Dennis wrote:
I believe this is one of those signs of the times - the economic downturn that we are in right now. For GS and their resellers, they need more seats, more upgrades, and more subscriptions to keep their cashflow going.

Therefore, you would think that they would be appeasing the customers, instead of alienating them?

Samovar wrote:
When we design a building (or whatever) for a client, we license them to use our design to produce that building. They do not own the design, or even the copies of the drawings. We retain the copyright.

They cannot sell-on our design to another without paying us.

We buy a licence from GS to use their software to make our product (building designs). We don't own the software or have any other rights to it.

Allowing us to sell-on a key at all is pretty generous. The debate is about how much GS should be paid to allow it. If you stop to think how important the software is to your business $2000 seems fair enough to me.

You're right, they cannot sell the design, just as we can't reverse engineer the source code for Archicad. This is more like saying "It's our design and you bought it, so you can never sell the building."

None of us expected to make money selling our old Archicad licenses, but at the time we bought them, there was a policy in place saying that we could and what it would cost.

To change that without notice is truly the lowest of the low. It makes me kind of glad my company has been pulling away from Archicad for the last year.

TomWaltz wrote:
None of us expected to make money selling our old Archicad licenses, but at the time we bought them, there was a policy in place saying that we could and what it would cost.

To change that without notice is truly the lowest of the low. It makes me kind of glad my company has been pulling away from Archicad for the last year.

Well said.

Ignoring the fact that it is not clear from the courts that software EULAs are enforceable upon users, let me point readers to the Adobe Creative Suite license which allows a complete license transfer for no fee at all. (Note that when you upgrade something like Creative Suite, that you purchase an upgrade package anonymously that allows you to upgrade a registered license code.) The Master Collection retails for $2,499 so it is not as if this license concept is for a $99 piece of software:

http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/pdfs/Gen_WWCombined-combined-20080623_1026.pdf

I love that the paragraph is titled "No Transfer" - and then proceeds to tell you that you are indeed allowed to transfer your license freely.

4.4 No Transfer. YOU MAY NOT RENT, LEASE, SELL, SUBLICENSE, ASSIGN OR TRANSFER YOUR RIGHTS IN THE SOFTWARE, OR AUTHORIZE ANY PORTION OF THE SOFTWARE TO BE COPIED ONTO ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL OR LEGAL ENTITY'S COMPUTER EXCEPT AS MAY BE PERMITTED HEREIN. You may, however, transfer all your rights to use the Software to another individual or legal entity provided that: (a) you also transfer (i) this agreement, (ii) the serial number(s), the Software and all other software or hardware bundled, packaged or pre-installed with the Software, including all copies, upgrades, updates and prior versions, and (iii) all copies of font software converted into other formats to such individual or entity; (b) you retain no upgrades, updates or copies, including backups and copies stored on a computer; and (c) the receiving party accepts the terms and conditions of this agreement and any other terms and conditions under which you purchased a valid license to the Software. NOTWITHSTANDING THE FOREGOING, YOU MAY NOT TRANSFER EDUCATION, PRE-RELEASE, OR NOT FOR RESALE COPIES OF THE SOFTWARE. Prior to a transfer Adobe may require that you and the receiving party confirm in writing your compliance with this agreement, provide Adobe with information about yourselves, and register as end-users of the Software. Allow 4-6 weeks to transfer. Please visit http://www.adobe.com/support or contact Adobe's Customer Support Department for more information.

I've done a cross-transfer (to myself - PC to Mac) with Adobe - similar process. They just required that I sign and fax back an agreement that I had removed the old software, etc. No cost...except that for a platform change, I had to upgrade at the same time, which I knew ...and so had postponed the upgrade until i was switching from PC to Mac.

With ArchiCAD, there is not even a need to delete anything since without the WIBU key, anything on anyone's computer is still valid as a demo-mode product.

There is no new 'burden' upon the manufacturer when an existing license is resold - the total number of users remains the same. So, why should there be any fees?

Good for Adobe.

And, good for Apple, too - who allows AppleCare plans to be transfered to the purchaser of a used computer...unlike Graphisoft which will not allow a subscription to be transfered, nor will give a pro-rated refund for the seller's subscription balance.

Cheers,
Karl

I think that the ArchiCAD licensing and past version support is still far better than the Revit's model. Revit 2009 cannot open files made in Revit 2010, and Revit 2010 cannot save as version 2009 (or any past version). Thus they are forcing you to stay on subscription all together, unless you work only by yourself. Also, after two years of no upgrade, you have to pay the full price to get the latest version. THAT is greed and arrogance, which I hope that GS doesn't follow.

I've said this before, but GS better get in the underdog mentality, and fight like an underdog. Be different from Autodesk in every way they can, and maybe this means rethinking the distribution / support system. Rhino for instance is a smaller company, but their customers get all the support they need with outstanding satisfaction. Make a good product, have a friendly web presence with open support / communication lines available online. They better get leaner and meaner, (friendlier of course to its followers). My 2 cents.

lec1212 wrote:
I use to think there was one evil empire, guess I was wrong:-((
Short story;
Can you figure out the moral of this story?

about fourteen years ago our design company, then, had a single license to a graphic cad software. The software company was far ahead of where the fledgling Graphisoft company was at the same time. Forces came together and greed for greed's sake overtook the young entrepreneurs who had secured the software company with business and altruistic goals. The software company still exists today somewhere in the cad jungle, but never to realize its destiny. Our design company also succumbed through disservice to altruistic values. We lost $20,000 US in our turnkey station.

Personally, this one believes some karmic value, or the like, is attached to all decisions, be they greedy or altruistic, business or personal.

Hence the moral learned from the short story (lec1212) is not to follow the lead of leaders that like greed, unless of course you want to be greedy.

It might be that if some peoples spent more time making their money honestly and smartly, dare say 'altrustically', we would not have a blog like this.......

...we would spend the time describing how effective IFC's, improved command lines, better interoperability, are the tickets/tools to resolving global climate change in the next 99 months (Arup's Peter Head's take the 100 month plan), or have our grandchildren face the dire consequences that await coming generations.

If you disagree with this good chance you are not altruistic in the true since of the word. I for one am an altruistic optimist....always hoping the good of others blend with the earth's splendid goodness...... so be it.

I have removed the content of the post by Lennox earlier in this thread as I was informed that Lennox was placing a private email conversation with GS UK onto AC-Talk without the permission of the other party.

http://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?p=148499#148499

I have sent a Private Message to Lennox yesterday asking him for removal.
He has not answered me yet so I decided to act in the meantime.

Of course, Lennox is completely free to describe the email conversation between himself and GS UK with his own words.

laszlonagy wrote:
I have removed the content of the post by Lennox earlier in this thread as I was informed that Lennox was placing a private email conversation with GS UK onto AC-Talk without the permission of the other party.


I have sent a Private Message to Lennox yesterday asking him for removal.
He has not answered me yet so I decided to act in the meantime.

In the USA I think it is called censorship, but I could be *&*&%#!@(%&#$