Alibre Buyer Beware

[sallen]

Alibre Buyer Beware

I purchased Alibre last fall for my company. At that time, I asked pointed questions about terms of use. Since I work for a small company, I asked if I could install the software on more than one computer so that our two person engineering group could each use the software. Alibre said yes, but only one copy could be running at a time.

Both my co-worker and me have been using the software since last fall. Between the two of us, we use it for, at the most, 5% of our available time. Throughout this period, my co-worker, in his communication with the Alibre Assistant, has been very open about the fact that the registered user was myself.

Today, my co-worker was operating the software. Alibre contacted my co-worker and informed my co-worker that only the registered user (myself) could operate the software. Further, my co-worker was instructed to remove Alibre from his computer. My co-worker complied.

I contacted Alibre and they confirmed only the registered user could operate the software. Alibre did say another user could, occasionally, use the software to view files. I asked if this use violated the EULA. Alibre said, technically, this would be a EULA violation. This leaves me confused about Alibre's policies.

Ultimately, I feel like Alibre lied to me. I understand it was my responsibility to read and understand the EULA when I installed the software. But, darn it, I thought I could trust their verbal commitments. I thought Alibre understood my small company's needs. I feel that two users, whose total software usage is minimal, should be free to use the same license.

Am I crazy?

 

[swertel]

Copied from the EULA found in the <install path>/Alibre Design folder.

The file name is eula.rtf.

1. GRANT OF LICENSE. This EULA grants you the following rights:

Applications Software. You may install, use, access, display, run, or otherwise interact with ("RUN") this copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, or any prior version for the same operating system, on a single computer, workstation, terminal, handheld PC, or other digital electronic device ("COMPUTER"). The primary user of the COMPUTER on which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is installed may make copies for his or her exclusive use on other computers.

Storage/Network Use. You may also store or install this copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on a storage device, such as a network server, provided you only use same to RUN the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on other COMPUTERS over your internal network. You must acquire and dedicate a license for each separate user who runs the SOFTWARE PRODUCT from the storage device. A license for the SOFTWARE PRODUCT may not be shared or used concurrently with different users.

Reservation of Rights. All rights not expressly granted are reserved by Alibre.

So, technically, you in violation. Not being there myself, I can't really say if the message you sent was the one you intended when you told them how you intended to use the software. I know that most softwares allow two types of EULA, either installed on a single computer that multiple users have access to, or installed on multiple computers that only one user has access to. Apparently, Alibre is the latter. Rarely do I see that the software can be installed on multiple computers with access to multiple users, as long as you're on your honor to only have one session running at a time.

I feel your pain, but until Alibre comes up with another licensing scheme, say something using FlexLM, then I'm afraid we're going to have to buy a license for each user. Hey! For only $495, that's not too bad. Still cheaper than 1 license of "the other guys."

 

[swertel]

P.S. I'll see if I can get the entire eula posted to the announcements forum. Hopefully I'm not in violation of any copyright laws by posting the segment of the eula here.

 

[Bob_Utter]

Personally, I think Alibre's license is quite liberal and very commendable. Allowing us to install on multiple computers seems to be more than most software companies allow these days, especially for this type of software. I personally hope they don't go to some complex flex licensing scheme. For only $500 for such a capable application, every user who needs a seat should get their own.

 

[sallen]

Yes, I realize, according to the EULA, my company WAS in violation. We've corrected this issue.

I object to Alibre's EULA vs. Alibre's verbal statements. When I bought the software, they verbally committed to allowing more than one user. Now that we've been using the software, all of a sudden, I hear only one user is allowed. In fact, just yesterday, Alibre verbally condoned violating the EULA when they said another user could operate the software to view files.

Further, just because their software is a good value doesn't mean they can't meet my company's needs. Heck, they can afford to give away free, unrestricted licenses to new college graduates, but they won't support my company's needs.

Fundamentally, my opinion of Alibre is changed. I'm left with a bad taste in my mouth.

Caveat Emptor!

 

[leeave96]

This is probably splitting hairs, but - as I read their statement, the primary user is to whom the license is granted. Therefore you should designate the person and only the person who is using the software at a given time as the primary user. As the supervisor and/or owner, you have the right to change who your primary user is on a minute by minute basis - it's your business! If you do, then I should think you are in compliance.

In that context, you must absolutely be sure NOT to run the software on two or more computers as the same time.

Bill

 

[leeave96]

I should have added that (at least for me) one of the attractions of Alibre is the price vs Solidworks, Inventor and Solid Edge - given the level ease and functionality I really need. That price attraction was more for having the ability to purchase additional seats at a reasonable price and put them in the hands of others vs the prohibitive cost of SW, I & SE. I also like the idea of tying data together via the repository between licensed users at the Alibre server from different locations - if necessary.

Bill

 

[swertel]

Steve,

You know what, no one answered your question yet.

No, you are not crazy. At least, not based on how much I know of you. Then again, genious is often confused with craziness. That's why so many people think I'm crazy. :lol:

 

[flyboydave]

Re:

Heck, they can afford to give away free, unrestricted licenses to new college graduates, but they won't support my company's needs.

Fundamentally, my opinion of Alibre is changed. I'm left with a bad taste in my mouth.

Caveat Emptor!

You do understand that they're not giving it away to college grads out of the goodness of their hearts, right? The goal is to get a bunch of grads (who probably wouldn't spend the money to buy it anyhow) trained to use it in hopes that prospective employers will purchase licenses for what their incoming applicants already know how to use. It's very expensive for a company to change CAD apps once they have lots of designs already created in a given system, so it will be interesting to see if this plan works. Remember that most of the cost of creating software is in the actual development and the marketing. Once it's created, it costs virtually nothing to distribute - especially if people are just downloading it from a webserver.

 

[gregmilliken]

Alibre interpretation of the EULA

I have been watching this thread and also discussed this with our team internally and here is the intent of the EULA with respect to installing and running the software on more than one system.

Steve...First, I am sorry that you have been left with such a bad taste in your mouth. Hopefully, my explanation can help turn that around.

As you saw, the EULA defines a primary user and indicates that the software may be installed on a single computer. It goes on to stipulate that the primary user may install the software on more than one machine for his or her exclusive use. For reference the clause of interest in the EULA is provided below:

-------------------------------
You may install, use, access, display, run, or otherwise interact with ("RUN") this copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, or any prior version for the same operating system, on a single computer, workstation, terminal, handheld PC, or other digital electronic device ("COMPUTER"). The primary user of the COMPUTER on which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is installed may make copies for his or her exclusive use on other computers.
-------------------------------

The fact that there is a primary user defined implies that there is also a secondary user, or potentially additional other users. Any of these people may use the software on the "COMPUTER."

The key limitation is not on installing it on more than one computer, nor on letting multiple people use the software, but on particular scenarios involving both. In fact, one can do both if the second computer is used exclusively by the licensed individual, the primary user, with the limitation that the copy on the first computer is not used concurrently with the copy on the second computer.

So installing the software on multiple computers and letting multiple people use it at any time, even if it is only 5% of their time does violate the agreement. However, again, if the software is installed on a primary computer then anyone can use that system and the software. The primary user can then also install the software on another system but that system can only be used by the primary user. Moreover, the copies of the software can never be used simultaneously, so the whole idea of it being on a second computer ends up being for convenience, such as having your own personal system and it is inconvenient to get up and use the second machine, or maybe it is being used for another purpose, etc..

There is one other limitation associated with the primary user. We are only obligated to provide support to a single person, the licensed primary user. I hope you agree that it would be a little bit much for us to effectively support and train many people for one license of the software.

The individual who is initially licensed to use the software is considered to be the primary user, although the agreement does allow you to do a one-time transfer to another. In the case of the primary user leaving your company we would also allow you to change the primary user to another employee. In fact, if you would like to change the primary user to someone else now that is OK too. As you can probably guess, we won't allow this if it becomes apparent to is that this is being done to circumvent the license agreement.

Steve...again, I am not sure what someone told you verbally, but in general, the purpose of allowing the software to be installed on different systems was really to allow one to use the software at home, or on a laptop they travel with, not really to allow multiple computers at a single site, although we are willing to allow the more liberal interpretation I have provided above. Even allowing this puts us in a precarious position because individuals who are not as honest as yourself and your colleague will indeed illegally use the software.

I think this will accommodate your situation, unless what you are asking us is to allow more than one person to use one license simultaneously. Unfortunately, we can never agree to this, even if the usage is only 5% of the time.

 

[gregmilliken]

Alibre interpretation of the EULA (continued)

(Sorry I was so long winded in this. the post is continued below)

...even if the usage is only 5% of the time. It basically nullifies our agreement. If someone told you this, unfortunately they misspoke, and I apologize for that. Is it possible they were simply explaining the fact that more than one person can use the software on a primary system, and that you can copy it on another computer for your exclusive use, or that they interpreted that that was what you were asking?

If upon evaluating this explanation on its merits, you still honestly feel we lied or misled you I will authorize a refund and you may return the software. I hope though that you find we are honest, flexible and committed to supporting our customers, and that we can earn back your confidence and positive endorsement.

Regards,
Greg Milliken
President and CEO
Alibre, Inc.

 

[sallen]

RE: Greg M's Response

Greg,
I hope you catch this .. it's been awhile since I've used Alibre so I haven't responded earlier.

I won't bother rehashing all the details, but my initial understanding of the license agreement was based on Albre's answers to my specific questions. I didn't misinterpret their responses ... they misspoke.

Ultimately, it's my fault. I didn't bother reading the EULA, in detail, until the issue came up in May. Had I read it carefully, I would pushed this issue upon purchase. I still would have needed your clarification to understand it. I'm a bit simple minded EULA legalese.

Bottom line. I accept your clarification. I see a path towards using the Alibre within the bounds of the EULA. Also note that I appreciate the involment of you and your employees in the user group. It's unique, commendable and adds good value to your product. Keep it up!

Best Regards,
Steve Allen

 

[bloefeld]

Disapointment with verbal agreement

This is why everyone has written user agreements. There is no room for confusion or disappointment.

The salesman over-sold you, but one should take such an obvious statement with a grain of salt.

The software is well priced and powerful, even though you have a small company getting two licenses isn't going to break the bank.

As someone in the IP business I would be much more careful than Alibre is in making certain the terms of the agreement are strictly adhered to.

The days of open software distribution are nearly 30 years past, just get used to the idea of paying your fair share for someone elses work product. I am sure that you try to charge as much as you can for your product.

Profitablity gives any company the ability to keep doing R & D. All software companies spend most of their time and money updating their software, without you paying your share, the software suffers and it becomes less competitive.

 

[Rutkowski]

One solution is to have a network License, I’m not sure if this is the correct terminology?...but at our business we have four users each with their own login but only two may be logged in at a time..not sure what the cost were to have this setup but all four of us just work around each other

 

[mattslay]

"Network License"????

I was not aware Alibre had a "Network License". Are you sure about that?

We have that for our Autocad/Inventor bundle licenses: sotware is intalled on (4) machines each which has it own user, but we only have (2) licenses. The license manager prevents any more than 2 users a time.

 

[bscott.arc-tech.com]

Re: "Network License"????

I was not aware Alibre had a "Network License". Are you sure about that?

That's what we use, here. We have four "network" license seats. They are "shared" between users -- I call them "floating licenses". We've got Alibre installed on ten different PCs, and up to four people can be using the software at one time. We have to run a license manager on a local server that keeps track of concurrent usage.

As I recall, the cost was $200/seat extra to get the network option. That was a few years ago, though, so prices may have changed.

 

[bscott.arc-tech.com]

Re: Disapointment with verbal agreement

The days of open software distribution are nearly 30 years past...

Demonstratively false. Linux, Firefox, OpenOffice, etc. Of particular note is PDFCreator (Free Software) which Alibre themselves distribute and use with Alibre Design. So I guess somebody should tell Alibre the days of that software are past, eh? ;-)

If a sales person misled a customer into thinking they had more license rights than they really did have, I'd say that customer is justified in being upset. Not unduly upset, of course. The EULA was still there. But it is fair to be upset at being misled by the company's designated representative. Mr. Allen's initial remarks seem reasonable in that regard.

Mr. Milliken's response, in turn, seems reasonable. "No free lunch, but we'll give you your money back if you like." Mr. Allen's own response to that also seems reasonable.