Forum for XYplorer Users and Developers
https://www.xyplorer.com/xyfc/
I was misleading. The crucial point is using the program, not the computers. In simple words: everybody who uses XY needs a license.Jeff Bellune wrote:Perhaps a different or more complete wording of the license is in order?
Yes, if they all use XY.Jeff Bellune wrote:So would it be correct to say that if a family has one computer that is used by Mom, Dad, Sister and Brother, that four (4) licenses for XYplorer would be required?
hmmm, I thought differently too. My understanding was, its OK to have one license for one PC, because two people cannot use the same PC at the same time. For eg, when my brother is using my PC i obviously cannot use it at the same time so that should be OK, right? Problem is only when I buy one license and distribute it at home for several installations. Ofcourse, in office it is strictly individual license.admin wrote:Yes, if they all use XY.Jeff Bellune wrote:So would it be correct to say that if a family has one computer that is used by Mom, Dad, Sister and Brother, that four (4) licenses for XYplorer would be required?
Whilst you are in negative selling mode may I suggest you alter the license terms to include family situations as opposed to employer. The fact is this is word play and you will only put off customers if you are pedantic on this.So would it be correct to say that if a family has one computer that is used by Mom, Dad, Sister and Brother, that four (4) licenses for XYplorer would be required?
Yes, if they all use XY.
What part of this is unclear?serendipity wrote:hmmm, I thought differently too. My understanding was, its OK to have one license for one PC, because two people cannot use the same PC at the same time. For eg, when my brother is using my PC i obviously cannot use it at the same time so that should be OK, right? Problem is only when I buy one license and distribute it at home for several installations. Ofcourse, in office it is strictly individual license.admin wrote:Yes, if they all use XY.Jeff Bellune wrote:So would it be correct to say that if a family has one computer that is used by Mom, Dad, Sister and Brother, that four (4) licenses for XYplorer would be required?
Code: Select all
As an individual person, you need a license to use XYplorer. This license grants you a non-exclusive and non-transferable right to use XYplorer on any number and kind of devices. As an employer, you need a license for each employee using XYplorer. For better or worse, language always leaves room for interpretation. As a father who lets other family members use XY on his machine once in a while I would not think a second about buying extra licenses for them. Of course, one license does cover this!Gandolf wrote:I agree with you Don, there is nothing ambiguous about the wording. The license is to the person and that person may use XY wherever they wish.
However, a family situation could be regarded as different. With only one machine should the owner of that machine (and therefore the licence holder of XY) let another family member use XY on his machine? That's not the same as a family with multiple machines that each member of the family uses, which would require individual licenses, as the licence stands at the moment.
"As an employer..." is different: it treats users as replaceable fillers of workplaces, not as specific individuals. When you are fired you also lose your right to use XY. Life's hard...serendipity wrote:The latter part of statement "As an employer..." is not any different since you already stated before that "This license grants you a non-exclusive and non-transferable right...".
In my understanding you can make it simpler (unless you change something for family situation), "One license per individual which is non-transferable. You can use it on multiple devices".
My point is, Don, that as a software user I want to comply with the legal terms of the license as well as any moral implications of the license.admin wrote:For better or worse, language always leaves room for interpretation. As a father who lets other family members use XY on his machine once in a while I would not think a second about buying extra licenses for them. Of course, one license does cover this!
This is also obvious from a commercial POV: as an independent software developer I need every sale. Better one license sold and misused by a whole family clan of 120 members than nothing sold!
Aah, yes. You got me there. Yes, life is hard ... (without XY)admin wrote:"As an employer..." is different: it treats users as replaceable fillers of workplaces, not as specific individuals. When you are fired you also lose your right to use XY. Life's hard...serendipity wrote:The latter part of statement "As an employer..." is not any different since you already stated before that "This license grants you a non-exclusive and non-transferable right...".
In my understanding you can make it simpler (unless you change something for family situation), "One license per individual which is non-transferable. You can use it on multiple devices".
.You said it Don. Its a moral thing.admin wrote:A general note on paying for licenses. (I'm talking about small software enterprises here, not the big companies of course.)
Let's stay realistic. There is no software police. Nobody will shoot you if you use the license from your girl friend or father. Nobody will ever know. There is no law enforcement. Paying for licenses is always a kind of voluntary appreciation for the work of an independent software developer. It means that you give something back to somebody who spends day and night over source code. It's a question of honor.
The license definition is not so important after all. It should be clear: You need a good software, I need money. And together we want to make this a win-win-situation. It's that simple. I do not have a lawyer. We all have a natural feeling for right or wrong. If you feel one license is good enough for your whole family, okay! Who can know better than you?!