Blitz EULA?

Hi,

Okay, how about this for a starting point for a BlitzPlus/Blitz3D EULA:

Part 1 is just something we get asked a lot.

Part 3 is, of course, due to the mmEngine3D situation and to my mind seems like a reasonably clean approach that also allows for 'interpreted' style situations like game constructions kits etc.

The rest should be obvious.

Next up, we can revamp the site TOU!

Looks good Mark. Hopefully this would be enough to stop people like Maxus.

How about something like "You may not distribute the Blitz3D runtime, linker, blitzcc in any form outside of normal program complimation. I.E. When using the IDE to create an excutable."

I guess #4 basically covers that though.

#Additional Comments

Users of Blitz Products can't use Blitz to make any competiting products including Compiler/Intepreter/Game SDK/Game Engine, or any derivative product that harm the trademark/benefit of Blitz Research.

Hmm...seems a little harsh, and extremely vague.

What if someone comes up with a groovy RAD game creator type thingy?

This license scheme was used on many Game SDK and/or Language, to prevent unauthorized reproduction.

Users want to make a product that can produce secondary content(this including modding) will require a signed(written) permission from BRL.

Looks good so far, but I would reword #1 to be a bit more specific. Or else your going to get those people who stretch things.. ( "ooo mark said we can install blitz on all of my friends computers, as long as we all compile at different times." )

Then again I'm a programmer, not a lawyer :)

How did he get off accusing you of stealing Andreymans code?

How about adding "without the express permission of Blitz Research Limited"

That would give you the final yes/no.

Steve.

You may install this software on as many computers as you own, as long as only one copy is being used at a time by you, and the software is not being used by anyone outside of your residence.

It looks good.

If it stops guys like Maxus and still lets me run Bmax off of my thumbdrive, then I'm happy.

I think #3 is ok as it is, it seems abit much restricting the creation of programming languages in Blitzbasic.

Doesn't that preclude the creation of a DLL altogether? (Which, IIRC, is one of the experimental features of BlitzMax itself?)

How about something more allong the lines of just prohibiting the wrapping/exporting of build-in commands without any functional modifications?

e.g. you can export a custom-build function, but not just an empty wrapped function that simply passes the buck?

And like Orca pointed out: You may want to re-word #1 to mention as many of your computers or something.

Hello.

I don't believe a retrospective EULA would be enforceable to any extent whatever, maybe for new users but not for those who own it already.

What is to stop you saying

If you put such an EULA against any future upgrades you would probably be ok but only in how it relates to anyone who is using that update. The update would also have to be significantly different to the current version to encourage people to use it.

Again, best of luck with this.

Goodbye.

It's sad that it's come to this, but *please* make sure any EULA is displayed at the point of sale, *before* purchase, as well as in the package/signup form -- don't do the standard "OK, you bought it, and *now* here's our list of things you can and cannot do with it". I personally don't think that nonsense should be legally binding.

Also, I would modify item #1 to allow one user (stated to mean a person, not an organisation) to use a single license on multiple PCs at the same time, as long as it's for their own individual use (eg. testing program output is the same, testing networked games, etc). Would need to be worded better, but this allows multiple installs while still covering site licenses too, ie. a university still needs one copy per user.

The only problem I see is #4 makes it impossible for me to distribute my source if my source includes the include file for selecting a video mode that many Blitz games use.

How often do such things really happen?

One of the points i really love about BRL is that there aren't a pack of EULAs which to read through and you don't understand and you might notice afterwards.

I personally use BlitzMax on a Mac and a Pc and they are open at the same time in order for a crossrelease for instance. Do i have to buy two copies then?

All this EULA crap often makes things just feel uncomfortable... :O/

Like Orca said, Mark, the first thing I noticed is that #1 is easily stretched. If Bob compiles in the mornings and Nancy compiles in the evenings, using John's copy of Blitz (he compiles in the afternoons), they're home free.

EULAs in general aren't enforcable. Unless perhaps you have the weight of Microsofts legal division.

It isn't. In fact in some contries, they're illegal (considered fraud).

I agree with taumel, two bad apples in 6 years (or so) doesn't really seem to warrant an EULA, but if you do decide an EULA is nessecary, please contact a lawyer, preferably one with experience in international trade laws.

The only thing worse than having no EULA, is having one that isn't legally binding, and/or illegal. In either case, if you're not preparded to follow through with legal action, there's little point in having an EULA.

One thing I would like to do, for personal use, is to create a .dll for use in dotnet programs. Only the end user program would be distributed (the program I would write that makes use of the dll). Since you add the ability to create a .dll my guess is that you were thinking of allowing this kind of usage.

I don't know how that could be written up though.

Hello.

@FlameDuck: An EULA that has to be agreed to prior to purchase would constitute, under British contract law 'Concensus ad idem', basically 'Agreement to the same thing'. At least I would guess it could be aurgued thus. I also appreciate that post-purchase EULA's aren't 'enforceable', however the presence of one would at least lend weight, if it came to court, that at least some boundaries of use were in place and in public domain.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not professing to be an expert at such things but I think you'd have more weight behind you with either of the above.

You're absolutely right about seeking professional legal advice, mind.

Goodbye.

I also agree with the two bad apples argument. If you are going to attach any legalese to the software I would have thought the standard non liability disclaimer would be of more importance. The such as and for example in point 3 in my mind fails to define in anyway the difference between a users right to convert vs manipulate resulting executables.

Establishing any rights over Blitz3D output to me seems like the wrong course. Reiterating your copyright of the Blitz3D API and documentation seems the most logical course if any to take.

Ditto. The issue here is of copyright, which applies regardless. Someone has definitely stolen your documentation, copied the Blitz3d API exactly and copied your specific implementation of the Blitz3d API too. I think it is copyright law that applies here, not anything to do with an EULA or license agreement. (Which isn;t to say that such a thing would be a bad thing, provided it's an upfront EULA, not an "after you buy" thing).

Given that he has essentially hacked the exe into a DLL and exposed the commandname_ calls, could you release a b3d update that munges those internal calls such that they are unintelligible and different every time? Of course, this only slows down his "updates" based on your updates, and only really hurts if you were to release a highly functional update...

http://www.blitzbasic.com/codearcs/codearcs.php?code=1542

Gulp! :D

I'm done for!!! :)

Dabz

Mark, you may want to email every existing user the new EULA, then, give them a link to confirm that they agree with the new EULA, if they do not confirm by a set date, revoke their BUID until they do. That'll stop idiots like Maxus or whatever his name is updating his Blitz products. Then when he is desperate to update, he'll have to agree to the license and scrap his mmEngine3D bollocks instantly!

I mean, I'd click the link straight away, and I'm sure everyone here would too!

Dabz

Quite apart from seriously annoying thousands of people who have changed their email address since they bought Blitz, or who have dodgy spam filters, or a hundred other things, it would be entirely illegal to force people to agree to something retroactively and take away what they'd paid for in order to enforce it.

I tend to agree with Skidracer. Reiterate copyright and your standard non-liability disclaimer.

lol, I havent got the foggyist about EULA, I just thought it'll be a good idea! Because it would *beep* that maxus (whatever) off, because technically, he would of blown his BUID!

Never mind though! :)

Dabz

Its standard practice for languages to exclude the creation of a directly competing product. ie Delphi can be used to make pretty much what you like, but not a competitor to delphi.

I'd take his away regardless. He's in Russia, where copyright is virtually ignored, last I checked. Where's he gonna find a copyright lawyer? And - frankly - if he's so hard up he needs to *effectively* pirate someone else's software, fiddle with it a bit, and resell it, where's he gonna find the money to hire one anyway?

And I'd do the FMod and ShareIt things I mentioned in the other thread.

That topic has closed, and AFAIK he pulled the product.

Russia recently signed with the US to start pursuing IP violations properly.

For other countries that don't respect Copyright, you can usually have whoever handles their international payments cut them off.

>Russia recently signed with the US to start pursuing IP
>violations properly.

Very nice, except BRL is located in New Zealand.

I think this entire discussion is overkill. As FD said, 2 incidents in 6 years is not that many, and more importantly, a license is not going to have more weight than local legislation. More importantly it's a waste of time when most countries have IP legislation.

Either you do it right(agreement to transfer of jurisdiction(void in EU), rights defined(void in pretty much any WIPO country),liability defined(void pretty much anywhere), which may but propably wont protect BRL anyway.

IT'll be much cheaper to simply hire a local lawyer in russia and have him send a cease and desist letter.

Andy

The agreement was made with the US but it is not just for US IP. Russia wants to join the WTO and IP was one of the US's objections to that.

I just said the guy pulled the product too. The thread appears to be deleted so I guess some of you aren't aware of that.

<posts removed>

Please keep on topic. The situation with mmEngine has been resolved and no harm has been done.

Thanks for the feedback, given me a lot to think about, but it's getting off topic so I'm gonna lock this before it turns into a Russia bashing exercise.