Is selling/transferring licenses ok?

[SHS]

Originally Posted by reggie14

Why would Jeff even bother? Most companies don't particularly care if individuals are selling individual licenses, even if the software is still being sold. It's generally only when someone does it on a large scale that anyone cares.

It would be hard for Google to show substantial damages from violating the non-transfer clause of the EULA. And, unlike trademark law, you don't need to go after violators to keep the EULA enforceable.

Selling sage licenses certainly violates a binding contract, but it's also almost certainly not going to get you into any real trouble. Maybe Google would try to get your eBay account locked, but I highly doubt they would even go that far.

Then be my guest and go for it just don't coming crying to me I did give you a warning up front.
It dosen't matter if it large scale or not all it take's one email sent to ebay, ebid, etc from SageTV CEO and it all over for you on that auction site.

[JetreL]

All that typically happens on the auction sites are the auctions are closed. If Sage wanted to persue it then it involves legal fees and supoenas. I would think it highly unlikely that SageTV would take it that far. Especially given the current critical state of their user base. I personally would think it was the last straw and I have been a supporter of Sage.

[GKusnick]

Seems to me that one element that's always missing from this sort of discussion is the question of personal integrity. I've never met Jeff but I've corresponded with him by email and he seems like a decent guy. Until he says it's OK to resell licenses, I'm not going to do it, end of story. It's not a question of what I can get away with. It's a question of having my word mean something and of honoring my commitment to someone I respect.

Those who think that Jeff forfeited any claim to integrity by selling the company have simply got it backwards. The managers of a small company like Sage have a fiduciary duty to their employees and their investors to give them the best return on their investment they can find. This duty outweighs any obligation to provide continuity for their customers, and is not one they can honorably (or legally) ignore.

Sorry if this makes me sound like an old fogey.

[photon]

Originally Posted by GKusnick

Seems to me that one element that's always missing from this sort of discussion is the question of personal integrity. I've never met Jeff but I've corresponded with him by email and he seems like a decent guy. Until he says it's OK to resell licenses, I'm not going to do it, end of story. It's not a question of what I can get away with. It's a question of having my word mean something and of honoring my commitment to someone I respect.

Those who think that Jeff forfeited any claim to integrity by selling the company have simply got it backwards. The managers of a small company like Sage have a fiduciary duty to their employees and their investors to give them the best return on their investment they can find. This duty outweighs any obligation to provide continuity for their customers, and is not one they can honorably (or legally) ignore.

Sorry if this makes me sound like an old fogey.

[gsr]

Originally Posted by SHS

When Sue Fisher purchased the software she has enter her License Key that was email to her from SageTV in order get it out of demo mode
For Example
Name: Sue Fisher
Key: 1111-1111-1111-1111-1111
Now Sue turn round an sell the License Key to John Smith
Now John Smith try enter it in like
Name: John Smith [You can't used any old fake names here]
Key: 1111-1111-1111-1111-1111
The Key tried the Sue Fisher under License Key Name when frist purchased and can't be change
That how you get caugh there are a few that are try sell there key on ebay I monitor it on ebay and I'm sure jeff dose to.

If Sue Fisher gives her license to John smith and he adds it to a 2nd PC in his house as such:

Server Key:
Name: John Smith
Key: 2222-2222-2222-2222-2222

Client Key:
Name: Sue Fisher
Key: 1111-1111-1111-1111-1111

will the client and server talk to each other? Of course, that still leaves the issue of transferring licenses being a problem.

As far as taking legal action against someone who is either selling or giving away their license, the "damages" argument would seem rather weak at this point. Since the store is closed and there's no way for a customer to purchase a license, it's hard to argue that SageTV / Google is losing any business. If the store reopens, and especially if Google decides to continue SageTV in a form similar to what it is today, then the argument obviously would have some merit.

It's a moot point for me though, because I never got past evaluating SageTV a number of years back when I was working on the accessDTV software (at the time, Jeff had expressed an interest in getting the accessDTV cards to work with SageTV, but it never went anywhere). I eventually ended up going with BeyondTV and have since switched to WMC so I could use the Ceton InfiniTV CableCard tuners.

If I were a current SageTV user and needed additional licenses to finish off my system, I honestly don't know what I would do between trying to purchase the licenses from other users or throwing in the towel and moving to another solution. A lot of people clearly have a lot of time and money invested in their SageTV systems, so it's tough to recommend that they just move on. Though that's most likely what they'll need to do in the long run (unless Google intends to continue SageTV as we know it) as even with alternative sources for guide data, there will eventually be a need to support something new that will force people to move on.

[FlyingShawn]

Originally Posted by gsr

If Sue Fisher gives her license to John smith and he adds it to a 2nd PC in his house as such:

Server Key:
Name: John Smith
Key: 2222-2222-2222-2222-2222

Client Key:
Name: Sue Fisher
Key: 1111-1111-1111-1111-1111

will the client and server talk to each other? Of course, that still leaves the issue of transferring licenses being a problem.

I think this was also the core issue of my question about the statement "You can't use any old fake names here." In the above situation, does Sage somehow reject the name "Sue Fisher" as fake even though it's the name linked with the license originally?

I don't have any idea how Sage would determine that someone else was using Sue's name with her key, but I'm still a little confused about the definition of "old fake name."

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by GKusnick

Seems to me that one element that's always missing from this sort of discussion is the question of personal integrity. I've never met Jeff but I've corresponded with him by email and he seems like a decent guy. Until he says it's OK to resell licenses, I'm not going to do it, end of story. It's not a question of what I can get away with. It's a question of having my word mean something and of honoring my commitment to someone I respect.

I don't think Jeff did anything wrong by selling (and probably effectively killing) Sage either, but I do think the sale of Sage changes things from a moral perspective, albeit not a legal one.

And honestly, I'd put reselling software licenses in the same category as traveling 5mph over the speed limit. As long as you actually uninstall it and never use it again, I don't see the big deal.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by gsr

If Sue Fisher gives her license to John smith and he adds it to a 2nd PC in his house as such:

Server Key:
Name: John Smith
Key: 2222-2222-2222-2222-2222

Client Key:
Name: Sue Fisher
Key: 1111-1111-1111-1111-1111

will the client and server talk to each other? Of course, that still leaves the issue of transferring licenses being a problem.

The only thing that matters, is that the name matches what was used to generate the key in question. This is what is required for the key to be considered 'valid'. As for it connecting, all that is required is that the client (or server in client mode) isn't using a key that has already connected TO that server during it's current run session (or using the same key as the server itself). If those requirements are met (each client has a unique, and valid key), it will connect and work fine.

So, as long as John Smith was the name used when the 2222-2222-2222-2222-2222 key, and Sue Fisher was the name used to creat the 1111-1111-1111-1111-1111 key, and each of those keys are valid for the software they are entered into, it wold work fine. That's NOT to say that Sue Fisher is 'allowed' to transer her key to John Smith. But, if she DID, it would work.

[cncb]

I see a few licenses on Ebay that have been sold without any intervention so I now regret (maybe unnecessarily) removing them from my listing. Can we get an official statement from Jeff or someone at Google about whether the "non-transferable" policy has been lifted due to them shutting down the store?

[rparker]

Per US Federal Courts. you can sell your keys and software to a thrid party. As long as you never use it again and only sell the number of keys, lic that you have.

Acad tried to keep thier software old version from being sold and they claimed the keys/lic was non transferable the justices ruled that they were.

[sandor]

Originally Posted by rparker

Per US Federal Courts. you can sell your keys and software to a thrid party. As long as you never use it again and only sell the number of keys, lic that you have.

Acad tried to keep thier software old version from being sold and they claimed the keys/lic was non transferable the justices ruled that they were.

which decision was that?

the only thing i can find is the vernor v. autodesk, which hasnt been heard by the supreme court yet, and which lower courts ruled in favor of the software company's licensing/no resale policy, if it is in EULA.

http://www.eff.org/cases/vernor-v-autodesk

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by sandor

which decision was that?

the only thing i can find is the vernor v. autodesk, which hasnt been heard by the supreme court yet, and which lower courts ruled in favor of the software company's licensing/no resale policy, if it is in EULA.

http://www.eff.org/cases/vernor-v-autodesk

nonsense.. it's only been overturned if you Google past the very first court decision :-) ... either way, it's not all that applicable here, as AutoDesk could still show reasonable damages for that breach of contract. SageTV, having discontinued conventional sales, can't justify any damages for breaching the EULA contract.