Client Licenses

[haxer11]

So,

What if you were to come by a SageTV license from a friend to use. Although it is non-transferable, could you not attempt to send Sage (or Google) a check for the license key for the amount?

What legal recourse would the Sage/Google company have if you legitimately tried to pay them for license?

My guess is that they would never cash the check.

My quick analogy is if I lease a car, and lend the keys to my friend, does my friend have to pay for his own lease on my same car? At some point doesn't a software license grant me use of the product as I see fit, not how the software vendor sees fit?

I am just asking because the license question always comes up and the non-transferable issue seems to be a sticking point.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by haxer11

So,

What if you were to come by a SageTV license from a friend to use. Although it is non-transferable, could you not attempt to send Sage (or Google) a check for the license key for the amount?

What legal recourse would the Sage/Google company have if you legitimately tried to pay them for license?

My guess is that they would never cash the check.

My quick analogy is if I lease a car, and lend the keys to my friend, does my friend have to pay for his own lease on my same car? At some point doesn't a software license grant me use of the product as I see fit, not how the software vendor sees fit?

I am just asking because the license question always comes up and the non-transferable issue seems to be a sticking point.

In reality, the 'License Key' is not the license itself. The license is a non-tangible right to use the software, given to the purchaser, by SageTV, LLC. It is enforced through the use of the 'License Key'. Transferring of the KEY is not transferring of the license. If someone else obtains your license key, they do not obtain the right to use the software. It will work, but it is no more legal than driving someone else's car without permission, just because you found the keys.

[GKusnick]

Originally Posted by haxer11

At some point doesn't a software license grant me use of the product as I see fit, not how the software vendor sees fit?

It grants you the use of the software on the terms spelled out in the license agreement. "Agreement" is the key word here: by installing the software, you're agreeing to abide by those terms.

[jsonnabend]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

It will work, but it is no more legal than driving someone else's car without permission, just because you found the keys.

Excellent legal analogy, Fuzzy. Superficial, if not completely wrong, but excellent nonetheless.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by jsonnabend

Excellent legal analogy, Fuzzy. Superficial, if not completely wrong, but excellent nonetheless.

It is a gross exaggeration, of course - but the fact of the matter is, the license to use sagetv is the sole property of SageTV, LLC (now a part of Google). If they do not expressly give that permission to you, you are not legally allowed to use it. If they choose to NOT transfer that permission between parties after the initial sale, then that is their choice. As I said, they programmed nothing into their software to prevent this from happening, but that doesn't mean it is okay to do.

Don't get me wrong, I've stated numerous times before that if Google decides NOT to continue making SageTV available for purchase, I feel no GUILT in transferring licenses... But the question was about the legality of transferring licenses, which I did answer correctly.

[tpowell]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

It will work, but it is no more legal than driving someone else's car without permission, just because you found the keys.

There is a difference between driving someones cars without permission and reusing a license key. If a person steals a car they are denying the original owner the ability to drive that car. When you share a license key, copy music, or software - all parties have the ability to utilize whatever was copied.

I'm not implying this is legally or morally wrong or right, rather pointing out that practically, there is a significant difference.

[jsonnabend]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

But the question was about the legality of transferring licenses, which I did answer correctly.

No, you answered it superficially, if correct at all. But this isn't a legal forum, right? So we don't really need to go into the law of EULA's and copyright fair use and first sale doctrine and all that stuff, eh?

[Rob]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

Don't get me wrong, I've stated numerous times before that if Google decides NOT to continue making SageTV available for purchase, I feel no GUILT in transferring licenses...

Agreed and it has been almost 7 months since any have been sold....

[wbarber69]

Its 2012 the founders have not posted in nearly a year. I believe google ate sagetv and left us this forum to clean up and move somewhere or to something else. Face it sagetv was in some way competition to some google product so they killed it, with truckloads of money.

[GKusnick]

Originally Posted by wbarber69

Its 2012 the founders have not posted in nearly a year.

Both Narflex and Opus4 have posted within the last week. You could have found this out in 30 seconds with a simple forum search. But apparently stirring up trouble matters more to you than the truth.

[panteragstk]

I'm not understanding why this is even a discussion?

[tmiranda]

Originally Posted by panteragstk

I'm not understanding why this is even a discussion?

Because people are mad and they want to justify breaking the law?

[tmiranda]

Originally Posted by haxer11

My quick analogy is if I lease a car, and lend the keys to my friend, does my friend have to pay for his own lease on my same car?

Sorry, I can't help but get sucked into these conversations

Short answer, if your lease says you can't lend the keys to a friend unless he signs a lease (and pays), then yes your friend needs a lease. You signed the agreement, if you didn't like it you should not have signed. Ignorance, or simply not wanting to abide by the agreement you signed because it's inconvenient, is not an excuse.

[panteragstk]

Originally Posted by tmiranda

Because people are mad and they want to justify breaking the law?

It's normally smarter to just break the law than ask if it's ok. If you don't want to get caught that is.

It does suck that we even have to ask these questions.

[Rob]

Originally Posted by panteragstk

It's normally smarter to just break the law than ask if it's ok. If you don't want to get caught that is.

So is that like: it is better to ask forgiveness than to ask for permission?

[panteragstk]

Originally Posted by Rob

So is that like: it is better to ask forgiveness than to ask for permission?

Not really. It clearly states in the EULA that you can't so the question has been answered. It's more like "hey, I'm going to violate the EULA, but I want someone to validate my reason for doing so". If you're going to do it, just do it. Don't bother asking for permission to do something you know you aren't going to get permission to do.

I want everyone to know that I'm not trying to be rude. I just honestly don't see the point in asking.

I do however, see the point in asking for more licenses or a .exe that will get rid of the license requirement. Those are perfectly valid and would be awesome.

[stevenkd]

Seems to me that by definition legally you could not use a HD200 or HD300 purchased on Ebay. If the license is built into the box and the same user license agreement covers it, then it is also illegal to buy or sell one of these boxes. Wouldn't it be the same as trying to sell an HD100 plus an end user place shifter license?

[panteragstk]

Originally Posted by stevenkd

Seems to me that by definition legally you could not use a HD200 or HD300 purchased on Ebay. If the license is built into the box and the same user license agreement covers it, then it is also illegal to buy or sell one of these boxes. Wouldn't it be the same as trying to sell an HD100 plus an end user place shifter license?

The hd200 and 300 wouldn't be the same because the license is built in. The same way that a blu-ray player is licensed to play blu-rays, a receiver is licensed to decode DTS-MA, etc.

[Rob]

Originally Posted by panteragstk

Not really. It clearly states in the EULA that you can't so the question has been answered....

Sorry, I was really trying to speak tongue and cheek. That just did not come through in the typed working! I have 5 client licenses and only 2 are in use, so it does not directly impact me anyway.

But I do feel sorry for those that are being impacted.

Originally Posted by panteragstk

I do however, see the point in asking for more licenses or a .exe that will get rid of the license requirement. Those are perfectly valid and would be awesome.

Yes it would and it is really the only thing that makes me hesitate to completely believe that Jeff is going to be able to continue SageTV with backward compatability.

[Skirge01]

For those who actually want to know the answer to this license transfer question, read this. I know how I interpret it and it seems pretty obvious, but I read legal documents quite regularly.