Regarding the vBHosting Hack

[jluerken]

Originally Posted by Morrus

Kier, the whole point of licensing agreements is related to the letter of the agreement. That's why you have them. If you have a licensing agreement, you don't get to waffle on about nebulous "spirit" and such.

If Jelsoft don't want to be bound by and adhere to a licensing agreement, then they shouldn't create one.

I licensing agreement's raison d'etre is to make is plain and clear what the obligations of both parties are. That is what Jelsoft has chosen to do. Now Jelsoft doesn't get to complain about actions taken by people which are within the terms of the agreement: you certainly wouldn't be so lenient with people who violated the agreement - so what on earth makes you think that any other party to the agreement is going to be?

18 pages? This is crazy.

Jelsoft should bring out an official statement and don't wait so long.
They have a license agreement and in my opinion the hack is not against it, so what?

[Morrus]

Originally Posted by Wayne Luke

Actually, this is exactly what the hack does. It allows every person on a site running this to create their own sub-community with a unique look and feel, control over their members, multiple forums and so forth.

Wayne, this is where you're going wrong.

You're fixating on the issue of creating new "communities". However, that nebulous term is not part of the licensing agreement which everyone here read, agreed to and then paid for. Communities are irrelevant.

Your licensing agreement refers specifically to the software, and the distribution/leasing/sale thereof. The software is what has been licensed, and Jelsoft has very deliberately entered into a specific, binding agreement with those people who purchase such a license.

If licenses were flexible artifacts, where the licensors/licensees were able to enforce "spirit", interpret the terms how they chose and so forth, then the whole concept of licenses would break down. That's not what a license is, and that's not what it's for.

Everyone here expects you to enforce the license (according to the letter), and everyone here has no doubt that Jelsoft would not hesitate to do so were it to see someone actually violating that license. That's not a problem, and nobody is going to argue against that. But, the flip side of a licinsing situation, is that the licensee is going to do the same thing.

It seems to me that Jelsoft need to completely revise their licensing strategy so that it meets their aims more adequately. Right now, they are in the position where they have accepted money from people, and are bound specifically by the terms under which they accepted that money, in the same way that those people are bound specifically by the terms under which they purchased their licenses.

[GameCrash]

Originally Posted by 13th_Disciple

yeah.. but sadly they can keep you from getting your hands on it if they don't want it on their site(s)..

The hack will be published, if not here, than somewhere else. I just won't do that until it has been officially banned from vBulletin.org as I want to be sure that the one downloading the hack is a licensed vBulletin customer which I can't be anywhere else.

I know that hack is at least legal in Germany so it's no problem for me to release it...

[Zachery]

Originally Posted by GameCrash

The hack will be published, if not here, than somewhere else. I just won't do that until it has been officially banned from vBulletin.org as I want to be sure that the one downloading the hack is a licensed vBulletin customer which I can't be anywhere else.

I know that hack is at least legal in Germany so it's no problem for me to release it...

No, vBulletin Germany didnt have the authorization to tell you it was legal, Kiers word is the final decision on it.

[Morrus]

Originally Posted by Zachery

No, vBulletin Germany didnt have the authorization to tell you it was legal, Kiers word is the final decision on it.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to say this again. Kier's word is not the final decision on anything. The most Jelsoft can do is issue an opinion as to what they believe is legal or not legal under their license, and then other parties can take whatever action they feel appropriate, depending on how confident they are of their own legal standing.

Any assertions otherwise indicate a very fundamental misunderstanding of how the law works in relation to licensing agreements. And someone who doesn't understand such things really shouldn't be dabbling in them (or should employ a lawyer who can handle it for them).

[Zachery]

Originally Posted by Morrus

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to say this again. Kier's word is not the final decision on anything. The most Jelsoft can do is issue an opinion as to what they believe is legal or not legal under their license, and then other parties can take whatever action they feel appropriate, depending on how confident they are of their own legal standing.

If jelsoft bans a hack of this nature it would not be allowed to be distributed on any of the offical vBulletin / Jelsoft websites. It is Jelsofts final call on their own websites.

[Morrus]

Originally Posted by Zachery

If jelsoft bans a hack of this nature it would not be allowed to be distributed on any of the offical vBulletin / Jelsoft websites. It is Jelsofts final call on their own websites.

Ah, we have a communication issue.

I thought you were refering to use of the hack; in fact you were refering to distribution of it on Jelsoft's websites. In that case, we are in agreement,

[FASherman]

Originally Posted by Zachery

No, vBulletin Germany didnt have the authorization to tell you it was legal, Kiers word is the final decision on it.

Again, this is wrong. The only "final word" can come from a judge. That "final word" must be sought by Jelsoft. The burden of proof to receive that "final word" belongs to Jelsoft. Any area of ambiguity will be interpretted by the courts in favor of the the defendant, ie not Jelsoft. Should Jelsoft loose in court - which is likely - then they not only have pay their own legal costs, but also those of the defendant. Moreover, they face the prospect of civil suit damages far in excess of actual cost.

All the while, this issue will damage Jelsoft's reputation with other customers and potential customers. The performance/feature gap between Jelsoft and Invision is not so great that it makes doing business with a draconian company palatable. In fact, that is the largest reason why NFL teams like the Philadelphia Eagles and San Francisco 49ers chose IPB over VB.

Many thanks to Wayne for allowing us to view this hack first hand. Anyone who sees for themselves the complete lack of features available in the hack's Control Panel can see first hand how this is nowhere near a "sublicense".

[Morrus]

What Jelsoft need to do now is this (and this is what I'd be doing in their situation, because I agree that this hack is not good for them!):

1) Change the license now. At the very least, all new licensees will be bound by the new terms. Make sure you incorporate a defined concept of a "community" and the licensee's rights in sub-assigning such things. Make sure you include any restrictions you wish to include regarding how people can generate revenue using the software (at present, there is no restriction other than that of selling/distributing the software).

2) Make sure that anyone renewing a leased license agrees to the new terms upon renewal.

There will be a problem for them in that some people will be using the old license (either temporarily, in case of a leased licensed, or permanently in case of an owned license). But these measures will help.

I can't remember offhand the structure of the members area as connected with licenses, but access to the members area (and thus upgrades) is connected to a yearly renewal, is it not? That's another opportunity to change terms.

What will happen is that the majority of people, within a year or so, will be bound by the new terms. A select few with owned licenses will choose to stick with what they have (and forego upgrades and so forth); these people will probably be those comfortable with hacking their boards anyway, and to whom an upgrade would probably be more hassle than it's worth.

[PlenoJure]

While it seems the issue of distributing this hack has been setteled based on the last couple posts, I would still like a better explanation of just what that clause in the license represents. It seems there is a great deal of confusion, perhaps if Jelsoft released a somewhat more detailed statement it would help clear up the legel issues.