What do you want changed in the EULA?

The title pretty much sums it up. What would you like changed in the next version of the EULA for all Studio tools?

You can view the EULA here.

26 Responses to What do you want changed in the EULA?

  1. PaulC says:

    I don’t know how big of a deal it is to MM but…”You may receive the Software in more than one platform but you shall only install or use one platform.”I REALLY like the whole “1 copy for work, 1 copy for working at home.” But a lot of times, especially in the creative field, you’re using a PC for the office and a Mac for home, or vice versa.It would be really nice to be able to switch platforms at will. Especially with Tiger gaining people’s attention. Software cost is one of the factors preventing me, and a lot of people I know, from switching.

  2. Colin says:

    I agree with Paul. Making the EULA platform agnostic and allowing users to have the software installed on 2 computers (Mac or PC) so long as there is no concurrent use would go a long way towards making me want to upgrade!I personally disagree with the sneek and peek clause allowing you to check compliance! The activation scheme handles this already.The Breeze plugin clause is just kinda sad and paranoid. If you guys keep making the best software out there, like you have…then you don’t need to resort to this kind of limitation.

  3. PatrickL says:

    I second PaulC’s comment. Your licences should be cross-platform. I work in a multi-OS shop where I actually have Linux, Windows and Mac workstations and I only can use the Windows box to write my code in Dreamweaver. I use other tools on the Mac. I would also like to see the return of DevNet as a Developer license for all tools and platforms. One suite, one price, all platforms, all dev products.

  4. Third it. We’ve had no end of trouble transferring licenses between the two platforms. It seems like a totally arbitrary rule.As an aside, while I’m quite happy Macromedia (and Adobe for that matter) offers this double license, I honestly don’t understand why they do. What’s the history on this? It can’t just be some viral marketing ploy.-MB

  5. I agree with PaulC, and burning hybrid CD’s wouldn’t hurt too bad?!?!? Didn’t I hear of DW running on Wine rumor? hehe….Here’s my choices of areas that sounded heavy, if you ask me – which you did.. ;)(2.g.) Ouch!?!(3.a.) Does this limit machine migration software builtin to WindowsXP+ & OSX?(3.l.) Does this damper online “site builders” made in Flash/Server-Side script, since we’re developing web-pages/sites that buld web-pages/sites? Wierd huh.(4 & 5) Wouldn’t it be updated to talk about Activation, and outstanding issues (like recent DMX2004 + Tiger OSX) preventing the installation of a newer version? People (informed) have to wait for patches before getting to install one program (Tiger) or the others (DW/FW)?And why is only Opera browsers’ EULA attached with? Is this in part of DW’s rendering engine maybe – speculation, but was a thought.

  6. I would jump for joy at a platform agnostic license.On a side note, I sure wish someone would ask the same “what would you like changed” question about the Flex Developer License EULA! Ugh!

  7. PaulC says:

    I’d also like to say Mike, thanks for asking.I certianly hope this openness with the development community continues under Adobe. Between this, the Flash Team and other blogs, and the handling of the Yahoo toolbar ‘unpleasantness’, MM has really earned developers’ trust.If that brown-nosing doesn’t count towards getting stuff platfom agnostic, I don’t know what will. 😉

  8. N Rohler says:

    I’ll jump on the platform-independent bandwagon. That would address an issue I ran into a while back – running DW on a Mac emulator on top of Windows for testing.

  9. iS says:

    I vote for XPlatform 2. Can’t really try a Powerbook without the software.

  10. Beyond all the stuff I’ve blogged to death in the past (much of which was resolved), I REALLY want to emphasize the need for cross platform licensing!!!! I can’t stress this enough.Two huge reasons:1) I’m primarily a Mac guy, but I often need to recompile or test stuff on my PC. Right now I either need to send it to one of my developers on PC to recompile, which is a massive pain in the arse, or I need to use an illegitimate copy of the software on my Windows box. There’s no way that I would pay for another copy just to compile something once a week, but I would use the second allowed installation for this if it was possible.2) Our office is mixed. Exactly half the staff is on Mac, and half is on PC. If someone quits, and I replace them, I want to accommodate their choice of platform. I could certainly see a lot of people simply pirating a copy for the new developer, because they’ve already paid for the license. I consider it more unethical of a software company to arbitrarily prevent someone from switching the license to another platform, than a person pirating it because of this restriction.The unfortunate thing is, that once you’ve pirated one copy because of the inconvenience (immorality?) of the platform restriction, the door is open and people are a lot more likely to pirate a second or third copy, simply because it’s convenient (they’ve already found the krack or SN#).I’m proud of the fact that all of our software is fully licensed and legal, but I could see myself pirating a copy in the second scenario. I certainly have a lot of difficulty understanding ANY reason for the restriction now-a-days.

  11. bokel says:

    Why do we/you need EULAs in the first place? Isn’t the swf format about implicitely open source?Ralf.

  12. bokel says:

    Sorry, what i really ment to say is the following:I buy your tools to get my work done! If there is something in my way to get it done, i don’t have any problems to fix them. But if the EULA states something like “you are not allowed to distribute a fixed version of …” then it will most likely be ignored, huh, suddenly its all english to me :)In fact, as a tool provider, you should help people getting their work done, and not involving them in legal issues. Do the best to make your developers succeed in promoting your plattform.!Ralf.

  13. bokel says:

    Huh,most probably I didn’t understand the question, me bad, i was thinking about the flash eula problems, like extending MM classes. So better disregard my comments … :)Cheers,Ralf.

  14. bokel says:

    Damn, i forgot to tell you aboutwww.cheap-viägra.com http://www.ciagris-online.comwww.the-better-ponis-enlargement.comI‘m a robot :DGoldie Lookin Chain

  15. cathy says:

    I don’t understand the breeze plugin conversion clause. What am I not allowed to do? Does it mean I cannot use the output anywhere but in the breeze web services, meeting or training programs? If so, then it would be helpful if that was specifically stated.Where would people with seat licenses distribute their handouts or make their material available if they cannot use the swf files on their website or other applications?Many users need to give offline presentations on the flash player, Are these uses prohibiited?Personally, I think that more people will buy the product if it can be put to a variety of uses. I would respectfully suggest that the output be allowed to be used in any macromedia application. And ideally that its swf files be allowed to go anywhere an swf file can go.If the intent is that the plugin itself not be used in other products, that needs to be stated more clearly. That use would not cross most peoples minds.Breeze is a wonderful product – it can open new worlds for people. If its price point is kept affordable, it is going to be everywhere.Since theStudio product can be used on two computers, with hard drives filling and products getting larger, and more use of video, users are going to find themselves in the situation they may not have workspace to run all of studio on one machine. it would be nice if a custom install permitting a user to install just part of it on one computer. What is the difference if different parts are installed on two computers as long as both were owned by the same person? I dont see people doing this unless they have to since the integration between the products is part of the joy of using it. Rather than split the product, a custom install option letting users only activate part of the program would meet this need.It would also be nice if licenses were returned to people for products that were discontinued. IF I owned fireworks I would not have to stop using it if it was discontinued, If I understand this license correctly, I would. At the least, if the person has ever owned a copy of the product, the license should be returned if the product is discontinued.Giving up licenses is a big deal to some people. I would suggest people be allowed to retain their license but not to sell it or give it away or permit its use by others if that is your concern. With the coming merger, this may be even more of a concern.I also would vote for the cross platform use. Many of the developers I know have desktop pcs and mac laptops. And many are also operating linux systems.Devnet was a gift to the developer. It will be sorely missed.Thank you for asking for opinions.You are a great company with great products

  16. Thanks for asking… since you asked… the whole Breeze thing is problematic. Both 2.g. and 3.l. You can’t sell tools then say we can’t use the tools to make something like Breeze. Naturally, I wouldn’t want to re-create the Flash IDE, but I think this is a case of wanting it both ways: make products and make customer not compete with those products. The fact there are special features only available in the Breeze plugin/comm server is really frustrating. I could accept it… sort of… if you truly opened up the Breeze platform like a real platform–but it’s far from that currently. Bottom line: it’s difficult to be in the services (or turnkey product) biz and in the products biz without alienating customers.Regarding the xplatform. Why don’t people just buy two copies? Sounds stupid to some–but I can tell you I’d much rather have it that way than to make all the one-platform folks effectively subsidizing the xplatform people. That is, I’d love to have xplatform for the price of one… great. I just don’t want to pay for it. It’s sort of silly to read the above comments on this issue and not wonder if those people think it should COST the same. In my opinion the fact you can have it running on two machines is a pretty good deal.Finally, I think you need an additional category to break “not for resale” into “not for commercial use” and “not for resale”. That is, if you give away a copy as a door prize or something then that should be “not for resale”. If you give one out for evaluation, it should be “not for comm use”. I don’t think you’ll go hunting down people for this issue but I think many people are breaking 3.h. without intending to.Thanks!

  17. bente says:

    yes! I vote for the cross platform license as well. I use both mac and pc for development and testing and found out too late that you are only allowed to install on a second machine of the same platform. It just makes no sense to me.Thanks for asking.

  18. steve says:

    I favor one license, cross platform useage. As an independent web contractor making a modest income, I don’t have the budget for two separate copies of Studio. I agree with the non-concurrent use as well. It is prohibitive for me to maintain two separate copies. Thanks for asking and any consideration!

  19. Jaye Morris says:

    I agree on the cross platform deal! I Use both MAC and PC. My Powerbook and Toshiba laptops would thank you for it.

  20. ethan says:

    I have to agree with the majority-you guys build tools that deploy files for mainly web browser consumption-on multiple os’s that we have to deal with. If your building the program for both platforms then the license should be cross platform as well. Your user base HAS to deal with the two platforms or more. Might as well help us do that. If you released your software on linux i would expect that we could add a third install-i for one would not have an issue with realtime concurrent use checks happening in the background to facillitate it. I’ve been a Devnet subscriber and have yet to understand the whole thing: you give me serial numbers and a website to download from but you can’t make that number install a mac copy? or just give me another number? We are the user’s paying you guys ahead of time and hoping the upgrades are worth it. Seems rather “cheap” to me. Right along with apple’s quicktime PRO key thing-boy that has bugged me for years…-ethan

  21. x says:

    This seems like a dumb question. How about you can use it free. That’d would be a cool change!

  22. arthur says:

    I certainly understand P. Kerman’s “one license, one platform” argument, but there are two things that I find wrong with it: first, the present MM license already “subsidizes” two machines — why, then, should the OS of the other machine matter? Why should I be penalized because I have one PC box and one PowerBook? Second: unlike traditional graphics or “office” apps, where the picture you create in photoshop on the macintosh, or the letter you write in ms word in windows is going to appear as intended on another platform without too much worry; the output from dreamweaver and flash MUST be checked for consistecy on other platforms. It’s the nature of the medium.

  23. Jimbo says:

    Having just received a 17″ Powerbook, with the full intention of decomissioning my PC, I faced the unenviable task of purchasing full macromedia studio, adobe CS and Video package because the software wont install on the mac. Needless to say the PC will not be getting decomissioned anymore, it will be a slow transition top apple as I purchase upgrades.

  24. FS Thomas says:

    I’ve always had issue with the Upgrade Policy, as well.:”You agree … to voluntarily terminate your earlier EULA and that you will not continue to use the earlier version of the Software …”I have no problem with the clauses regarding transfer to a third party, but to no longer be able to run older versions of applications (Director comes chiefly to mind) is excruciatingly limiting. Please consider lifting that clause from the agreement.

  25. A couple replies: I didn’t understand you weren’t allowed to use the old vesions–in fact, I think MM should supply all old versions when you buy a new one. That is, I should get all the old Authorware revs when I buy the new version. In fact, you NEED the old versions often. Sometimes during the install; for example, Director upgrades require the old version is already installed on that machine. It’s such as hassle to be an archivist–MM should make these available.Regarding arthur’s argument that there’s already a subsidy… sure. But considering that some people do have to buy two copies (one for each platform) MM will make less money if they change this–so I just don’t want to be the one to cover the difference.Thanks,Phillip

  26. Peter Hall says:

    Grant: I think you missed the point about Mac/PC (or else I did). I’m pretty sure it’s ok to deactivate and uninstall the software from a Mac and then install and activate on a PC, if an employee quits, of if you _upgrade_ to a PC ;-)The EULA clause just prevents you from installing it on both simultaneously, should you have a mac on your lap and windows on your desk…