Searching \ for 'Restrictions' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=restrictions
Search entire site for: 'Restrictions'.

No exact or substring matches. trying for part
PICList Thread
'For sale - OnSale Restrictions'
1997\07\01@134733 by Mike

flavicon
face
At 12:25 PM 7/1/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Better check your license agreement and see whether it's "transferable"
>before you try and sell it.

Does that imply there are software licenses - ie sales that are only
ever valid for one person/entity.

If I buy - say a PCB design package - use it for a while then decide to
sell it (and naturally not use a backup copy of it) then surely I
cannot be prevented under any legal circumstances from selling it.

Of course it would be illegal to continue using it if I'd sold it.

In Australia its illegal to restrict sales of any goods that are not
dangerous or of military value etc - and if its found that a clause
in a sales document is illegal it does not preclude the original
purchase. ie If one of the terms of a purchase is that it cannot be
on sold then the clause which is illegal is considered void and does
not prevent its sale.

I also understand that USA Federal consumer law is very similar to
Australia Federal consumer law. In fact there are also several USA
extensions due to the Bill of Rights which we do not have in Oz.

So I would think that Andy can legally sell his package regardless
of any badly worded clause which may suggest a restriction.

Can some-one from EXECPC diplomatically clarify this without
overwhelming list members with a duplicate copy of the entire
license ?

Rgds

Mike
Perth, Western Australia


Some say there is no magic but, all things begin with thought then it becomes
academic, then some poor slob works out a practical way to implement all that
theory, this is called Engineering - for most people another form of magic.
                                                                      Massen

1997\07\01@152429 by Bob Fehrenbach

picon face
Mike <spam_OUTerazmusTakeThisOuTspamWANTREE.COM.AU> wrote:
>Can some-one from EXECPC diplomatically clarify this without
>overwhelming list members with a duplicate copy of the entire
>license ?

Execpc is an internet service provider, not a software seller.
CCS uses Execpc as their ISP.  (So do I).  I believe CCS
can be found at http://www.execpc.com/~CCS   <- from memory

--
Bob Fehrenbach    Wauwatosa, WI     .....bfehrenbKILLspamspam@spam@execpc.com

1997\07\01@165939 by Ian Raymond Douglas

flavicon
face
I know it's a bit off topic but I found the comments by Andy and the
Execpc company very interesting. I just purchased a pc-link fax machine
yesterday and reading the license agreement I am NOT allowed to sell,
lease, transfer or even destroy the software. Without the fax machine and
the pc-link pack though what the hell would anybody be able to do with the
software? Seems Brother is a bit excessive in their copyrighting.
Personally, I BOUGHT the package and as far as I am concerned I
will do whatever I want with them (excepting using more than one copy of
the software which as stated above is useless on it's own) including sell
or destroy if I want.
                 Regards,
                        Ian

1997\07\01@171815 by Clyde Smith-Stubbs

flavicon
face
On Tue, Jul 01, 1997 at 01:47:33PM -0400, Mike wrote:
> Does that imply there are software licenses - ie sales that are only
> ever valid for one person/entity.
>
> If I buy - say a PCB design package - use it for a while then decide to
> sell it (and naturally not use a backup copy of it) then surely I
> cannot be prevented under any legal circumstances from selling it.

Yes, you can, if the licence agreement into which you entered prevents
you from doing so. The law in Australia is roughly as follows (disclaimer:
I'm not a lawyer, so get legal advice if you need to rely on this)

1) Software is covered by copyright, which automatically confers
  certain rights and restrictions. Copyright does not prevent you
  reselling the original copy, providing you keep no copies.

2) Most software has a licence agreement associated with it that
  grants you certain additional rights and imposes additional
  restrictions. The licence agreement may impose restrictions on
  resale of the original package (it may prohibit it, or it may
  require the new owner to agree to the licence, etc.)

3) Most software vendors rely on so-called "shrink wrap licensing"
  to enforce the licence agreement - i.e. you are assumed to have
  agreed to the licence if you open the package/use the software/etc.
  The validity of this is untested in Australian courts, but I believe
  it has been upheld in US courts.

4) If you don't agree to the licence terms, you are at the very least
  bound by copyright law, which may allow you to resell the entire
  package, but would, e.g. prevent you from embedding compiler
  libraries in your application (because this constitutes copying
  of the software that is not permitted under copyright law).

5) Software is considered to be "goods" under the terms of the
  Trace Practices Act and other consumer protection law - but
  this has never been tested in Australian courts (it was recently
  upheld in a British court). This provides protection in law against
  faulty software, but most licence agreements (even for chips, now!)
  have a clause banning use in safety-critical applications.
  I don't believe consumer protection law would overturn a valid
  licence agreement that prevented resale of the original package. But
  only a court can answer that definitively.

So you should read the licence agreement carefully - it should tell
you what you can and can't do. Many software agreements (including ours)
do allow transfer of the licence under reasonable conditions, but some
do not.

--
Clyde Smith-Stubbs  |HI-TECH Software,      |Email: clydespamKILLspamhtsoft.com
Ph:  +61 7 3354 2411|P.O. Box 103, Alderley,|WWW:  http://www.htsoft.com/
Fax: +61 7 3354 2422|QLD, 4051, AUSTRALIA.  |PGP: finger .....clydeKILLspamspam.....htsoft.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANSI C for the PIC! Now shipping! See http://www.htsoft.com for more info.

1997\07\01@173219 by Mike

flavicon
face
At 07:17 AM 7/2/97 +1000, you wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 01, 1997 at 01:47:33PM -0400, Mike wrote:
>> Does that imply there are software licenses - ie sales that are only
>> ever valid for one person/entity.
>>
>> If I buy - say a PCB design package - use it for a while then decide to
>> sell it (and naturally not use a backup copy of it) then surely I
>> cannot be prevented under any legal circumstances from selling it.
>
>Yes, you can, if the licence agreement into which you entered prevents
>you from doing so. The law in Australia is roughly as follows (disclaimer:
>I'm not a lawyer, so get legal advice if you need to rely on this)

In that case it becomes a lease - I think this goes beyond Andy's offer
since it included sale of other items included in a package.

I understand the law on sale of software that is 'purchased' and not
leased is untested and therefore vague - it cannot prevent me giving
this away or 'allowing' someone else to use the package on my system.
Therefore the 'extension' of this to receiving a fee for no longer
using the package - ie selling it on cannot be prevented and there would
be no logic in attempting to do so for mass produced software available
in an over the counter transaction. This would not preclude contractual
agreements in their proper form between two parties who were jointly
developing a package as such restrictions discussed would have a logical
place - but no in the type of software Andy wishes to sell...

Rgds

Mike
Perth, Western Australia


Some say there is no magic but, all things begin with thought then it becomes
academic, then some poor slob works out a practical way to implement all that
theory, this is called Engineering - for most people another form of magic.
                                                                      Massen

1997\07\01@195527 by )

flavicon
face
Ian Raymond Douglas Wrote:

> I am NOT allowed to sell,
> lease, transfer or even destroy the software.
>
So if your house burned down and the software was burned too, I guess
they'd sue you? Certainly the strangest restriction I've ever seen.
Wonder what you're supposed to do with it when you decide you don't want
it anymore? I own (at least I think they allow me to own it) a Brother
P-Touch PC label maker...think I'll see if they put any weird clauses in
its use.


Frank Richterkessing
Experimental Methods Engineer
GE Appliances

EraseMEFRANK.RICHTERKESSINGspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTAPPL.GE.COM

"The secret to good housekeeping -- Use low wattage bulbs!"

1997\07\01@200355 by John Payson

flavicon
face
> 1) Software is covered by copyright, which automatically confers
>    certain rights and restrictions. Copyright does not prevent you
>    reselling the original copy, providing you keep no copies.

This is true, AFAIK, everywhere in the world.

> 2) Most software has a licence agreement associated with it that
>    grants you certain additional rights and imposes additional
>    restrictions. The licence agreement may impose restrictions on
>    resale of the original package (it may prohibit it, or it may
>    require the new owner to agree to the licence, etc.)

There are definite limits as to what restrictions software vendors may
impose via such licenses in ordinary commercial transactions.  If you sign
a contract BEFORE you buy a piece of software, the restrictions imposed
may be much more severe than those imposed after.

> 3) Most software vendors rely on so-called "shrink wrap licensing"
>    to enforce the licence agreement - i.e. you are assumed to have
>    agreed to the licence if you open the package/use the software/etc.
>    The validity of this is untested in Australian courts, but I believe
>    it has been upheld in US courts.

I don't think there has been any Supreme Court ruling on this subject, and
some state courts may differ slightly.  In general, though, a purchase is
made when money exchanges hands; neither the buyer nor the seller may
place additional conditions or restrictions on a sale after it is
complete.

While certain licenses which generally coincide with copyright law
(Borland's famous "like a book" license for example) are generally
enforceable, it's unclear whether the courts are really upholding the
licenses or merely upholding copyright law.  The more detailed licensing
agreements found on more expensive products (e.g. cross-compilers or CAD
systems costing many thousands of dollars) are often enforceable even
when they are much more stringent than copyright law, but that is because
an exchange of SIGNED contracts occurs BEFORE the exchange of product and
payment.

> 4) If you don't agree to the licence terms, you are at the very least
>    bound by copyright law, which may allow you to resell the entire
>    package, but would, e.g. prevent you from embedding compiler
>    libraries in your application (because this constitutes copying
>    of the software that is not permitted under copyright law).

Here is one place where shrink-wrap licensing could get interesting.  A
compiler writer has the right to restrict distribution of that compiler's
run-time libraries, but will frequently grant blanket permission for
users to incorporate those libraries into their own programs.  A licensing
agreement which required that anyone who transferred posession of the
compiler would also recall and transfer or destroy all copies of the
run-time library that they'd distributed *might* be enforceable.  [this
would effectively allow people to sell their compiler if they hadn't
released any software using it, but would prevent them from selling it if
they had]

> 5) Software is considered to be "goods" under the terms of the
>    Trace Practices Act and other consumer protection law - but
>    this has never been tested in Australian courts (it was recently
>    upheld in a British court). This provides protection in law against
>    faulty software, but most licence agreements (even for chips, now!)
>    have a clause banning use in safety-critical applications.
>    I don't believe consumer protection law would overturn a valid
>    licence agreement that prevented resale of the original package. But
>    only a court can answer that definitively.

Unfortunately, the current state of the laws in the US--and probably
Australia as well--is a mess.  Absent court rulings, there's no way to
know what's enforceable and what isn't; even with court rulings, there's
often still no way to discern the underlying principles or logic.

> So you should read the licence agreement carefully - it should tell
> you what you can and can't do. Many software agreements (including ours)
> do allow transfer of the licence under reasonable conditions, but some
> do not.

Even someone who reads the license agreement, however, still won't know
what terms they're REALLY bound by.  Unless a purchaser uses the software
in a way which copyright law would not permit absent the vendor's
permission (e.g. distribution of run-time libraries) or signed a contract
with the vendor BEFORE purchase waving the right to sell or transfer his
software, the normal rules of commerce and copyright would dictate that
the software could legally be resold.

1997\07\01@203235 by Richard Katezansky

flavicon
face
If I can add my 0.02 worth.  The real question is will CCS honor the
warrenty and any current maintenance agreement with the new owner. Or in
the case of lapsed maintenance will they allow the new owner to obtain
upgrades.  If they don't allow this then the point is moot and the software
is worthless except to the original purchaser.  A simple call to CCS should
clear this up.
My experiance with expensive (>$200.00) software that requires frequent
updates
(compilers, CAD programs ect.) is that the author will gladly allow a
licence transfer if for no other reason than to get the upgrade or
maintenance money from the new owner.





At 06:46 PM 7/1/97 +0000, you wrote:
{Quote hidden}

******************************
Richard Katezansky
Tangent Electronics Ltd.
Montreal, Canada
******************************


'Hitech C Evaluation - Size Restrictions??'
2000\05\13@140353 by Somasundaram Meiyappan
flavicon
picon face
Hi Piclisters,

I downloaded Hitech C Evaluation Software. Are there any size restrictions
in the software (evaluation/demo)? I am using it to write C programs for
16F87x.

Thanks and Regards,
Somasundaram Meiyappan.

2000\05\14@074556 by Clyde Smith-Stubbs

flavicon
face
On Sat, May 13, 2000 at 11:31:21PM +0500, Somasundaram Meiyappan wrote:
> Hi Piclisters,
>
> I downloaded Hitech C Evaluation Software. Are there any size restrictions
> in the software (evaluation/demo)? I am using it to write C programs for
> 16F87x.

There are no size restrictions on the demo, however the demo version is not
as up-to-date as the real thing, and does not have 16F87x support.

Regards, Clyde

--
Clyde Smith-Stubbs               |            HI-TECH Software
Email: clydespamspam_OUThtsoft.com          |          Phone            Fax
WWW:   http://www.htsoft.com/    | USA: (408) 490 2885  (408) 490 2885
PGP:   finger @spam@clydeKILLspamspamhtsoft.com   | AUS: +61 7 3355 8333 +61 7 3355 8334
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HI-TECH C: compiling the real world.

2000\05\14@100626 by Somasundaram Meiyappan

flavicon
picon face
Dear Clyde,

Thanks for the info. Your software is very good.
I believe that the 16F87x support can be created by creating the header
files in the lines of other device header files and by changing the pic.h
entry appropriately.

Thanks and Regards,
Somasundaram Meiyappan.

At 09:43 PM 5/14/00 +1000, you wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2000\05\17@170818 by Novelmain

picon face


'[EE:] ITARS restrictions, was Freescale Zigbee co'
2004\12\02@073707 by Alan B. Pearce
face picon face
>"AFAIR ESA are now specifying satellites that have
>NO US componentry whatsoever. Sounds at first glance
>lime a case of Uncle-Sam-o-Phobia but, on closer
>inspection, it makes sense. With US export control
>restrictions on how components or equipment may be
>used, the use of US componentry puts you constantly
>at risk of regulatory issues slowing or preventing
>completion of a project (or eg satellite). Not using
>any US sourced material starts to make sense!"

I did not see this message from Russell, but it may still come - the message
delays through the list server do seem to play havoc with message ordering.

It is not so much a case of "Uncle Sam-o-phobia" as they are setting out to
do satellite work for countries for which the ITARS restrictions apply, and
so even though the product will not fall into the hands of the country
concerned, they also cannot be used to assist the country concerned, e.g. a
TV or communications satellite. Hence there is currently quite an industry
in Europe to supply equivalent rad hard devices to what may otherwise be
sourced in the USA.a number of companies now claim to be able to build
satellites without any ITARS restricted components. Not sure if this means
that absolutely nothing is sourced from USA, but it may go that far.

I know that our lab is working on scientific collaborations with India,
China, and Morocco. These would probably all require some serious
negotiations with the USA departments if we needed to source any ITARS
limited components.

____________________________________________


'[OT]: PICs export restrictions (was Re: [BUY] does'
2006\01\30@192024 by Vitaliy
flavicon
face
Howard Winter wrote:
> Have PICs ever been subject to export restrictions?

Yes. Iran and Syria are prime examples (for US companies/citizens, at
least):

http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/sanctions/

Best regards,

Vitaliy


'[OT] Export Restrictions (Was Place to sell old c'
2011\08\07@171555 by Michael Watterson
face picon face
On 07/08/2011 22:00, Matt Bennett wrote:
> The area I'm concerned with is making sure I'm not dealing with a broker
> that does the unsavory dealings in addition to the perfectly innocuous
> transactions (such as touch tone filters). In terms of ethics and
> legality, I try to follow something I learned some corporate training a
> long time ago- avoid*EVEN THE APPEARANCE*  of impropriety.
>
> For example (another company I'm not associated with, but one that came up
> in a google search), here is a company that provides the screening
> service:
> <www.exportsolutionsinc.com/export-compliance/denied-parties-screening/>
> - I'm absolutely sure that any company that regularly does international
> shipping from the US will use such a service, even if they don't tell you..
>
> This is getting a bit beyond the [EE] tag, I think that if it continues,
> it probably should be under a different tag.  I guess there isn't a
> [IANAECE but...] tag. (I am not an export compliance expert, but ...:)

No harm in being safe than sorry... I'm just curious to understand.

(I hear a helicopter... must be rushing)

My son eyed my multiple satellite dishes in garden and transmitter masts and the Russian datasheets on Kitchen table and commented that "maybe it's as well you don't live in USA".

I told him people there are allowed Radio Transmitters, Dishes and to study Russian data sheets and eating Macdonalds is as optional as here

2011\08\07@175635 by Philip Pemberton

face
flavicon
face
On 07/08/11 22:14, Michael Watterson wrote:
> No harm in being safe than sorry... I'm just curious to understand.

From my perspective, it's just American red-tape. While the British and government also likes their red tape, there isn't as much of it and they're quite happy to tell you what you need to fill out and where.

Getting an export license for the DiscFerret was absolutely painless. Register with the BIS to get a SPIRE login, submit forms, check, submit evidence (product sell-sheet, technical overview, ...) and wait for a response...

> My son eyed my multiple satellite dishes in garden and transmitter masts
> and the Russian datasheets on Kitchen table and commented that "maybe
> it's as well you don't live in USA".

I have Russian datasheets on my workbench.....

..... For a Nixie tube.

(Didja see that coming? :D )

-- Phil.
spamBeGonepiclistspamBeGonespamphilpem.me.uk
http://www.philpem.me.uk

2011\08\07@182007 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
On Sun, 07 Aug 2011 22:56 +0100, "Philip Pemberton" wrote:
> On 07/08/11 22:14, Michael Watterson wrote:
> > No harm in being safe than sorry... I'm just curious to understand.
>
>  From my perspective, it's just American red-tape.

I think the U.S. is still manufacturing its own red tape and does not
need to outsource it.
That's the end of the funny part of this reply.

If anyone is winding up to start bashing the U.S. (or any other country,
but I have a U.S. "perspective"), be prepared for some admin activity.

Bob

-- http://www.fastmail.fm - mmm... Fastmail...

2011\08\07@184359 by Philip Pemberton

face
flavicon
face
On 07/08/11 23:20, Bob Blick wrote:
> I think the U.S. is still manufacturing its own red tape and does not
> need to outsource it.

I don't recall saying you did... :)

> That's the end of the funny part of this reply.
>
> If anyone is winding up to start bashing the U.S. (or any other country,
> but I have a U.S. "perspective"), be prepared for some admin activity.

If anyone thinks I'm taking a dig at Americans, please note that was entirely NOT my intention, and that I unreservedly apologise for any offence I may have caused.

-- Phil.
TakeThisOuTpiclistEraseMEspamspam_OUTphilpem.me.uk
http://www.philpem.me.uk

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2011 , 2012 only
- Today
- New search...