On 17 May 2006, at 13:38, Evan wrote:
On Wednesday, May 17, 2006, at 07:33AM, Patrick Woolsey
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Perhaps because it _is_ a single user license. :-)
As I've already described, the difference is that unlike most such
licenses, ours explicitly allows use of the software by the
licensed user
on two machines rather than only one.
No matter how many times you try to redefine what a user means, I
simply will not accept this lawyerly, software-licensy definition,
Evan
Because you are obviously past the point of reasoning with.
and I don't think that the "well, other software companies obscure
the facts in the same way as well" excuse flies, either.
For $deities sake calm down please.
I am a user. I am a single person. If I bought a single-user
license, that should allow me--a single person, a single "user" if
you will--to use the program whenever and however I want, as long
as I'm not letting anyone else use it.
I happen to agree. The difficulty is coming up with a system that
polices that while preventing one copy/per company pirating.
I work for myself and take great pride in the fact that their is no
illegal software on my machine, and that I have shelves full of
boxes, disks and licences that are likely worth 3-4x my hardware.
I have, in the past, however, worked for big agencies--as one member
of a dozen people in a studio--where they had one copy of each
program that was shared around the network and you had to yell across
the room to get someone to close it down so you could use it.
I personally have bought Adobe After Effects for use with one job,
and have not opened it since, some six months ago.
Software is the tool of my trade, and a licence is an investment I am
willing and need to pay to call myself a professional.
As a percentage of an hourly rate on even a single medium-sized job,
BBedit has paid for itself many, many times over.
If you can take a step back from your private 'pity-me-party' you'd
see that the issue of re-naming (and re-writing) their licence to be
a two (or any other number) machine licence rather than a single user
would just open the door for users to legitimately 'pirate' the
software across multiple machines and users. Specifically, if they
offered a two machine licence, what's to stop a company with 8 coders
quiet legally buying 4 licences and running it one licence/two users.
*That's* why Patrick is being clear that the licence is a single-user
licence (and a generous one at that), and not a per-machine licence.
Simply changing the text on the website to 'two-machine' would open a
lot of doors to real pirates.
What *you* are wanting is a single-user-unlimited-machine licence; a
very different beast.
What you're describing is different. It's a single-user-as-long-as-
that-user-isn't-using-more-than-two-machines license.
Exactly.
And if that doesn't suit you requirements, you have the option to buy
another licence.
Truth be told--and I can't speak for Bare Bones here--but if, instead
of going off on one, you had approached them privately, allowed them
to check your ownership details and purchase history, and explained
your difficulty, I would imagine they'd have done their very best to
help you out. Maybe even a reduced price second licence?
But instead you decided to label everyone on this list fan boys, and
Bare Bones as being sleazy, because their unobtrusive-to-the-vast-
majority-of-users-licencing mechanism caught you out.
For what it's worth, I have never been 'bitten' by this dialog, as I
can't see any occasion when I'd have the program running
simultaneously on more than two machines; hell, it's unusual for me
to have it running on more than one. It's not like it takes ages to
boot.
What I find so frustrating about this whole exchange is that Bare
Bones is (1) trying to obscure what single user means,
No, they are being *very* specific about what it means: single user,
up to 2 machines. More generous that pretty much any other scheme
I've dealt with.
and (2) not admitting anywhere on their site that they have a nag
box that completely disables the product on ALL machines even if a
single user is using more than the single-user-as-long-as-that-user-
isn't-using-more-than-two-machines license allows.
And neither does Quark or Adobe--who use similar schemes--as far as I
can tell; if they do, it's certainly not bought to attention pre-
sale. And their software is a *lot* more expensive that Bare Bones.
Look, just admit what you're doing!
And why don't you admit that you are over-reacting, that your
situation is most unusual, and that--for whatever--reason, no amount
of explanation from anyone on this list or from Bare Bones
themselves, is going to placate you and stop you feeling victimised
and hard-done-by.
If it's causing you this much grief and heartache, why not learn how
to use Command-Q before you leave one machine and go and sit at the
next?
Is it absolutely required that you need BBedit running on all
machines at all times?
Would TextWrangler not be a good substitute for most of these
requirements?
--
Andy Warwick, Creed New Media Ltd.
Contact me: http://www.creed.co.uk/contact.htm
Thank me: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/registry/2XK5NOX5Z5TQK/
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Have a feature request? Not sure the software's working correctly?
If so, please send mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not to the list.
List FAQ: <http://www.barebones.com/support/lists/bbedit_talk.shtml>
List archives: <http://www.listsearch.com/BBEditTalk.lasso>
To unsubscribe, send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
