"Your LBS License will also automatically terminate if you materially breach these Terms."

I'm haven't been active on these forums in recent years, so although the EULA change was apparently announced here early last year, I didn't discover it until a couple months ago (was e-mail sent to users?), and I've been waiting some "free" time to write about it.

Here's my core complaint: the Faithlife ToS "automatically terminate" and autoterminating EULAs only penalize the honest: As Christians, we all know that we can't follow the law perfectly. If I eventually find that I've somehow violated the Faithlfie ToS (scary: maybe I already have), then I'd now be ethically/conscience-bound to stop using my LBS library.

I'm poor at expressing my emotions, but I was probably shocked and upset when I found this two months ago, and now I'm disappointed and, as I write this, sad. I've declined many software EULAs in the past because they have such autotermination clauses, exactly because of this problem of conscience; and if I'd known this was going to happen with LBS, I probably wouldn't have started using it in the first place. I certainly wouldn't have put money into it: that is something that I've rarely done for any software company, which shows how impressed I have been with LBS. There have been some tempting sales lately (and tomorrow), but I've been reluctant to put more into a jug that might just shatter if I trip. Moreover, although I've raved about LBS to friends in the past, I wouldn't want to promote it to friends now, exposing them into the same problem of conscience.

I feel trapped. As with God, Faithlife is the potter, so I recognize their authority to do anything with their clay. But may I pray for mercy? Here's one idea for a compromise: I've seen some EULAs that state that terminate if the the user is contacted and fails to make it right in some reasonable time. May we have some provision for reconciliation?

Thank you for listening,
-Pete

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

MJ. Smith

Since much of the FL materials are not owned by them but rather licensed to them, I would expect the EULA to reflect the terms that FL is held to by their licenses. I don't see a legal grounds on which they could make it looser. -- Just my thoughts; I do see why some would find this burdensome especially when we don't know what "materially breach" means legally.

Pete De Bonte

Embarrassingly enough, I've now discovered that the L4 EULA was autoterminating back in 2013 (the earliest Wayback Machine capture). My order history predates that, but I'm guessing that I started using LBS before I started paying attention to/became aware of autotermination. So it seems the consolidation into the Faithlife ToS were only the catalyst to me noticing this. Sigh.

I still wonder if, e.g. MJ's guess about publisher agreements is right; or, as I've long thought of the LBS EULA as being a gracious one, could it possibly change to allow users to repent and be restored?

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1104728#Comment_1104728

Oh. So, you're concerned (that for some or maybe many customers), that FL rips (automatically .... very efficient) $30-40,000 worth of materials out of their hands? Or maybe just authorization. Or server support. Or.

But Bob's always said it's in there for egregious situations (they need 'something' to pull the plug). I think he even gave examples ... imagine one license running a small city of nefarious Logosians.

Pete De Bonte

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1104733#Comment_1104733

... imagine one license running a small city of nefarious Logosians.

In such an extreme situation, couldn't the terms allow Faithlife take action to disable such an account (e.g. "Faithlife may terminate…"), rather than making it automatic and penalizing users who desire to be honest?

Bobby Terhune

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1104735#Comment_1104735

Pete,

What exactly are you afraid of doing that would put you in some kind of jeopardy? Bob has given us the parameters that are very generous compared to any software I use. For instance anyone in your home can use the software unless that other person is using it in a professional manner. such as the spouse being a minister or a professor.

Like Denise said, it was to protect Faithlife against egregious abuse by a user. One actual instance Bob gave was a student at a bible school who was sharing his software with other students and if I remember correctly even charging them to make a copy.

David Wanat

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1104739#Comment_1104739

Pete,

What exactly are you afraid of doing that would put you in some kind of jeopardy? Bob has given us the parameters that are very generous compared to any software I use. For instance anyone in your home can use the software unless that other person is using it in a professional manner. such as the spouse being a minister or a professor.

Like Denise said, it was to protect Faithlife against egregious abuse by a user. One actual instance Bob gave was a student at a bible school who was sharing his software with other students and if I remember correctly even charging them to make a copy.

Given the investment, I’d be worried about doing something wrong out of ignorance and getting banned for it. But it sounds like the OP is talking about self-policing after discovering he accidentally broke a rule.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1104750#Comment_1104750

When people ask me if I can share my program because it’s cool, I say “No, I can’t because 1) I invested a lot of money in it and 2) All my personal information is visible once I‘m logged in. It’s a way to protect me and the company from illegal use of the software.

I definitely wouldn’t worry about anything since I’m the ONLY person allowed to use my Logos. My possible future wife already has Logos Fundamentals that I gave to her and she uses it mostly on her mobile devise for quick readings.

When the time comes, I’ll leave it to someone in my will, hopefully not any time soon 😂😂😂

DAL

Pete De Bonte

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1104750#Comment_1104750

But it sounds like the OP is talking about self-policing after discovering he accidentally broke a rule.

Yes! You understand. Thank you.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1104735#Comment_1104735

... imagine one license running a small city of nefarious Logosians.

In such an extreme situation, couldn't the terms allow Faithlife take action to disable such an account (e.g. "Faithlife may terminate…"), rather than making it automatic and penalizing users who desire to be honest?

I think 'automatic' isn't the decisioning ... it's what happens after (digital rights and associated connection).

Pete De Bonte

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1104767#Comment_1104767

I think 'automatic' isn't the decisioning ... it's what happens after (digital rights and associated connection).

Sorry, I'm uncertain if I'm parsing this correctly: could you clarify?

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1104806#Comment_1104806

"Your LBS License will also automatically terminate if you materially breach these Terms."

Sorry, the font size above is from the thread title, and ths being tiny font.

If you materially violate the terms .... FL spends time, discussion, maybe communication .... FL can programmatically terminate the license.

'Materially' means they're decisioning, reviewing, etc. prior to any action. They might choose to ignore, keep an eye on, etc. Even maybe forgive.

Pete De Bonte

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1104811#Comment_1104811

If they have to make a decision, how is it automatic? Or more to my concern: if it is automatic, how does that leave any room for a decision?

On the other hand, what you are suggesting sounds like more of a fit to the language that I began to suggest earlier: "Faithlife may terminate your LBS License if you…" I've seen that kind of language in other EULAs.

DMB

Here's my core complaint: the Faithlife ToS "automatically terminate" and autoterminating EULAs only penalize the honest: As Christians, we all know that we can't follow the law perfectly. If I eventually find that I've somehow violated the Faithlfie ToS (scary: maybe I already have), then I'd now be ethically/conscience-bound to stop using my LBS library.

I assumed this was your concern. My point is 'materially' qualifies violate ... you left that out. They decide if a material violation occurred. To date, FL has proceeded in a Christian-like fashion. Bob's examples were well beyond 'materially'.

So, I guess, what were you expecting? DR is DR. Ownership.

Pete De Bonte

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1104816#Comment_1104816

You do seem to have accurately quoted me, so your assumption is correct. I was certainly not making an accusation against Bob or Faithlife in general. What does DR stand for?

Now, what does "materially breach" mean? MJ had mentioned it last night, but thanks for shedding doubt on my understanding. I've encountered "material" with "changes" before, and had presumed it would have similar impact with breach. Having now surveyed some legal dictionaries, however, it does seem much stronger (extreme even) when used with breach.

So, returning to David Wanat's accurate "self-policing" depiction of my concern, if "materially" breach really does restrict it to extreme cases, then perhaps I can have more hope that I haven't done that, and carry on. It would be more comforting to know if my understanding matches Faithlife's original intent, though.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1104820#Comment_1104820

DR is digital rights, spelled out by law. It's how we own licenses ... not books.

Regarding intent, you might get lucky with an FL response. But historically, FL tends to try to favor customers well beyond the technical EULA ... they just don't like to discuss exactly, and get themselves in trouble with publishers (as MJ discusses above).

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1104820#Comment_1104820

So, returning to David Wanat's accurate "self-policing" depiction of my concern, if "materially" breach really does restrict it to extreme cases, then perhaps I can have more hope that I haven't done that, and carry on.

One DR concern of Faithlife has seen that uploaded Personal Books are not organised into a Library for sharing with other users. So they provide only a 'cloud" repository for your PB's, as with other User Content, and thus limit DR issues to the way you manage it. If you use Clippings, the material you copy as a 'clip' from a resource bears the appropriate Citation. The material you copy into its Note, or as an annotation in the Notes tool (from your FL resources), will also bear a citation if the selection is more than 25 characters. So, ensure that Copy Citations = YES in Program Settings. Citations for external material is your responsibility, as well as obtaining Copyright for some of your Personal Books (as per last paragraph of EULA section 7).

Infringements have to be proven as per Section 8. So "materially breach" would mean you were quite deliberate in that matter. So avoid sharing your Content to lessen the risk! I don't consciously 'not share' for that reason, and I will attribute non-copied material where the substance came from a published work.

SineNomine

The TL;DR oversimplified version of this thread is that "materially breach" means that there's nothing about the EULA that should be bothering your conscience.

David Wanat

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1104837#Comment_1104837

So, returning to David Wanat's accurate "self-policing" depiction of my concern, if "materially" breach really does restrict it to extreme cases, then perhaps I can have more hope that I haven't done that, and carry on.

One DR concern of Faithlife has seen that uploaded Personal Books are not organised into a Library for sharing with other users. So they provide only a 'cloud" repository for your PB's, as with other User Content, and thus limit DR issues to the way you manage it. If you use Clippings, the material you copy as a 'clip' from a resource bears the appropriate Citation. The material you copy into its Note, or as an annotation in the Notes tool (from your FL resources), will also bear a citation if the selection is more than 25 characters. So, ensure that Copy Citations = YES in Program Settings. Citations for external material is your responsibility, as well as obtaining Copyright for some of your Personal Books (as per last paragraph of EULA section 7).

Infringements have to be proven as per Section 8. So "materially breach" would mean you were quite deliberate in that matter. So avoid sharing your Content to lessen the risk! I don't consciously 'not share' for that reason, and I will attribute non-copied material where the substance came from a published work.

This is helpful. I was worried about accidentally violating some obscure rule and losing my license, but if I understand it correctly, this would be more about attempts to violate copyright rules deliberately?

Pete De Bonte

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1104854#Comment_1104854

The TL;DR oversimplified version of this thread is that [the EULA's use of] "materially breach" means that there's nothing about the EULA that should be bothering your conscience.

…nothing that should be bothering my conscience about accidentally "materially" breaching it. That is, IF my understanding of "materially breach" matches Faithlife's intent.

(That's the nonoversimplified TL;DR version)

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1104873#Comment_1104873

I was worried about accidentally violating some obscure rule and losing my license, but if I understand it correctly, this would be more about attempts to violate copyright rules deliberately?

David and Peter

There's nothing 'obscure' about pirating text or violating copyright for large selections of text. It is deliberate, and not accidental. Just do the 'right' thing by others and enjoy Logos.

David Wanat

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105069#Comment_1105069

I was worried about accidentally violating some obscure rule and losing my license, but if I understand it correctly, this would be more about attempts to violate copyright rules deliberately?

David and Peter

There's nothing 'obscure' about pirating text or violating copyright for large selections of text. It is deliberate, and not accidental. Just do the 'right' thing by others and enjoy Logos.

You misunderstood me. I never called piracy obscure. I said that until I learned it was for abusing copyright material, I thought there was a risk of accidentally violating a rule and losing a license. Once I learned the real meaning, I quit worrying.

Pete De Bonte

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105078#Comment_1105078

I said that until I learned it was for abusing copyright material,

Wait, why would the automatic termination be limited to copyright? Yes, my alert level is lower now than when I first posted two nights ago, but reducing it to copyright seems significantly oversimplified. There is more in the two-dozen sections of the Fathlife ToS than just copyright. What about the AUP (§4), just for one example?

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105078#Comment_1105078

You misunderstood me. I never called piracy obscure.

Of course not! I was only stating that piracy is not obscure, therefore it is not done "accidentally".

Once I learned the real meaning, I quit worrying.

Excellent

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105095#Comment_1105095

What about the AUP (§4), just for one example?

Abuse of Copyright is part of the AUP (emphasizing the means of violating it) e.g. points c. f. h. and i.

Most of the others (incl.the rest of h. and i.) are anti-social, obviously illegal (piracy) or a deliberate action. The more more technical users could get into trouble with points n. and o.

Point m. is a little obscure, but it comes down to a deliberate action.

Point g. contemplates the use of Personal Books (from the Public domain) to compete with what Faithlife could produce or actually sells e.g. by distributing the docx file to other users. Now, this is a really grey area as you can upload to the Files forum. Also, other users could refer you to a site for a public domain document(s). So, if in doubt "do not share"! Overall, this is the only point to be concerned with.

EULA §5 is another point to consider when you have multiple installations across one or more devices. Of itself, this is not illegal, but who is using it other than the license holder? There is some freedom within a family (I won't clarify unless necessary), but FL will monitor "excessive simultaneous logins on different devices". Sometimes it won't be "simultaneous" as I had to re-enter my login credentials on a couple of occasions (I have had up to 5 legally used installations on two devices!). Fair enough, it will be disabled if the "user" doesn't know the login!

Bob Pritchett

I appreciate your desire to approach this ethically and live up to the terms you're agreeing to.

For what it's worth, Faithlife is balancing two things: the need to have the 'legal cover' for an action we need to take, or might be obligated to take on behalf of a rights holder we've signed a contract with, and the need to continue our reputation for treating people kindly and fairly.

There's no advantage to us to penalize someone for doing something accidentally, or making a mistake, etc. -- and a severe negative reputation hit if we did do that.

On the other hand, we need to ability / agreement that we can, when necessary, live up to our obligations / end egregious abuse of our product.

For example, we've had people share licenses with multiple unrelated people; instead of turning it off, we've asked them to stop.

But in one case we had someone share a very large library of content with 96 different people, and learned that they'd set up a little business and were actually taking payment in exchange for installing their library onto other people's computers. This is an account that was deactivated for all of those illegal copies.

I hope this helps, and that you'll appreciate that our desire is to serve you and deliver great value; the legal details cover a lot of worst-case-scenario protections that we rarely (and wish to never need to) invoke.

Pete De Bonte

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105185#Comment_1105185

…we need to ability / agreement that we can, when necessary, live up to our obligations / end egregious abuse of our product.

Thanks for writing, Bob!

In other EULAs, I've seen language like, "We may terminate your license if you…" and that has always seemed far less alarming to me than autotermination. Is there any chance that language like that might be sufficient to cover Faithlife's needs?

Mike Childs

My experience of more than 20 years of using Faithlife (Logos Bible Software) convinces me that I can trust Bob and the company to do what is right and fair. Unless you are intentionally trying to do something dishonest, I do not think you have anything to worry about. Indeed, I have found them to be more than fair.

Pete De Bonte

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105398#Comment_1105398

I can trust Bob and the company to do what is right and fair.

Thanks for the testimony, but that isn't the issue that I'm discussing. I'm thankful for Bob's explanation of the spirit of things; and I'm just asking for the letter of the law to reflect that explanation (e.g. "Faithlife may terminate…" instead of automatically — just a possible idea).

As it stands, without Faithlife doing anything, if one day I discover that I've done something wrong in the past, I'll then have the additional fault of having been unknowingly operating without a license for some time, because it autoterminated when I first made that mistake. Moreover, with autotermination, if I'm even wondering if something that I've done might have been a violation, then I lack assurance that I have an active license, because it might of autoterminated. That's why I typically reject autoterminating EULAs. I've even declined gifts of autoterminating software, because it's usually not worth the additional burden on my conscience. In the case of LBS, I suppose I could take Bob up on his spirit of the law by writing to Faithlife to confess and beg for restoration/forgiveness; but by the letter of the law, stop using the software until I receive a presumably positive response?

To flip the discussion around, however: what is the advantage to Faithlife of "automatically terminate" if the desire of Faithlife (if I understood Bob correctly) is the ability to take elective action?

Pete De Bonte

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105401#Comment_1105401

Btw, I'm a Republic Wireless customer, and I greatly appreciate Republic Wireless' termination clause, as it graciously gives their users both notice that they have failed in some way, and the time to rectify it.

[quote]"…which failure remains uncured thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of written notification from the non-defaulting party informing the defaulting party of such failure…

I'm guessing that is what I had in mind in my OP, when I asked if we could have some provision for reconciliation. Then again, RW is quite an unusual company, and their terms are unusual from the outset:

[quote]WE TRUST YOU. WE REALLY, REALLY TRUST YOU. WE WISH OUR COMMUNITY COULD ENJOY REPUBLIC WIRELESS ON NOTHING MORE THAN A VIRTUAL HANDSHAKE. OUR LAWYERS DID NOT LIKE THAT IDEA.

I wouldn't imagine Faithlife going as far as Republic Wireless : >, and again my alert level is far lower now than when I made my OP; however, I'd still be excited if Faithlife might even consider changing the "automatically" part to "Faithlife may" (or something like that: *shrug*).

PetahChristian

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105401#Comment_1105401

then I lack assurance that I have an active license, because it might of autoterminated

You wouldn't have received some notification, or had your resources' permanent licenses revoked?

It would seem odd if the software license ended, but you still had access to the software and its resources.

Pete De Bonte

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105423#Comment_1105423

It would seem odd if the software license ended, but you still had access to the software and its resources.

But that's exactly what I'm talking about: "terminate" means that the contract has ended. The software might execute on my computer, but I lack the legal right to execute it, under the terms of the contract. Moreover, "automatically" means that Faithlife needn't do anything for that to happen, because they already posted it that way in their ToS [and apparently, I accepted that condition multiple times, e.g. whenever I started using Libronix (it was even in the 2004 EULA), and when I installed L4, and by my "continued use of the product" (L6), and by my "continued use of the Services" when the EULA was merged last year, and at at times in between = a lot of opportunities to have failed]. That's why the "self-policing" terminology (q.v. David Wanat's Jun22 post) is so apropos.

Pete De Bonte

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105193#Comment_1105193

For another option, a web search for "We reserve the absolute right…" seems to show that phrase correlated with terminating and/or suspending users.

I made that search wondering about the "absolute" part, after seeing it in an apologetics site's ToS this morning.