In order to transfer full usage rights to a new owner there could be several requirements.
I already quoted at least part of the ruling where some are mentioned.
You have to stop using it and the publisher may “ensure by all technical means at his disposal that the copy still in the hands of the reseller is made unusable.” “All technical means” is quite ambiguous so it remains to be seen what publisher might consider “all technical means” - audits aren’t out of the question.
Also, IF you happened to sell a license that was not expired & the new owner would be entitled to updates for that license you may need to contact the publisher to see that things are set up to make sure the new owner obtains those updates as you are not entitled to them & the new owner is. You may not and I’m sure this will vary by publisher.
Note I’m NOT contending that a license CANNOT be transferred - which you seem to think I am.
I AM saying that you MAY have to be able to prove you no longer have a usable copy (see above) and that you MAY need to contact the publisher to see that the transfer fully takes effect and that the new license owner gets all benefits of holding that license.
And, the ruling makes NO direct statement about any fees that can & may be applied by the publisher to effect the transfer of the license. And its not a “license fee”. It would be a “transfer fee” which would be within the publishers right to charge.
And FWIW you own the LICENSE - not the software - and the LICENSE is what you’r reselling.
The ruling is quite clear on that aspect
Wow, I did not expect this many comments. Lol. There seems to be a lot of passion about this subject!
Anyway, my only wish is for simplicity in terms of subscribing to a package that has it all. Xojo offers a lot in terms of what it can accomplish compared to other products. All I’m saying is that it would be nice to offer the option and maybe it should be just that. An option alongside its current model. I’m sure this would make many people happy. I just want to see this platform continue to thrive and include more users into the community. That is all
[quote=281467:@Norman Palardy]And FWIW you own the LICENSE - not the software - and the LICENSE is what you’r reselling.
The ruling is quite clear on that aspect[/quote]
No, it is not if you read the complete text on the EU website. And the jurisdiction (mostly in Germany because this is the most important market) has interpreted the case since then to: a sale of a software license is a sale of a good. Ownership of the good (license and copy of the software) is transferred to the buyer. All EULA paragraphs restricting the buyer are invalid.
Adobe and Microsoft have not changed to a “renting” model (called “subscription”) because there was too much piracy going on. They changed it because of the EU law.
Eli you are referencing to Usedsoft in Munich. These legal issues are completly different. Usedsoft was once sued by Microsoft, Oracle & Co because it sold Device- and User-CALs out of bundled license packages e.g. a company sold a 25-User CAL to Usedsoft and Usedsoft reselled it as 5x5 CAL. Another much older case was that, Microsoft tried to bundle its OS with the hardware the so called OEM version. Since then we have the Windows SB (Systembuilder) Editions you can buy and sell free of any hardware.
I am not referring to any such case. I’m referring to the law (especially to the BGB in Germany)
As you are also Germany based: ask your IHK’s IT-law specialists. We had such a case this Spring with a software license bought from a NYC based company. They were enforcing the usual EULA stuff, which in this very case we could not accept and after some legal back and forth their NY-based law company had to give in. The interesting thing is that nobody here in Germany seems to care and nobody seems to know.
no need to ask… I’ve had a similar case couple of years ago where a customer thought he could counterfeit my software… I brought this case to court. In defence he suddenly insisted that he just sold his copy from one company to another company (both were his own). I disagreed. After the judge said that he is not following this argument the customer swinged by and finally agreed to my license terms.
From what you describe the customer broke the (copyright) law so I fail to see how that is a similar case or what point you are trying to make.
In Europe your license is a good that gives you the right to use the software, and as any good it can be sold (which means you no longer have it). Licence terms to the contrary are invalid. Simple as that.
Nobody is supposed to ignore the law, yet it is difficult to keep current. That is where the obfuscated mumbo-jumbo used by publishers to write their EULA and terms of service in point size 8 and numerous pages tends to be taken as valid. Which I guess is the intent in the first place. Heck, even in the US, some provisions don’t float in all states.
The only true test would be the courts, which did happen on occasion in Europe, and jurisprudence is pretty constant : soft good or not, it is a good, and as such transferable like any other good. In that respect, the long standing jurisprudence of records and books tends to pave the way : even if intellectual property remains for their content, the copyright owner cannot claim any right to control their resale.
Yes he broke it, but he argued that he just sold it from one company (the one who licensed it) to the other one. I’ve argued against and my objection sustained! There is no court decision cause he accepted an amicable arrangement afterwards so I cannot tell if this is applicable in general or not. I am not a lawyer, It’s just my own experience…
This community likes to pride itself on its friendliness. That is not a friendly comment.
The OP’s intentions are being questioned rather than his question being taken at face value.
I participate on the Lazarus forum and also on the vbforum and there is none of this type of negative inference against some one who asks a simple question.
It reflects a siege mentality and is unattractive as paranoia generally is.
EDIT: as does the ‘is not verified’ description. This is a programming forum not a banking website for God’s sake.
