I see that I am only allowed to install the program on two PCs. Doesn't
anyone else find this outrageous? It makes me want to drop Filemaker
entirely. No one else seems to care. Doesn't anyone else work on more than
two computers?
How does it know? Are they both running at the same time while trying
to install a 3rd?
On Sep 7, 3:34 pm, "Will"
> I see that I am only allowed to install the program on two PCs. Doesn't
> anyone else find this outrageous? It makes me want to drop Filemaker
> entirely. No one else seems to care. Doesn't anyone else work on more than
> two computers?
This from following the "about activation" link that presents when the
software is installed...
-Which FileMaker products have activation?
FileMaker Pro 9 and FileMaker Pro 9 Advanced, sold as individual,
single-licenses.
-During Activation, the FileMaker Activation Server collects the License Key
and an unique Machine ID from your CPU.
-Thus, in accordance with the EULA, FileMaker permits two Activations per
unique License Key and Machine ID combinations.
-The FileMaker activation process supports installation on a primary and
secondary computer...
-What happens if I get a new computer and want to install FileMaker software
on the new computer? Before installing the software on your
new computer, you must deactivate your existing software...
I may be alone, but I think this is one of the most f***ed up things I've
ever seen in buying software. I asked for my money back and they won't do
it because the box is already opened.
"TKnTexas"
news:1189216748.243338.27750@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> How does it know? Are they both running at the same time while trying
> to install a 3rd?
>
>
> On Sep 7, 3:34 pm, "Will"
>> I see that I am only allowed to install the program on two PCs. Doesn't
>> anyone else find this outrageous? It makes me want to drop Filemaker
>> entirely. No one else seems to care. Doesn't anyone else work on more
>> than
>> two computers?
>
>
On Sep 7, 3:34 pm, "Will"
>
> I see that I am only allowed to install the program on two PCs. Doesn't
> anyone else find this outrageous? It makes me want to drop Filemaker
> entirely. No one else seems to care. Doesn't anyone else work on more than
> two computers?
If you want to use more copies of FileMaker you have to buy the
license, just like EVERY other piece of software (except freeware of
course) and almost anything else you can buy. There are "Five Packs"
and probably larger licencing options for those that need them.
In fact you're lucky you're allowed to put it on two computers. Most
software only allows ONE. I haven't got the new version of FileMaker,
but those "two" computers may well only be one Mac and one Windows.
If the computers don't need to access the same database over a network,
then you can use FileMaker Advanced to make runtime applications that
don't need FileMaker at all.
If they do need to access the same database, then perhaps using a web
browser is another option.
Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)
"In fact you're lucky you're allowed to put it on two computers"
I suppose you're right about that. In the previous three versions of
Filemaker that I purchased, I was able to install a version at home, one at
my office, and one on a laptop. Thank heavens that Filemaker has made it
impossible for me to continue with this egregious piracy.
"Helpful Harry"
news:080920071659283308%helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com...
>
> On Sep 7, 3:34 pm, "Will"
>>
>> I see that I am only allowed to install the program on two PCs. Doesn't
>> anyone else find this outrageous? It makes me want to drop Filemaker
>> entirely. No one else seems to care. Doesn't anyone else work on more
>> than
>> two computers?
>
> If you want to use more copies of FileMaker you have to buy the
> license, just like EVERY other piece of software (except freeware of
> course) and almost anything else you can buy. There are "Five Packs"
> and probably larger licencing options for those that need them.
>
> In fact you're lucky you're allowed to put it on two computers. Most
> software only allows ONE. I haven't got the new version of FileMaker,
> but those "two" computers may well only be one Mac and one Windows.
>
> If the computers don't need to access the same database over a network,
> then you can use FileMaker Advanced to make runtime applications that
> don't need FileMaker at all.
>
> If they do need to access the same database, then perhaps using a web
> browser is another option.
>
> Helpful Harry
> Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)
Will
> I see that I am only allowed to install the program on two PCs. Doesn't
> anyone else find this outrageous? It makes me want to drop Filemaker
> entirely. No one else seems to care. Doesn't anyone else work on more than
> two computers?
The licence agreement for earlier versions already only allowed
installation of a single licence on two computers (one work computer and
either one home computer or one portable computer), and those two
installations could only be used by one person.
The two installations could never talk to each other, because the
network protocol checks that the licence keys are unique. It was
technically possible to install version 8.5 or earlier on more than two
computers, as long as they weren't trying to share databases with each
other (you need multiple licences for that), but doing so would be in
violation of the licence agreement.
Version 9 now enforces the two install limit through the activation
scheme, which only lets you activate it on two computers at once.
I don't have a problem with this, even though I have at least four
computers I could use it on.
If you are actively using FileMaker Pro on more than two computers then
you should be buying more than one licence. If more than one person is
using FileMaker Pro, each person needs their own licence.
The Advanced version might offer you a reasonable option in some
situations: create a runtime, which can be run by as many people or
computers as you like, as long as they are working on independent local
datbases and they don't need any of the database design or data sharing
features.
--
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz
All snotiness aside though, I take your point. I've always thought the
limitation on installations was stupid and conveniently ignored it. I'll
get over it.
"Helpful Harry"
news:080920071659283308%helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com...
>
> On Sep 7, 3:34 pm, "Will"
>>
>> I see that I am only allowed to install the program on two PCs. Doesn't
>> anyone else find this outrageous? It makes me want to drop Filemaker
>> entirely. No one else seems to care. Doesn't anyone else work on more
>> than
>> two computers?
>
> If you want to use more copies of FileMaker you have to buy the
> license, just like EVERY other piece of software (except freeware of
> course) and almost anything else you can buy. There are "Five Packs"
> and probably larger licencing options for those that need them.
>
> In fact you're lucky you're allowed to put it on two computers. Most
> software only allows ONE. I haven't got the new version of FileMaker,
> but those "two" computers may well only be one Mac and one Windows.
>
> If the computers don't need to access the same database over a network,
> then you can use FileMaker Advanced to make runtime applications that
> don't need FileMaker at all.
>
> If they do need to access the same database, then perhaps using a web
> browser is another option.
>
> Helpful Harry
> Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)
All snotiness aside though, I take your point. I've always thought the
limitation on installations was stupid and conveniently ignored it. I'll
get over it.
"Helpful Harry"
news:080920071659283308%helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com...
>
> On Sep 7, 3:34 pm, "Will"
>>
>> I see that I am only allowed to install the program on two PCs. Doesn't
>> anyone else find this outrageous? It makes me want to drop Filemaker
>> entirely. No one else seems to care. Doesn't anyone else work on more
>> than
>> two computers?
>
> If you want to use more copies of FileMaker you have to buy the
> license, just like EVERY other piece of software (except freeware of
> course) and almost anything else you can buy. There are "Five Packs"
> and probably larger licencing options for those that need them.
>
> In fact you're lucky you're allowed to put it on two computers. Most
> software only allows ONE. I haven't got the new version of FileMaker,
> but those "two" computers may well only be one Mac and one Windows.
>
> If the computers don't need to access the same database over a network,
> then you can use FileMaker Advanced to make runtime applications that
> don't need FileMaker at all.
>
> If they do need to access the same database, then perhaps using a web
> browser is another option.
>
> Helpful Harry
> Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)
In article
> > "In fact you're lucky you're allowed to put it on two computers"
>
> I suppose you're right about that. In the previous three versions of
> Filemaker that I purchased, I was able to install a version at home, one at
> my office, and one on a laptop. Thank heavens that Filemaker has made it
> impossible for me to continue with this egregious piracy.
>
> All snotiness aside though, I take your point. I've always thought the
> limitation on installations was stupid and conveniently ignored it. I'll
> get over it.
The reason we now have to put up with the idiotic "activation" nonsense
is because greedy people like you were illegally installing it anywhere
and everywhere. :o( There is no excuse for piracy, it's simply sheer
laziness and greediness.
Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)
It's not "every" piece of software. A notable exception that comes to mind
is Runtime Revolution, http://www.runrev.com which licenses on a "per user"
basis, not a per-machine basis. You are allowed to install your copy on as
many PCs as you use, so long as you're the only person using it.
Oh, and Revolution has had the ability to connect to MySQL, Oracle, ODBC,
and other datasources "live" for some time now. And the ability to create
royalty-free, networkable compiled standalones. For Mac, Windows and Linux.
If you're pissed off about the activation policy of FileMaker, my suggestion
is you consider migrating to Revolution. (Revolution is based on the
language that made HyperCard so popular, but it's wholly modern and updated
for Internet, XML, color, vector graphics, and so on).
"Helpful Harry"
news:080920071659283308%helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com...
>
> On Sep 7, 3:34 pm, "Will"
>>
>> I see that I am only allowed to install the program on two PCs. Doesn't
>> anyone else find this outrageous? It makes me want to drop Filemaker
>> entirely. No one else seems to care. Doesn't anyone else work on more
>> than
>> two computers?
>
> If you want to use more copies of FileMaker you have to buy the
> license, just like EVERY other piece of software (except freeware of
> course) and almost anything else you can buy. There are "Five Packs"
> and probably larger licencing options for those that need them.
>
> In fact you're lucky you're allowed to put it on two computers. Most
> software only allows ONE. I haven't got the new version of FileMaker,
> but those "two" computers may well only be one Mac and one Windows.
>
> If the computers don't need to access the same database over a network,
> then you can use FileMaker Advanced to make runtime applications that
> don't need FileMaker at all.
>
> If they do need to access the same database, then perhaps using a web
> browser is another option.
>
> Helpful Harry
> Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)
On Sep 7, 10:35 pm, demp...@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
> If you are actively using FileMaker Pro on more than two computers
> then you should be buying more than one licence.
Right, because if you are developing a filemaker system that includes
plug-ins and other 3rd party software integration and want to support
it on end users with Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Vista (32 /
64), Server 2000, Server 2003, Server 2003 R2, as well as OS X
versions 10.1 through 10.5 you should really have to buy a 10 pack VLA
just to get test coverage. Never mind, different configurations and/or
patch states of those OSes.
As a developer of Windows applications and Web applications I use
multiboot and virtualization heavily to maintain good test coverage.
If I had to purchase a separate license of Filemaker to install into
each VM snapshot it would be ridiculously expensive.
(Microsoft, by the way, has a developer program that gives inexpensive
access to developer licenses of their OSes to enable testing like
this. Otherwise no small developer could troubleshoot why their
windows application is crashing on Windows 2000 Advanced Data Center
in Terminal Server mode without shelling out $20,000)
Filemaker *should* offer this too. (And two an extent they do [did?]
with their 3 connection limit 'Evaluation' Server licenses, etc.)
-cheers,
Dave
In article
Marriott"
> It's not "every" piece of software. A notable exception that comes to mind
> is Runtime Revolution, http://www.runrev.com which licenses on a "per user"
> basis, not a per-machine basis. You are allowed to install your copy on as
> many PCs as you use, so long as you're the only person using it.
>
> Oh, and Revolution has had the ability to connect to MySQL, Oracle, ODBC,
> and other datasources "live" for some time now. And the ability to create
> royalty-free, networkable compiled standalones. For Mac, Windows and Linux.
>
> If you're pissed off about the activation policy of FileMaker, my suggestion
> is you consider migrating to Revolution. (Revolution is based on the
> language that made HyperCard so popular, but it's wholly modern and updated
> for Internet, XML, color, vector graphics, and so on).
Since I'm still using FileMaker 5.5 I don't have any silly "activation"
to worry about ... but on Adobe InDesign the thing is attrociously
useless to the point that I can't even de-authorise one of the
installations to re-install it on a new computer. Xo(
Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)
d-42
> On Sep 7, 10:35 pm, demp...@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
>
> > If you are actively using FileMaker Pro on more than two computers
> > then you should be buying more than one licence.
>
> Right, because if you are developing a filemaker system that includes
> plug-ins and other 3rd party software integration and want to support
> it on end users with Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Vista (32 /
> 64), Server 2000, Server 2003, Server 2003 R2, as well as OS X
> versions 10.1 through 10.5 you should really have to buy a 10 pack VLA
> just to get test coverage. Never mind, different configurations and/or
> patch states of those OSes.
The way that FM wants us to handle that is to deactivate one licence and
then activate another one, for each test configuration. This is not
reasonable.
In that sort of situation I agree the activation scheme and licence are
a problem.
Development of databases with FileMaker Advanced in particular should be
more flexible than normal use of FileMaker Pro.
> As a developer of Windows applications and Web applications I use
> multiboot and virtualization heavily to maintain good test coverage.
> If I had to purchase a separate license of Filemaker to install into
> each VM snapshot it would be ridiculously expensive.
>
> (Microsoft, by the way, has a developer program that gives inexpensive
> access to developer licenses of their OSes to enable testing like
> this. Otherwise no small developer could troubleshoot why their
> windows application is crashing on Windows 2000 Advanced Data Center
> in Terminal Server mode without shelling out $20,000)
>
> Filemaker *should* offer this too. (And two an extent they do [did?]
> with their 3 connection limit 'Evaluation' Server licenses, etc.)
If you are a member of the FileMaker TechNet (which is free if you buy
FM 9 Advanced before mid September, otherwise US$100 per annum) then you
have access to a 3-client version of FM Server 9 Advanced.
--
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz
Helpful Harry
> The reason we now have to put up with the idiotic "activation" nonsense
> is because greedy people
[snip]
> were illegally installing it anywhere
> and everywhere. :o( There is no excuse for piracy, it's simply sheer
> laziness and greediness.
Fair enough. OTOH, Filemaker's mother company Apple sold me a computer
with lousy disk drives. The CD drive died a few months after I'd bought
the iMac, the HDD died two years after the purchase with FMP 8 Advanced
installed on it.
If it had been FMP 9, I'd have to deactivate the licence in order to
install the product on the new disk. Should I fail to do that - which is
rather likely since the HDD is dead - I'd have to purchase a new
licence.
Same problem if the computers gets stolen. I tried the FMP FAQ on that
point. It seems that the author has been instructed to mock the readers.
--
http://clk.ch
On Sep 8, 12:59 am, Helpful Harry
wrote:
> On Sep 7, 3:34 pm, "Will"
>
>
>
> > I see that I am only allowed to install the program on two PCs. Doesn't
> > anyone else find this outrageous? It makes me want to drop Filemaker
> > entirely. No one else seems to care. Doesn't anyone else work on more than
> > two computers?
>
> If you want to use more copies of FileMaker you have to buy the
> license, just like EVERY other piece of software (except freeware of
> course) and almost anything else you can buy. There are "Five Packs"
> and probably larger licencing options for those that need them.
>
> In fact you're lucky you're allowed to put it on two computers. Most
> software only allows ONE. I haven't got the new version of FileMaker,
> but those "two" computers may well only be one Mac and one Windows.
>
> If the computers don't need to access the same database over a network,
> then you can use FileMaker Advanced to make runtime applications that
> don't need FileMaker at all.
>
> If they do need to access the same database, then perhaps using a web
> browser is another option.
>
> Helpful Harry
> Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)
The only software I own that requires activation specifically allows
you to install it on as many computers as you wish provided you are
the only person to use the computers. Nevertheless, when I recently
bought a new Vista computer, it was the only piece of software that I
had trouble installing. I took two weeks and several emails to get it
working correctly. Everything else worked correctly the first day.
If car manufacturers started including wording in their manuals that
only two people are allowed to drive a car, I expect that Harry would
start calling his neighbours pirates.
In the United States, there is a large controversy over companies that
include wording with their products that threatens to prosecute people
for using the product in a way that is protected by the Fair Use Law
(or worse, who cripple their products so that people can't use them in
this way).
I for one will never buy another piece of software that requires
activation.
On 2007-09-07 22:35:03 -0700, dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) said:
> I don't have a problem with this, even though I have at least four
> computers I could use it on.
You will have a problem, though, if one of your legally activated
computers suffers a hard-drive or motherboard failure or requires
reformatting, and you cannot re-install your software until you can
speak to an actual human being at FMI. Good luck on weekends or
holidays or outside business hours.
The requirement to "un-install" is the one that's going to cause the
most difficulty and I predict that by FM10, this activation crap will
go the way of the dodo. Too many people have too many problems with
their machines to make this a reasonable scheme.
That's the reason that Volume License seats do not have activation.
They realized that corporate customers would not stand for such
nonsense.
--
Lynn Allen
--
www.semiotics.com
562.938.7890
Member Filemaker Business Alliance
Long Beach, CA
Christoph Kaufmann wrote:
> If it had been FMP 9, I'd have to deactivate the licence in order to
> install the product on the new disk. Should I fail to do that - which is
> rather likely since the HDD is dead - I'd have to purchase a new
> licence.
No, you can call FM in this case and they will deactivate the other one
for you so that you continue to have full use of your license.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Howard Schlossberg
FM Professional Solutions, Inc. Los Angeles
FileMaker 8 Certified Developer
Member, FileMaker Business Alliance
On Sep 8, 1:35 am, d-42
> On Sep 7, 10:35 pm, demp...@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
>
> > If you are actively using FileMaker Pro on more than two computers
> > then you should be buying more than one licence.
>
> Right, because if you are developing a filemaker system that includes
> plug-ins and other 3rd party software integration and want to support
> it on end users with Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Vista (32 /
> 64), Server 2000, Server 2003, Server 2003 R2, as well as OS X
> versions 10.1 through 10.5 you should really have to buy a 10 pack VLA
> just to get test coverage. Never mind, different configurations and/or
> patch states of those OSes.
>
> As a developer of Windows applications and Web applications I use
> multiboot and virtualization heavily to maintain good test coverage.
> If I had to purchase a separate license of Filemaker to install into
> each VM snapshot it would be ridiculously expensive.
>
> (Microsoft, by the way, has a developer program that gives inexpensive
> access to developer licenses of their OSes to enable testing like
> this. Otherwise no small developer could troubleshoot why their
> windows application is crashing on Windows 2000 Advanced Data Center
> in Terminal Server mode without shelling out $20,000)
>
> Filemaker *should* offer this too. (And two an extent they do [did?]
> with their 3 connection limit 'Evaluation' Server licenses, etc.)
>
> -cheers,
> Dave
>From where I sit, it's pretty apparent that FMI has little interest in
appealing to the smallish professional developer. Despite our
vocality, I think it's a business decision to focus on the big VLA
customers and the single license beginning user. C est la vie.
G
"The reason we now have to put up with the idiotic "activation" nonsense
is because greedy people like you were illegally installing it anywhere
and everywhere. :o( There is no excuse for piracy, it's simply sheer
laziness and greediness."
If you draw no distinction between someone installing software on their own
computers vs. someone installing software "anywhere and everywhere", then I
have little interest in anything else you have to say. Thanks for your
contribution. Run along.
"Helpful Harry"
news:080920071901174415%helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com...
> In article
>
>
>> > "In fact you're lucky you're allowed to put it on two computers"
>>
>> I suppose you're right about that. In the previous three versions of
>> Filemaker that I purchased, I was able to install a version at home, one
>> at
>> my office, and one on a laptop. Thank heavens that Filemaker has made it
>> impossible for me to continue with this egregious piracy.
>>
>> All snotiness aside though, I take your point. I've always thought the
>> limitation on installations was stupid and conveniently ignored it. I'll
>> get over it.
>
> The reason we now have to put up with the idiotic "activation" nonsense
> is because greedy people like you were illegally installing it anywhere
> and everywhere. :o( There is no excuse for piracy, it's simply sheer
> laziness and greediness.
>
>
> Helpful Harry
> Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)
In article
> "The reason we now have to put up with the idiotic "activation" nonsense
> is because greedy people like you were illegally installing it anywhere
> and everywhere. :o( There is no excuse for piracy, it's simply sheer
> laziness and greediness."
>
> If you draw no distinction between someone installing software on their own
> computers vs. someone installing software "anywhere and everywhere", then I
> have little interest in anything else you have to say. Thanks for your
> contribution. Run along.
You do not own the software, so you cannot do whatever you please with
it. You bought a license and agreed to the conditions when installing
the software. If you don't like those conditions, don't install the
software - it's THAT simple. If you want to be pirate scum, then good
riddance to you and you're not wanted here anyway.
Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)
In article <13e5n0p801u0cdf@corp.supernews.com>, Howard Schlossberg
> Christoph Kaufmann wrote:
>
> > If it had been FMP 9, I'd have to deactivate the licence in order to
> > install the product on the new disk. Should I fail to do that - which is
> > rather likely since the HDD is dead - I'd have to purchase a new
> > licence.
>
> No, you can call FM in this case and they will deactivate the other one
> for you so that you continue to have full use of your license.
Assuming you can get through of course, which is my problem with Adobe.
The software refuses to authorise / deauthorise over the Internet and
the phone system for de-authorising is utterly incompetant. My next
attempt at solving this is going to have to be changing the Mac to log
in via dial-up using my own Internet provider. :o(
Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)
Howard Schlossberg
[Purchase a new licence if the computer dies]
> No, you can call FM in this case and they will deactivate the other one
> for you so that you continue to have full use of your license.
I'm glad to hear that!
--
http://clk.ch
> You do not own the software, so you cannot do whatever you please with
> it. You bought a license and agreed to the conditions when installing
> the software. If you don't like those conditions, don't install the
> software - it's THAT simple. If you want to be pirate scum, then good
> riddance to you and you're not wanted here anyway.
>
> Helpful Harry
> Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)
Filemaker would find it extremely difficult to prosecute someone who
put Filemaker 8.5 on three computers that only he used (say, a home
desktop, a desktop in his vacation home, and a laptop) for two
reasons:
(a) It is quite likely considered FAIR USE under US law.
(b) A purchaser would reasonably expect to be able to do that, and
wouldn't discover the prohibition until he had opened the software, at
which point he would be unable to get a refund.
In other words, such use is quite likely legal in the US. Of course,
Harry is entitled to consider it unethical and heap whatever abuse he
likes on people who do it.
[As others have noted, "piracy" used to mean using software that you
had acquired illegally, i.e., stolen; now it is used to mean using
software that you own in ways the company doesn't want you.]
Concerning product activation, if your computer fails, perhaps you may
be able to telephone Filemaker to get the activation cancelled (with
some hassle). But I have 94 software programs on my computer, and what
if even 20 of them required activation? A computer failure would be a
total nightmare. Even replacing a working computer would probably be a
big hassle. Hence my decision never to buy software that requires
activation.
Will
> In the previous three versions of
> Filemaker that I purchased, I was able to install a version at home, one at
> my office, and one on a laptop
And I do the same : work at office, work at home, and work in the
railwway.
I'll have a little bit of reflexion before upgrading to V9
--
www.D-L-S.org
Howard Schlossberg
> No, you can call FM in this case
simply ridiculous
Apple and FMP never used this kind of protection, and this is a bad
beginning.
But I know that most of the market of FMP is on Windows, and those users
are accustomed to such practices
--
www.D-L-S.org
In article <20070909191748548663@[10.0.1.1]>, pmanet@invivo.edu (manet)
wrote:
> Howard Schlossberg
>
> > No, you can call FM in this case
>
> simply ridiculous
>
> Apple and FMP never used this kind of protection, and this is a bad
> beginning.
>
> But I know that most of the market of FMP is on Windows, and those users
> are accustomed to such practices
Nobody used to use such silly systems, but now many companies are or
are planning to. :o(
Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)
In article <1189341213.374001.122850@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
kea@alldial.net wrote:
> > You do not own the software, so you cannot do whatever you please with
> > it. You bought a license and agreed to the conditions when installing
> > the software. If you don't like those conditions, don't install the
> > software - it's THAT simple. If you want to be pirate scum, then good
> > riddance to you and you're not wanted here anyway.
> >
> > Helpful Harry
> > Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)
>
> Filemaker would find it extremely difficult to prosecute someone who
> put Filemaker 8.5 on three computers that only he used (say, a home
> desktop, a desktop in his vacation home, and a laptop) for two
> reasons:
> (a) It is quite likely considered FAIR USE under US law.
> (b) A purchaser would reasonably expect to be able to do that, and
> wouldn't discover the prohibition until he had opened the software, at
> which point he would be unable to get a refund.
> In other words, such use is quite likely legal in the US. Of course,
> Harry is entitled to consider it unethical and heap whatever abuse he
> likes on people who do it.
It's not legal anywhere - it violates the licensing agreement that you
"sign" when you install the software. It's that simple.
> [As others have noted, "piracy" used to mean using software that you
> had acquired illegally, i.e., stolen; now it is used to mean using
> software that you own in ways the company doesn't want you.]
Piracy means using the software in ways that violate the agreement -
it's a purely black and white issue. It includes installing on to many
machines, using illegally obtained software or install codes, or buying
/ selling non-original install disks.
> Concerning product activation, if your computer fails, perhaps you may
> be able to telephone Filemaker to get the activation cancelled (with
> some hassle). But I have 94 software programs on my computer, and what
> if even 20 of them required activation? A computer failure would be a
> total nightmare. Even replacing a working computer would probably be a
> big hassle. Hence my decision never to buy software that requires
> activation.
My problem is with Adobe InDesign. The Internet activation doesn't
work, so I have to use the phone number ... which is fine for
activating it. BUT when it comes to deactivating it the stupid phone
system tells me to wait three times and then simply hangs up. Xo(
At the moment it's not a big deal since the original Mac isn't being
used (technically you're allowed two installations as long as only one
is being used at a time), but at some stage I'm going to have to wipe
that hard drive before giving it to another user, so I will have to
deactivate it.
Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)
> It's not legal anywhere - it violates the licensing agreement that you
> "sign" when you install the software. It's that simple.
>
Not so --- see Wikipedia: Software license agreement
"The enforceability of an EULA depends on several factors, one of them
being the court in which the case is heard. Most courts that have
addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license agreements have found
them to be invalid, characterizing them as contracts of adhesion,
unconscionable, and/or unacceptable pursuant to the U.C.C. -see, for
instance, Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology (939 F.2d
91), Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd. (at harvard.edu) and Rich,
Mass Market Software and the Shrinkwrap License (23 Colo. Law
1321.17)."
kea@alldial.net wrote:
>> It's not legal anywhere - it violates the licensing agreement that you
>> "sign" when you install the software. It's that simple.
>>
> Not so --- see Wikipedia: Software license agreement
And perhaps that is why FileMaker has instituted the activation scheme:
they weren't able to limit the software use as they wanted to through
their software agreement via the courts. They had to pick a number of
seats to limit each license to and they determined that two licenses
would satisfy the vast majority of their licensees.
I'm not saying I like the new scheme. As a developer, it costs me more
money for software to cover the other machines that I personally use.
But I can't blame FileMaker for trying to protect themselves against
undesired use of their product.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Howard Schlossberg
FM Professional Solutions, Inc. Los Angeles
FileMaker 8 Certified Developer
Member, FileMaker Business Alliance
In article <13earjp7lmm7ncb@corp.supernews.com>, Howard Schlossberg
> kea@alldial.net wrote:
> >> It's not legal anywhere - it violates the licensing agreement that you
> >> "sign" when you install the software. It's that simple.
> >>
> > Not so --- see Wikipedia: Software license agreement
>
> And perhaps that is why FileMaker has instituted the activation scheme:
> they weren't able to limit the software use as they wanted to through
> their software agreement via the courts. They had to pick a number of
> seats to limit each license to and they determined that two licenses
> would satisfy the vast majority of their licensees.
>
> I'm not saying I like the new scheme. As a developer, it costs me more
> money for software to cover the other machines that I personally use.
> But I can't blame FileMaker for trying to protect themselves against
> undesired use of their product.
It's precisely because some idiot / scum wants to break the rules that
we end up with theses silly schemes to stop them - install codes,
hardware dongles, etc. and now it's "activation". They're simply more
annoyances for those (apparently few) of us who do abide by the rules.
If someone doesn't like the rules they should use another product.
QED
Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)
Helpful Harry
> Nobody used to use such silly systems,
what about Windows itself ?
--
www.D-L-S.org
Helpful Harry
> They're simply more
> annoyances for those (apparently few) of us who do abide by the rules.
yes, but historically, when you are not the mainstream application, easy
install and weak protection are the best way to grow your market share
(cf Word and Excel...). It's a mistake to use these proedures for FMP.
>
> If someone doesn't like the rules they should use another product.
exact, risk for FMP is that people take another way.
--
www.D-L-S.org
In article <20070912004711287273@[10.0.1.1]>, pmanet@invivo.edu (manet)
wrote:
> Helpful Harry
>
> > Nobody used to use such silly systems,
>
> what about Windows itself ?
To quote the obvious answer: Nobody USES such silly systems. ;o)
Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)
On 2007-09-07 16:34:29 -0400, "Will"
> I see that I am only allowed to install the program on two PCs. Doesn't
> anyone else find this outrageous? It makes me want to drop Filemaker
> entirely. No one else seems to care. Doesn't anyone else work on more than
> two computers?
Every EULA I have ever read for a single copy of software reads one of
two things. FileMaker is no exception.
You may install this software on one computer which is useable by
single user at at a time. You may not share this application on any
network server.....
or it reads
You may install this software on one computer which is useable by a
single user at at time. You many not share this application on any
network server. You many install one additional copy on a computer
owned by the licensed user so long as both computers are not used at
the same time.
In other words I may put Photoshop on my Desktop and Laptop so when I
am on the road the I can use Photoshop, but I may not allow someone
else to use the photoshop on my laptop while I am using the one on my
desktop. An honor system I know, but that is how it is worded.
This is summary wording.. but it gets the point across. I have never
read a license which legally allows me to put the software on more than
two machines unless it is a bundle and specifically states.
Of course none of this applies to freeware.
--
Jim
On Sep 13, 5:03 am, Jim wrote:
> On 2007-09-07 16:34:29 -0400, "Will"
>
> > I see that I am only allowed to install the program on two PCs. Doesn't
> > anyone else find this outrageous? It makes me want to drop Filemaker
> > entirely. No one else seems to care. Doesn't anyone else work on more than
> > two computers?
>
> Every EULA I have ever read for a single copy of software reads one of
> two things. FileMaker is no exception.
>
> You may install this software on one computer which is useable by
> single user at at a time. You may not share this application on any
> network server.....
>
> or it reads
>
> You may install this software on one computer which is useable by a
> single user at at time. You many not share this application on any
> network server. You many install one additional copy on a computer
> owned by the licensed user so long as both computers are not used at
> the same time.
>
> In other words I may put Photoshop on my Desktop and Laptop so when I
> am on the road the I can use Photoshop, but I may not allow someone
> else to use the photoshop on my laptop while I am using the one on my
> desktop. An honor system I know, but that is how it is worded.
>
> This is summary wording.. but it gets the point across. I have never
> read a license which legally allows me to put the software on more than
> two machines unless it is a bundle and specifically states.
>
> Of course none of this applies to freeware.
>
> --
> Jim
Developers are frequently licensed software for installs on 'test
machines' with the only constraint being that the software so-licenced
may not be used in a 'production environment'; to allow for testing,
and debugging.
Consider that Filemaker is a multi-user client-server system.
Its true that you can bang out a solution on a single copy of FM
Advanced, but that's for pretty basic stuff.
To do anything serious, like test/debug the intricacies of multi-user
concurrency conflict resolution you would need a small LAN complete
with FM server. A lousy 2 install license isn't adequate for some test
cases.
FM is also cross platform, and most developers need to support at
least the last couple releases of OSX and/or a whole rainbow of
windows flavors from Windows 2000 SP4 to Windows Vista Ultimate x64.
Two licenses isn't enough to make sure your application looks and
functions correctly on even a quarter of the operating systems it will
run on, nevermind multiple possible configurations of those operating
systems.
-regards,
Dave