Observations about the License Agreement

David Housholder

[License Agreement is not really a beta issue except that in preparation for marketing there has clearly been some attention given to clarifying the licensing information,]

The license agreement is very clear that the software can be installed on as many computers as the (one) user needs, even giving a three-computer example (home, office, and notebook). Excellent

It's also quite clear that it is to be used by only one user (and not just one user at a time -- it's one human being period). So I can't ask a colleague to go to my computer, pull up a resource, and print out a couple of pages for me. So, obviously, this can't be used by more than one person on a church staff. All that is reasonable, but what I would like to see is a version of Logos or a licensing model that would allow an installation on a single library computer in a church or seminary that would allow one person at a time to explore the resources. I think that would lead to some people saying, "Wow, this is nice. I want to purchase my own copy."

I copied the DVD onto a flash drive for installation on a netbook. I don't know yet if that will work (just experimenting since I also have an external DVD drive for that netbook), but in the process I have technically violated the license agreement which allows for a copy solely for archiving or backup purposes.

Another curious bit: at the end of the license the user is also agreeing to the use of the AT&T software. My guess is tha thas something to do with the sync and online services, but perhaps a comment in the license that suggests why AT&T is involved would make that inclusing less startling.

David Housholder

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

Another curious bit: at the end of the license the user is also agreeing to the use of the AT&T software. My guess is tha thas something to do with the sync and online services, but perhaps a comment in the license that suggests why AT&T is involved would make that inclusing less startling.

In the past, we were required to include that notice because we used a code component that was owned by AT&T. We're not actually using it anymore in Logos 4, so that copyright/licensing statement is probably a relic of the past that we could remove. (We'll have to double-check and make sure there are no other AT&T components in use by our code.)

TCBlack

Good points David.
To be honest I didn't read the whole Eula. I often do but this time I didn't and I can see that I missed some vital information.