Another licensing rant

Another licensing rant

Post by Alisdair M » Sat, 06 Sep 2003 18:23:47


OK, we finally get around to upgrading our PCs, and it's time to
re-register all our borland products.

Why does borland insist on knowing name and email address of every
registered user? Why can't we simply register 6 licenses with the
company name, or as user 1/2/3/4/5/6? Now we need to notify borland
over every change of staff.

It appears the product is registered to a specific user, rather than the
company. Does this mean we need to change licenses every time we bring
in a contractor? What is our legal position as an employee leaves?

In fact, the position has been clarified further. The product is
licensed to a specific user on a specific machine. So if I change
station for a week, we need to notify borland, and presumably again when
I change back.

What happens if two of us are working at the same console (pairs
programming) do we now need two licenses?! Should we now license all
our PCs for all our employees?

In fact, we can no longer register new users until they have a valid
email address as this is a requirement of the registration process.
[Why is this a problem? We want to prepare a PC for a new starter (due
in a couple of weeks) while praparing all our other PCs. Of course, he
doesn't have an email yet, so Borland refuse to license to him.]

And still you wonder why we fear product activation...

This continual aggravation we get every time we try to install and use a
product we have paid for could very likely tip us over the edge when it
comes time for the next upgrade. Especially if product activation is
added to the mix, as seems the norm on the latest borland releases.

--
AlisdairM
Team Thai Kingdom
[Glad we weren't tyrying to register last month when we were offline for
2 weeks]
 
 
 

Another licensing rant

Post by Russell Hi » Sat, 06 Sep 2003 19:49:58


[snip]

Just like to say I agree with everything you have written regarding the
licensing. It is worth sending this to David I or someone else at
Borland to point out the trouble licensing and activation can cause.

We build machines controlled by PCs. When a machine is near built, I
tend to spend a week or 2 working on that machine. If there are
problems I'd like to setup the build environment on it.

This would mean I need another copy of Borland licensed to me so I can
temporarily work on another machine (and I certainly can't be at my desk
at the same time).

Licenses should be on a per company basis and for the number of users
you've got, not number of installations.

Thanks

Russell

 
 
 

Another licensing rant

Post by Peter Agri » Sat, 06 Sep 2003 21:05:25


I can see the problem here. You can't work on your desk at the same time,
but someone else can.


We circumvent this problem by using hardware dongles. A client can install
the software on every computer he likes, but without dongle it just doesn't
work. If he wants to work on a specific computer at office, at home or at a
site of the client just plug in the dongle and he can work without other
installations to be used at the same time.

Peter
 
 
 

Another licensing rant

Post by Alisdair M » Sat, 06 Sep 2003 21:15:48


Therefore, if we have 6 developers and 6 PCs, we should have 36 licenses
if we want them to be free to work on any PC at any time, even though no
more than 6 licenses could possibly be in use at any time?

[This is Borland UK's policy from this morning]

--
AlisdairM
Team Thai Kingdom
 
 
 

Another licensing rant

Post by Edward Die » Sat, 06 Sep 2003 21:31:17


Do you mean that Borland hasn't yet taken pictures and fingerprints of all
people and computers in your office verify that all 36 combinations are
legal ? How benign of them. Of course I assume that they have installed the
*** in your office so that they can monitor each computer throughout the
day <g>.
 
 
 

Another licensing rant

Post by Team » Sat, 06 Sep 2003 21:53:02

"Alisdair Meredith" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote in

when

This doesn't sound right at all. I thought all of the licenses were
updated over 2 years ago to reflect that the license is to a person, and
that person can use the software wherever and whenever they choose
(including installing it both at work and at home). Are you sure you're
looking at the latest license agreement?

As for the rest of your complaints, yeah, it sucks. Not sure what else
I can tell you.

--
Gillmer J. Derge (TeamB)
 
 
 

Another licensing rant

Post by Peter Agri » Sat, 06 Sep 2003 21:53:58


the
the

I like the idea of a *** . You just have to put two fingers in the air to
ask Borland permission to go to the toilet. How convenient <g>.

Peter
 
 
 

Another licensing rant

Post by Peter Agri » Sat, 06 Sep 2003 22:09:33


don't
same

Some Database vendors are also working with Named Users. If it wasn't
against newsgroup guidelines I would say: "Shoot them all!"


Peter
 
 
 

Another licensing rant

Post by Robert Lov » Sat, 06 Sep 2003 22:19:25

>Why does borland insist on knowing name and email address of every

I thought it was registered to a specific BDN account. I would just
setup one BDN account that is specific to your company and register
all of the products under it.

Robert Love
 
 
 

Another licensing rant

Post by Harold How » Sat, 06 Sep 2003 22:45:08


Wow. Did they really say that? I guess the days of it being like a book
are over (ie the famed no-nonsense licensing policy).

h^2
 
 
 

Another licensing rant

Post by Team » Sat, 06 Sep 2003 23:19:41


In practice that's true, but the license agreement is written like
Alisdair describes. For example, my JBuilder 9 license agreement says,
"Borland grants to you, if you are an individual, or, if you are an
entity, one (1) designated person in your organization ("Named User")
..." You're free to reassign it to a different named user, but you do
need to notify Borland (*) when that happens.

(*) Theoretically. In pratice, Borland obviously isn't going to sue you
if it turns out that Bob Wilson is using the software but you told them
it was Frieda Stansfield.

--
Gillmer J. Derge (TeamB)
 
 
 

Another licensing rant

Post by RF » Sun, 07 Sep 2003 01:27:50


That's why we don't use Borland products any more!

Even to get a patch is a pain in the butt.

RF
 
 
 

Another licensing rant

Post by Yu-Chen Hs » Sun, 07 Sep 2003 01:56:01

If you have new users who need to register C++Builder, and they don't have a
valid e-mail address, please feel free to e-mail me directly, and I'll help
you get registered. Some C++Builder users don't want to create a BDN
account, or have other problems registering, and I've registered a number of
them in my name. I don't know how it works legally and in theory, but in
practice, registration doesn't have much to do with licensing. The
information collected from registration (BDN account, name, e-mail address,
Serial Number), as far as I know, is primarily for reference purposes, and I
honestly doubt it's actively used for much.

Also, you don't have to register to legally run C++Builder. Running it
unregistered is fine. If you have any problems obtaining the
patches/updates because of this, e-mail me directly, let me know what's
needed, and I'll send them to you. You paid for X number of licenses, so
that's many users you're allowed to have. Registration is a separate
optional process, and has no impact on those licenses.
 
 
 

Another licensing rant

Post by Yu-Chen Hs » Sun, 07 Sep 2003 01:57:00

RF,

You don't need to register to get the patches. If you need them, e-mail me
directly and I'll get them to you.

-- YH --
 
 
 

Another licensing rant

Post by Alex Bakae » Sun, 07 Sep 2003 02:05:27


[snip]


Can you not register JB9 and run it?
.a