blocks.
Ah .. I see the Microcraption in you is coming out .. ;) ... Well I was using my analogy in the hypothetical, but remember once you put that EDU block (or xref) into a drawing, the drawing is tainted for life. So theoretically, if you have an xref that is used in all of your thousands of drawings, and you don't realize it is there until you have opened and saved hundreds (if not all) of the drawings, you are completely screwed. Now I am not sure how AutoCAD handles the xref if it is updated by an EDU version while being actively attached to another drawing, but I would suspect (with nothing but my own conjecture mind you), that the user would never be notified of the impending EDU crisis until it is too late.
-
I seem to be constantly speaking in two platforms anymore. I call it autostation... :-)
-
I seem to be constantly speaking in two platforms anymore. I call it autostation... :-)
Or perhaps more accurately, "MicroCAD"
If I remember correctly Keith, it only takes one element of a drawing containing the education watermark to attach the new drawing. If this is indeed an accidental introduction we are back to my first response to this question having to convince Autodesk to let your reseller purge your file. If Autodesk determines you were deliberately trying to use the file (as seems to be the case with the original question) they will offer no relief. The last I knew, this was a one time offer - mess up again and it is redraw time.
-
Could someone post the part of the EULA that mentions the EDU plot stamp? Or is that against the EULA too? Sorry I don't have one with me or I would look. It just seems to me it would make more sense to this thread if everyone knew exactly what you guys are talking about plus add a reference point.
-
Could someone post the part of the EULA that mentions the EDU plot stamp?
Help > About > Product Information > License Agreement (at least in 2002)
Reading the EULA seems to indicate posting the License Files is a violation of the agreement. Check under definition of User Documentation, which is prohibited from copying.
Edit - It does warn that combining or linking data from education versions may 'affect a limitation' on the other data.
Dan
-
Well, the EULA states that the documentation may not be copied, I am not sure if that extends to the license file or not, but there is a specific portion of the license agreement which states that
1. It may only be used for the time period stated ON THE PACKAGE
2. It may ONLY be used by students working toward a degree or certificate with AT LEAST 3 hours per semester.
3. It is for study and instructional purposes ONLY and it cannot be used for commercial, for profit, or professional use.
4. It MAY NOT be used in a lab environment in an educational institution
5. You CANNOT purchase a full version as an upgrade to a student version, you MUST purchase a completely new license.
-
Reading the EULA seems to indicate posting the License Files is a violation of the agreement. Check under definition of User Documentation, which is prohibited from copying.
Really! For some reason that doesn't surprise me.
-
All of the legal verbage aside, the only loop hole I see there is to create a routine using VBA in a fully licensed version of ACAD to read the EV DWG file and re-build the block in a new DWG file. While this may seem to be a cheat, it's actually only an automation of drafting duplication process. It'd take some time to write but would keep everyone compliant who is using the Educational version and then switching to the Full version upon graduation. After all, isn't automation of rudundant tasks a big part of why they made ALISP, VBA & ARX readily available?
-
Could someone post the part of the EULA that mentions the EDU plot stamp? Or is that against the EULA too? Sorry I don't have one with me or I would look. It just seems to me it would make more sense to this thread if everyone knew exactly what you guys are talking about plus add a reference point.
from 2007 license.rtf:
Autodesk
SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT
Worldwide
READ CAREFULLY: AUTODESK, INC. (“AUTODESK”) LICENSES THIS SOFTWARE TO YOU ONLY UPON THE CONDITION THAT YOU ACCEPT
ALL OF THE TERMS CONTAINED IN THIS SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT (“AGREEMENT”). . .
2.2.3 Educational Institutional Version. If Autodesk identifies the Software as an “Educational Institutional Version” in the applicable User
Documentation, You may Install and Access a single copy of the Software on up to the Permitted Number of Computers, only for educational purposes
(as further specified in the applicable User Documentation) and for no other purpose. Without limiting the foregoing Educational Institutional Versions
of the Software may not be used for commercial, professional, or for-profit purposes. Additionally, functional limitations apply, as set forth in Section 6.
2.2.4 Student Version. If Autodesk identifies the Software as a “Student Version” in the applicable User Documentation, You may Install
and Access a single copy of the Software on up to the Permitted Number of Computers, only for personal learning purposes, and no other purpose.
Unless otherwise provided by Autodesk in the User Documentation, Student Versions of the Software may be used for a period of one (1) year from the
date of Installation. Without limiting the foregoing, Student Versions of the Software may not be used for commercial, professional or other for-profit
purposes and may only be used by persons who qualify as a permitted user of Student Versions (as further specified in the applicable User
Documentation for the jurisdiction in which the Software is acquired). Additionally, functional limitations apply, as set forth in Section 6. . .
3. PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED ACTIONS . . .
3.2 Prohibited Actions. Autodesk does not permit any of the following actions and You acknowledge that such actions shall be
prohibited: . . .
3.2.5 Notices. You may not remove, alter, or obscure any proprietary notices, labels, or marks from the Software or User
Documentation. . .
6. WARNINGS . . .
6.3 Educational Institutional and Student Versions. WORK PRODUCT AND OTHER DATA CREATED WITH EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONAL
VERSIONS AND STUDENT VERSIONS OF THE SOFTWARE CONTAINS CERTAIN NOTICES AND LIMITATIONS THAT MAKE THE DATA
UNUSABLE OUTSIDE THE EDUCATIONAL USE AREA. IF YOU COMBINE OR LINK DATA CREATED WITH EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONAL
VERSIONS OR STUDENT VERSIONS OF THE SOFTWARE WITH DATA OTHERWISE CREATED, THEN SUCH OTHER DATA MAY ALSO BE
AFFECTED BY THESE LIMITATIONS. . .
-
The scheme by which Autodesk flags a drawing as educational is so amateurish it can be cracked in under 20 minutes, a couple mintues if you know what to look for. I did it for the technical challenge, nothing more (the discussion that originally appeared on Autodesk's news server in which I had noted my finding has been nuked, tho I didn't share the actual details -- merely that it was laughable how easy it was to crack).
Having said that should one disclose the details of the scheme?
ABSOLUTELY NOT IMO.
Should one distribute drawings made or modified by an educational version, even if for non commercial purposes?
ABSOLUTELY NOT; NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES IMO2.
A tool for scanning drawings for the 'educational' state is available by the very competent Owen Wengerd, at manusoft.com (EDU-Scan (http://www.manusoft.com/cgi-bin/NoFrames.pl?referer=http://www.manusoft.com/Software/EDU-Scan/Index.stm&header=Header.stm&toc=TOC.stm&main=Main.stm)). Applicable for AutoCAD 2000/2002.
<snip>Features
The EDU-Scan interface is very simple. A small icon in the AutoCAD status bar with the letters "EP" indicates the status of the current drawing. When the current drawing is infected with the educational product plot stamp, the letters EP appear in red; otherwise the letters are greyed out. Right clicking on the button opens a context menu with options for an 'About' dialog.
There is no graphical user interface for configurable settings in EDU-Scan, however there are several AutoCAD profile settings that may be used to change the default EDU-Scan behavior. Administrators may use these configuration settings to enforce use of EDU-Scan throughout an organization, or to modify it's default behavior.
For programmers, EDU-Scan defines an AutoLISP function named (IsEMR). This function returns T if the current drawing contains the educational product plot stamp, or nil otherwise. </snip>
No affiliation, though I did briefly discuss Autodesk's scheme with Owen once upon a lifetime ago.
We now return you to regularly scheduled discussions.
PEACE.
:)
-
All of the legal verbage aside, the only loop hole I see there is to create a routine using VBA in a fully licensed version of ACAD to read the EV DWG file and re-build the block in a new DWG file. While this may seem to be a cheat, it's actually only an automation of drafting duplication process. It'd take some time to write but would keep everyone compliant who is using the Educational version and then switching to the Full version upon graduation. After all, isn't automation of rudundant tasks a big part of why they made ALISP, VBA & ARX readily available?
Maybe compliant legally but not in spirit. But hey who cares, there just a big money grubbing monolith anyway?
-
Whoever you give 'em to, can't use 'em either.
Well not really ! Everyone will be able to use them becouse , nowmore , they are stampfree !
-
Whoever you give 'em to, can't use 'em either.
Well not really ! Everyone will be able to use them becouse , nowmore , they are stampfree !
If you have recreated the blocks with a commercial version of the software, you are correct. If you have somehow circumvented the stamp and the blocks were created with an educational version of the software, the blocks remain in violation to the EULA and can not be used in commercial endeavors
-
Could someone post the part of the EULA
Here is the whole thing.
http://www.cae_refcentar.fsb.hr/download/eula/AutoDesk_EULA.pdf
-
Maybe compliant legally but not in spirit. But hey who cares, there just a big money grubbing monolith anyway?
Why isn't it compliant in spirit? The whole spirit of automation is to remove the redundant tasks. You'd just be setting the computer up to do the duplication drawings for you. The monolith stills gets it's cut because your using a full version to re-create the blocks.