Topic: LT Add-on, 3rd Party software

[M-dub]

You'd think a software company that big would be able to have an EULA that the everyday user can understand.

Like, an expandable list where you've got main headlines that you can quickly get the gist of, but expand to view more details.  Much like a help file.

[Josh Nieman]

Let's see the Datacad EULA

[Greg B]

Let's see the Datacad EULA

Why?

[Josh Nieman]

Let's see the Datacad EULA

Why?

I don't think Autocad's is hardly any worse than any other software company.

[M-dub]

Let's see the Datacad EULA

Why?

I don't think Autocad's is hardly any worse than any other software company.

Agreed.  It's the nature of the beast.

[Greg B]

Let's see the Datacad EULA

Why?

I don't think Autocad's is hardly any worse than any other software company.

I didn't say any company was better then AutoCAD.  I certainly didn't mention DataCAD.  I believe all companies should do it.  Just because they ALL are hard to read and understand does not make it right.

[Josh Nieman]

Let's see the Datacad EULA

Why?

I don't think Autocad's is hardly any worse than any other software company.

I didn't say any company was better then AutoCAD.  I certainly didn't mention DataCAD.  I believe all companies should do it.  Just because they ALL are hard to read and understand does not make it right.

You believe all company's should do it... but you don't believe it's right?

[Greg B]

Let's see the Datacad EULA

Why?

I don't think Autocad's is hardly any worse than any other software company.

I didn't say any company was better then AutoCAD.  I certainly didn't mention DataCAD.  I believe all companies should do it.  Just because they ALL are hard to read and understand does not make it right.

You believe all company's should do it... but you don't believe it's right?

Sorry...that response was a bit confusing.


I was stating that just because all companies don't give a clear EULA that the everyday person can understand easily doesn't make it OK.  That is an "Everybody else is doing it, so why can't I?" view.  You find that acceptable?

I believe all companies should make their EULA's easy to read and understand.

[M-dub]

I believe all companies should make their EULA's easy to read and understand.

I think it would be in their best interest to do so.  Then again, maybe not.  Maybe they make them confusing to fight fire with fire.  (Loopholes with loopholes).  I still say they're written BY lawyers FOR lawyers.

[Josh Nieman]

Ah yea, that makes more sense.. I read it too quickly.

No the "everyone else is doing it, so should I" thing is dumb... but on the other hand... there's probably a -reason- that so many companies with professionals looking into their safety have taken a similar path.  It's probably what is NEEDED to maintain their ownership, profitability, and over creator rights.

I think if you "dumb" it down to plain english, it would introduce too many loopholes... if you use generic words, it'll then be liable for interpretation, and that's the last thing you want for a legal document.  Let's not forget... this IS a legal document.

As Gazza proves oh-so-well, you can't just rely on people to do the right thing, you have to make sure it's stated in a manner that is supportable by the means necessary for enforcement, otherwise the words are hollow.

If anything, the nature of lawyers is what's to blaim.  Seems like it always comes down to that

[CADaver]

They know who's using their software, yet trying to read through an EULA is hard.  Especially considering the way the present it.  When you are trying to install their software and just want to get it installed as painlessly as possible.  Now you have to take an extra 20 minutes to read through the EULA and if you really want to understand it, it is going to take much longer.

No, I believe they know what they are doing and, yeah they are protecting their butts, but when they feel it's time they will start going after the users.

Ever buy a house??  Sign a lease?? Buy life insurance??

Twenty whole minutes!!! the depravity of it all.  Imagine requiring someone to take twenty whole minutes to protect themselves, their business, and their livelyhood while entering into a contractual agreement!! The audacity. String 'em up, I say.

It remains YOUR responsibility to read AND understand every agreement you enter with anyone.  If you don't, don't enter.

[CADaver]

So let's say Joe User goes out and buys LT, will he know LT is crippled in some way? For the sake of argument let's say he does not. Joe then find one of the LT "extenders" on the net and buys it. Is he wrong? I'm guessing yes, according to the EULA. So instead of Adesk completely removing the so called "functionality" they want to make their customers the bad guy! At least that's the way I see it.

Let's see if that works for other questionable activities:

What's "questionable" about it?

Until you read AND understand the EULA, you don't know.  But more to your question here, it was poor grammer on my part, the "other" activities were questionable.  The point remains, ignorance of the your legal standing is no defence.

[Mark]

So let's say Joe User goes out and buys LT, will he know LT is crippled in some way? For the sake of argument let's say he does not. Joe then find one of the LT "extenders" on the net and buys it. Is he wrong? I'm guessing yes, according to the EULA. So instead of Adesk completely removing the so called "functionality" they want to make their customers the bad guy! At least that's the way I see it.

Let's see if that works for other questionable activities:

What's "questionable" about it?

Until you read AND understand the EULA, you don't know.  But more to your question here, it was poor grammer on my part, the "other" activities were questionable.  The point remains, ignorance of the your legal standing is no defence.

Fair enough. But we still don't know what the "functionality" is? And why doesn't adesk simply remove the "functionality"? Perhaps because it costs more to remove. I wonder if lawyers are cheaper than Programmers these days? Seems to me that if you want to protect your product and your profits you would not have the "functionality" available in the first place.

[CADaver]

So let's say Joe User goes out and buys LT, will he know LT is crippled in some way? For the sake of argument let's say he does not. Joe then find one of the LT "extenders" on the net and buys it. Is he wrong? I'm guessing yes, according to the EULA. So instead of Adesk completely removing the so called "functionality" they want to make their customers the bad guy! At least that's the way I see it.

Let's see if that works for other questionable activities:

What's "questionable" about it?

Until you read AND understand the EULA, you don't know.  But more to your question here, it was poor grammer on my part, the "other" activities were questionable.  The point remains, ignorance of the your legal standing is no defence.

Fair enough. But we still don't know what the "functionality" is?

Most of the LT documentaion I've read includes statements along the lines of "Same as big brother version EXCEPT <whatever>".  That <whatever> would be that functionality. if you need that functionality, buy the full-featured version.

And why doesn't adesk simply remove the "functionality"? Perhaps because it costs more to remove. I wonder if lawyers are cheaper than Programmers these days? Seems to me that if you want to protect your product and your profits you would not have the "functionality" available in the first place.

It is my understanding that they have made moves in that direction for the last few releases.  Originally it was just easier to cripple than to re-program the features out of the application.  That may be part of the reason for the price creep of LT for the last few releases.

But think about what you're saying here. 
"If you don't want someone to hack your code, don't supply it. If you do and they do, its your own fault." 
Does that even sound reasonable?

[Mark]

So let's say Joe User goes out and buys LT, will he know LT is crippled in some way? For the sake of argument let's say he does not. Joe then find one of the LT "extenders" on the net and buys it. Is he wrong? I'm guessing yes, according to the EULA. So instead of Adesk completely removing the so called "functionality" they want to make their customers the bad guy! At least that's the way I see it.

Let's see if that works for other questionable activities:

What's "questionable" about it?

Until you read AND understand the EULA, you don't know.  But more to your question here, it was poor grammer on my part, the "other" activities were questionable.  The point remains, ignorance of the your legal standing is no defence.

Fair enough. But we still don't know what the "functionality" is?

Most of the LT documentaion I've read includes statements along the lines of "Same as big brother version EXCEPT <whatever>".  That <whatever> would be that functionality. if you need that functionality, buy the full-featured version.

... or to enable functionality disabled by Autodesk in connection with the Excluded Materials.

You and I both know what was "disabled" but I know there are at least a few folks that do not. So can someone show me a document from Adesk that says what is disabled? Otherwise how do I know if my add-on software is enabling "functionality".

And why doesn't adesk simply remove the "functionality"? Perhaps because it costs more to remove. I wonder if lawyers are cheaper than Programmers these days? Seems to me that if you want to protect your product and your profits you would not have the "functionality" available in the first place.

It is my understanding that they have made moves in that direction for the last few releases.  Originally it was just easier to cripple than to re-program the features out of the application.  That may be part of the reason for the price creep of LT for the last few releases.

But think about what you're saying here. 
"If you don't want someone to hack your code, don't supply it. If you do and they do, its your own fault." 
Does that even sound reasonable?

If I supply an application and I know someone can "flip a switch" and make it better than intended then yes I will remove said switch.

Have we established the fact that someone is "hacking" their code? Or simply making use of it?