Narflex please keep fighting for client licenses

[MCE-Refugee]

Originally Posted by SHS

But it up to Jeff after he still has that rigth to do so even know he sold it off to google that not problem any software that was sold before the buy out still under SageTV copyright not Google.

Google bought SageTV all their assets so now Google own the copyright on the software.

[SHS]

Originally Posted by MCE-Refugee

Google bought SageTV all their assets so now Google own the copyright on the software.

I belive there is a diff to before and after copyright on assets sale.

[GKusnick]

Originally Posted by MCE-Refugee

Google bought SageTV all their assets so now Google own the copyright on the software.

Originally Posted by SHS

I belive there is a diff to before and after copyright on assets sale.

Copyright applies to the source code, not the license keys. Since nobody here is in a position to copy or distribute source, copyright issues don't arise.

License keys are governed by the EULA, which is an explicit agreement between the end user and SageTV LLC (not Jeff personally). Ownership of the SageTV side of that agreement has now passed to Google as the successor company in the buyout. So the agreement is still in force, and Google (not Jeff) controls it (although as a practical matter, Google may well be happy to let Jeff continue to manage it).

[speck55]

Originally Posted by GKusnick

Copyright applies to the source code, not the license keys. Since nobody here is in a position to copy or distribute source, copyright issues don't arise.

License keys are governed by the EULA, which is an explicit agreement between the end user and SageTV LLC (not Jeff personally). Ownership of the SageTV side of that agreement has now passed to Google as the successor company in the buyout. So the agreement is still in force, and Google (not Jeff) controls it (although as a practical matter, Google may well be happy to let Jeff continue to manage it).

Again, without bothering to read the EULA, I'm guessing it contains the clause "..between you and SageTV (LLC/Inc/Whatever) AND ITS SUCCESSORS AND/OR ASSIGNEES". You cannot sell an entire entity and preclude existing contracts, be those in your favor (EULA's, Accounts Receivable) or not (Accounts Payable, Liens, etc).

[gplasky]

Originally Posted by speck55

Again, without bothering to read the EULA, I'm guessing.......

Wouldn't it make more sense to actually read the EULA before attempting to discuss it? I don't get it.

Gerry

[ThePaladinTech]

Originally Posted by gplasky

Wouldn't it make more sense to actually read the EULA before attempting to discuss it? I don't get it.

Gerry

or use this: http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/eulalyzer.html

[speck55]

Originally Posted by ThePaladinTech

or use this: http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/eulalyzer.html

It would, indeed. If I had a direct link to it, or had it handy, I would. Part laziness, part strapped for time/patience, But most EULA's just banter on identically in their recitals, and most have nearly identical terms.

[SHS]

Licensee and SageTV agree as follows:

THE AGREEMENT

1. License Grant. SageTV hereby grants Licensee a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, revocable license to make one copy of the SageTV™ Client software, and any fixes, releases, updates, modifications or additions (collectively, the "Software") provided to Licensee by SageTV, for Licensee’s personal use, performance and display on Licensee’s home personal computer under the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The Software is in "use" on a computer when it is loaded into temporary memory (i.e. RAM) or installed into permanent memory (e.g., hard disk, CD-ROM, or other storage device) of that computer. The Software may be used on a single personal computer only and may only be networked or used on a server for access by multiple computers if those individual computers have a licensed version of SageTV or the SageTV Client installed. SageTV also grants Licensee a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable revocable license to use all media and documentation related to the Software at home, for non-commercial purposes. "Product" in this Agreement means the Software and all media and documentation related to the Software.

2. Restrictions. The Product is comprised of proprietary software and materials and is protected by the laws of the United States, including but not limited to its copyright and patent laws. Licensee may not:
(a) copy, distribute, sublicense, transfer, modify, or assign the Product or any portion or copy of the Product, to any third party;
(b) copy, use or exploit the Product other than in accordance with this Agreement;
(c) resell, rent, use in a service bureau environment, sublicense or otherwise transfer rights to the Product to any third party;
(d) reverse engineer, disassemble, or decompile the Product or assist any other entity in doing so except to the extent required by third party licenses included with the Product;
(e) remove or obscure any proprietary notices on the Product.

[panteragstk]

Originally Posted by SHS

Licensee and SageTV agree as follows:

THE AGREEMENT

1. License Grant. SageTV hereby grants Licensee a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, revocable license to make one copy of the SageTV™ Client software, and any fixes, releases, updates, modifications or additions (collectively, the "Software") provided to Licensee by SageTV, for Licensee’s personal use, performance and display on Licensee’s home personal computer under the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The Software is in "use" on a computer when it is loaded into temporary memory (i.e. RAM) or installed into permanent memory (e.g., hard disk, CD-ROM, or other storage device) of that computer. The Software may be used on a single personal computer only and may only be networked or used on a server for access by multiple computers if those individual computers have a licensed version of SageTV or the SageTV Client installed. SageTV also grants Licensee a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable revocable license to use all media and documentation related to the Software at home, for non-commercial purposes. "Product" in this Agreement means the Software and all media and documentation related to the Software.

2. Restrictions. The Product is comprised of proprietary software and materials and is protected by the laws of the United States, including but not limited to its copyright and patent laws. Licensee may not:
(a) copy, distribute, sublicense, transfer, modify, or assign the Product or any portion or copy of the Product, to any third party;
(b) copy, use or exploit the Product other than in accordance with this Agreement;
(c) resell, rent, use in a service bureau environment, sublicense or otherwise transfer rights to the Product to any third party;
(d) reverse engineer, disassemble, or decompile the Product or assist any other entity in doing so except to the extent required by third party licenses included with the Product;
(e) remove or obscure any proprietary notices on the Product.

You beat me to it.

For those that don't have a copy. http://download.sagetv.com/linuxweb/EULA.txt

[OneOfMany]

13. Governing Law. So far as may be permitted by the laws of their respective jurisdictions, SageTV and Licensee expressly agree that this Agreement is governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Illinois, United States of America, without regard to its conflict of law principles. Except where SageTV seeks equitable relief, the parties agree that the state and federal courts located in Cook County, Illinois will be the sole and exclusive venue and jurisdiction for any litigation arising from this Agreement. PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 6 OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON CONTRACTS FOR THE INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS ("UN CONVENTION"), LICENSEE AND SAGETV AGREE THAT THE UN CONVENTION WILL NOT APPLY TO THIS AGREEMENT.

[panteragstk]

Originally Posted by OneOfMany

13. Governing Law. So far as may be permitted by the laws of their respective jurisdictions, SageTV and Licensee expressly agree that this Agreement is governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Illinois, United States of America, without regard to its conflict of law principles. Except where SageTV seeks equitable relief, the parties agree that the state and federal courts located in Cook County, Illinois will be the sole and exclusive venue and jurisdiction for any litigation arising from this Agreement. PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 6 OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON CONTRACTS FOR THE INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS ("UN CONVENTION"), LICENSEE AND SAGETV AGREE THAT THE UN CONVENTION WILL NOT APPLY TO THIS AGREEMENT.

What are you trying to say. I'm sorta dense right now.

[simonen]

Originally Posted by SHS

Licensee and SageTV agree as follows:

2. Restrictions. The Product is comprised of proprietary software and materials and is protected by the laws of the United States, including but not limited to its copyright and patent laws.

Well, I guess those outside the US are good to go...I will keep mine though. The Sage software was not that much to begin with.

[OneOfMany]

Maybe agreement on Client licenses is only with Sage TV. Also, Illinois is sole jurisdiction for court cases?

Not sure if SageTV as listed still exists.

Just from what I reading.

[SHS]

Originally Posted by simonen

Well, I guess those outside the US are good to go.

That possable but you better check your country International Copyright Protection on Software.

[atyrus28]

Just thought I would chime in here as I have some first handish info on this type of matter.

I worked for a software company, then a very large corp but us. The large corp now owns the current source code and all versions of the software AFTER the buyout.

Any versions of the software BEFORE the buyout are NOT theirs and they have no rights to it, hence we no longer support versions BEFORE the buyout. We were also told specifically we could NOT create any patches etc for versions BEFORE the buyout.

Know this, Narflex still owns and has rights to Sagetv 7.1.9 and earlier (unless he choose to make that part of the sale as well but I don't think so considering support issues). However considering he is now also a part of Google it's not going to be the wisest idea to tick off your new employers and do something they have no interest in. IF Google decides to move forward with similar software they MAY decide to give us something and allow discounted pricing for current owners (that's smart business IF you want to continue to use the software and sell it).

However we should all realize Google is all about the cloud and advertising, everything they do is about monetizing their software via advertising and not really giving true software support (e.g. tech support lines on products). This is the real reason all their software is "free". When something is free no one expects tech support, just like linux. Also people deal with advertising if something is going to be free, and where there is advertising there is money for Google. Now that they are a publicly traded company their only legal obligation is to share holders who only care about more profit. There will be no SageTV without advertising and nothing that requires the selling of licenses to home users. If they can't "license" you via the cloud they really don't care because actual software licensing is a royal PITA they don't like to deal with. Also "free" software makes them look like the good guys but they are no better than Oracle, MS, Apple or the others. Any publically traded company has one purpose, to MAKE money for share holders.

As a community, we should move on to an open source project. Then no corporation can ever take it away from us, we can always branch it off when they try, just like Open Office.

Being more of a new convert (started using Sage 6.5 in '09) and FINALLY getting it to MOSTLY work, I hate google for being google. This is however the nature of the beast and why I will be switching to MythTV when SageTV doesn't work how I need it to anymore. This could unfortuantely be sooner than later as no one likes to develop dead software. I would suggest we move to something with DVR/PVR functionality as it seems everyone and thier grandmother has some sort of media server for already ripped, recorded, transcoded video, audio and images. DVR functionality is obviously the harder thing to pull off. I do see NextPVR out there and it too is open source, MythTV and NextPVR both have APIs for plugins too.

Anyhow, I hate how things work, but alas this is what we have. I certainly need to get into coding for sure. I'll just do it myself from now on.

Also one last thing, don't forget Oracle is suing Google over Android's use/implementation of Java. I am not thinking Google wants to even touch Java now, even if out of spite.

[Savage1701]

Originally Posted by atyrus28

Just thought I would chime in here as I have some first handish info on this type of matter.

I worked for a software company, then a very large corp but us. The large corp now owns the current source code and all versions of the software AFTER the buyout.

Any versions of the software BEFORE the buyout are NOT theirs and they have no rights to it, hence we no longer support versions BEFORE the buyout. We were also told specifically we could NOT create any patches etc for versions BEFORE the buyout.

Know this, Narflex still owns and has rights to Sagetv 7.1.9 and earlier (unless he choose to make that part of the sale as well but I don't think so considering support issues). However considering he is now also a part of Google it's not going to be the wisest idea to tick off your new employers and do something they have no interest in. IF Google decides to move forward with similar software they MAY decide to give us something and allow discounted pricing for current owners (that's smart business IF you want to continue to use the software and sell it).

However we should all realize Google is all about the cloud and advertising, everything they do is about monetizing their software via advertising and not really giving true software support (e.g. tech support lines on products). This is the real reason all their software is "free". When something is free no one expects tech support, just like linux. Also people deal with advertising if something is going to be free, and where there is advertising there is money for Google. Now that they are a publicly traded company their only legal obligation is to share holders who only care about more profit. There will be no SageTV without advertising and nothing that requires the selling of licenses to home users. If they can't "license" you via the cloud they really don't care because actual software licensing is a royal PITA they don't like to deal with. Also "free" software makes them look like the good guys but they are no better than Oracle, MS, Apple or the others. Any publically traded company has one purpose, to MAKE money for share holders.

As a community, we should move on to an open source project. Then no corporation can ever take it away from us, we can always branch it off when they try, just like Open Office.

Being more of a new convert (started using Sage 6.5 in '09) and FINALLY getting it to MOSTLY work, I hate google for being google. This is however the nature of the beast and why I will be switching to MythTV when SageTV doesn't work how I need it to anymore. This could unfortuantely be sooner than later as no one likes to develop dead software. I would suggest we move to something with DVR/PVR functionality as it seems everyone and thier grandmother has some sort of media server for already ripped, recorded, transcoded video, audio and images. DVR functionality is obviously the harder thing to pull off. I do see NextPVR out there and it too is open source, MythTV and NextPVR both have APIs for plugins too.

Anyhow, I hate how things work, but alas this is what we have. I certainly need to get into coding for sure. I'll just do it myself from now on.

Also one last thing, don't forget Oracle is suing Google over Android's use/implementation of Java. I am not thinking Google wants to even touch Java now, even if out of spite.

Agree. You hit the nail on the head so many times it's flat with the board...

[speck55]

Originally Posted by atyrus28

Just thought I would chime in here as I have some first handish info on this type of matter.

I worked for a software company, then a very large corp but us. The large corp now owns the current source code and all versions of the software AFTER the buyout.

Any versions of the software BEFORE the buyout are NOT theirs and they have no rights to it, hence we no longer support versions BEFORE the buyout. We were also told specifically we could NOT create any patches etc for versions BEFORE the buyout.

Know this, Narflex still owns and has rights to Sagetv 7.1.9 and earlier (unless he choose to make that part of the sale as well but I don't think so considering support issues). However considering he is now also a part of Google it's not going to be the wisest idea to tick off your new employers and do something they have no interest in. IF Google decides to move forward with similar software they MAY decide to give us something and allow discounted pricing for current owners (that's smart business IF you want to continue to use the software and sell it).

However we should all realize Google is all about the cloud and advertising, everything they do is about monetizing their software via advertising and not really giving true software support (e.g. tech support lines on products). This is the real reason all their software is "free". When something is free no one expects tech support, just like linux. Also people deal with advertising if something is going to be free, and where there is advertising there is money for Google. Now that they are a publicly traded company their only legal obligation is to share holders who only care about more profit. There will be no SageTV without advertising and nothing that requires the selling of licenses to home users. If they can't "license" you via the cloud they really don't care because actual software licensing is a royal PITA they don't like to deal with. Also "free" software makes them look like the good guys but they are no better than Oracle, MS, Apple or the others. Any publically traded company has one purpose, to MAKE money for share holders.

As a community, we should move on to an open source project. Then no corporation can ever take it away from us, we can always branch it off when they try, just like Open Office.

Being more of a new convert (started using Sage 6.5 in '09) and FINALLY getting it to MOSTLY work, I hate google for being google. This is however the nature of the beast and why I will be switching to MythTV when SageTV doesn't work how I need it to anymore. This could unfortuantely be sooner than later as no one likes to develop dead software. I would suggest we move to something with DVR/PVR functionality as it seems everyone and thier grandmother has some sort of media server for already ripped, recorded, transcoded video, audio and images. DVR functionality is obviously the harder thing to pull off. I do see NextPVR out there and it too is open source, MythTV and NextPVR both have APIs for plugins too.

Anyhow, I hate how things work, but alas this is what we have. I certainly need to get into coding for sure. I'll just do it myself from now on.

Also one last thing, don't forget Oracle is suing Google over Android's use/implementation of Java. I am not thinking Google wants to even touch Java now, even if out of spite.

Ok, then answer me this. In the post where Narflex was kind enough to distribute a patched 7.1.9 series of EXE's to allow V5 and V6 keys to work, he states that he "had great news", and that he "WAS AUTHORIZED" to release these EXE's. If he still had all rights to 7.1.9, then I would assume he wouldn't need "authorization" from anyone.

[Savage1701]

Yes, curiouser and curiouser...

[JetreL]

Originally Posted by speck55

Ok, then answer me this. In the post where Narflex was kind enough to distribute a patched 7.1.9 series of EXE's to allow V5 and V6 keys to work, he states that he "had great news", and that he "WAS AUTHORIZED" to release these EXE's. If he still had all rights to 7.1.9, then I would assume he wouldn't need "authorization" from anyone.

Well this could be for many reasons.

1) The assets were sold to Google and Jeff now works for Google. Releasing code that removes license restrictions as a Google employee for a SageTV/Google owned product/company is a grey area that I would want to get permission to do regardless of if I still owned the licensing rights or not.

2) He has mentioned that he is under a NDA. No matter how you you cut it any updates that he would do to SageTV EXE while under that NDA could violate this NDA unintentionally because of the similar functions of what SageTV does and what he is probably working on. So again I would get permission before releasing anything especially on products that he has sold for profit in the past.

I really could go on but you get the gist of logic on why you would want to get permission first before releasing anything for SageTV. The goal is to not jeopardize your relationship with your employer.

[speck55]

Originally Posted by JetreL

Well this could be for many reasons.

1) The assets were sold to Google and Jeff now works for Google. Releasing code that removes license restrictions as a Google employee for a SageTV/Google owned product/company is a grey area that I would want to get permission to do regardless of if I still owned the licensing rights or not.

2) He has mentioned that he is under a NDA. No matter how you you cut it any updates that he would do to SageTV EXE while under that NDA could violate this NDA unintentionally because of the similar functions of what SageTV does and what he is probably working on. So again I would get permission before releasing anything especially on products that he has sold for profit in the past.

I really could go on but you get the gist of logic on why you would want to get permission first before releasing anything for SageTV. The goal is to not jeopardize your relationship with your employer.

All of those make sense, and are completely viable. OTOH, I have a hard time imagining that the copyrights and source to the core of the company's product (the Win/Linux/Mac Server/Client binaries) would not be part of the acquisition. This is either an extinguishing (as in competition) move (which is what it looks like from the outside as the store shuttered with zero notice) and/or an IP acquisition move, and/or a talent acquisition move, or all 3.

In any of these scenarios, I doubt he'd be left personally with the rights to the 7.1.9 and older binaries, free to branch the project (defeating at least 2 of the 3 possible objectives) or continue developing on his own time, which would leave him in direct competition to his employer. The Sage company was acquired, and unless another company was formed to hold the rights some think he still has on the v7 code, it would have had to have been assigned to him personally.

I think the words "was authorized" were rather deliberate, and designed to deliver a message. And after all, support request for V7 are being answered by @google.com.

I will, however, be the first to admit that all of this speculation by all of us, is just that: speculation (WILD speculation), but things just don't add up that he's left with V7 and below in his pocket. Maybe we're way off and they were after some portion of the extender technology, and Jeff's talent - who knows? We may never know.

The one thing I do know is the silence on Soogle's part is becoming almost eerie. But big brother is watching, I can tell you that, as one of these threads had some negative tags on it (I didn't add them, but noticed they were removed), something along the lines of "sage sux" or "google sux" or "screw sage" or some such. So there is at least one person moderating still, and in an active fashion.