The future of independent purebasic developers under threat

rrpl · Post by **rrpl** » Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:44 pm

The answers easy just mark your software "not to be sold in europe". If someone buys it from overseas, it comes under the laws of the overseas country.

Kaeru Gaman · Post by **Kaeru Gaman** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:37 am

is there any link to the FACTS please?

... I'm too lazy to read thru pages of zdnet's OPINION before I find a small link to what the european parliament is actually discussing.

DoubleDutch · Post by **DoubleDutch** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 7:48 am

rrpl: You may be right. Any licence then bought that is used in Europe will be classed as a grey import and the purchaser would have been in the wrong.

blueznl · Post by **blueznl** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 8:39 am

What everyone seems to be missing is that there is no definition of 'proper / adequate' service / maintenance / support.

To be legally covered, I guess the following would do:

1. For NON-commercial products: tell the world it's free, and ask the customer to contact you if there is a need for support, for which you can (and will

) charge a cost covering fee.

2. For COMMERCIAL products:

- release more than one version with different levels of support
- set cheapest version at higher price, but offer 'non support discount option'
- build up a 'self support center' with a forum, a FAQ, and update functionality
- inform the POTENTIAL buyers of LIMITATIONS (license restrictions, hardware tied single machine usage, etc.)
- offer a demo version
- specify which country's law applies

You should be fine.

pdwyer · Post by **pdwyer** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:57 am

Or just write freeware and say EU people are not licensed to use it unless they find some third party to support it.

Perhaps there's money to be made as a "registered thirdparty support vendor" for companies to use...

which is probably just a call center in india with the help file

SFSxOI · Post by **SFSxOI** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:29 pm

pdwyer wrote:Or just write freeware and say EU people are not licensed to use it unless they find some third party to support it.

Perhaps there's money to be made as a "registered thirdparty support vendor" for companies to use...

which is probably just a call center in india with the help file

Might be an idea there. I think Microsoft pioneered this concept:

(I couldn't resist, been waiting years to use that pic somewhere

)

Rescator · Post by **Rescator** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 2:43 am

utopiomania wrote:If I sell software and explain to people that it is sold 'As Is' and that it might very well not do what they
expect, thats probably end of discussion when it comes to laws like this.

Exactly, be truthful to the customer, explain clearly what they are buying and what form of support comes with it.
Consumers won't be confused (as they've been clearly informed) and a court will have an easy decision in case of conflicts.

Sadly to many use EULA's these days, so you don't get the details until after purchase, all details in an agreement/contract between a seller and a buyer "should" be disclosed prior to closure of the sale right?

So that when you finalize the sale/hit that buy button and the cash/product is exchanged then the consumer has agreed to the deal and the seller has as well. And whatever the agreement was at that moment in time is what the seller and consumer must adhere to. (even if the agreement is changed/different for future consumers).

I mean, it's all common logic right?

pdwyer · Post by **pdwyer** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:30 am

good point,

It should also mean that most EULA's are not legally binding because the transation has taken place already and money changed hands before it's displayed. If the store has a no return policy in the event that packaging has been opened then you can't really decline the EULA to get your money back if something nasty is in there

Problem is just the legal costs of hitting the MS legal department when Vista dies taking all your data with it and not having the version that came with backup software

Tipperton · Post by **Tipperton** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 1:35 pm

Rescator wrote:Sadly to many use EULA's these days, so you don't get the details until after purchase, all details in an agreement/contract between a seller and a buyer "should" be disclosed prior to closure of the sale right?

I believe you are correct.

There was a time when EULAs were on the back of the boxes the software came in so you could see what you were agreeing to before buying or even opening the box.

I thought this arrangement made so much sense that I set up our store to require they read and accept our EULA before they are allowed to purchase. And if they don't read it? Not our problem, since they still agreed to it.

the.weavster · Post by **the.weavster** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:01 pm

It's interesting that the same individuals who were so keen on the law protecting them from pirates don't like the idea of a law that protects the end user from them.

I agree with Trond, if the software works like it should where's the problem?

srod · Post by **srod** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:26 pm

the.weavster wrote:I agree with Trond, if the software works like it should where's the problem?

Oh crap, no one told me that my software has to work!

SFSxOI · Post by **SFSxOI** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:58 pm

the.weavster wrote:It's interesting that the same individuals who were so keen on the law protecting them from pirates don't like the idea of a law that protects the end user from them.

I agree with Trond, if the software works like it should where's the problem?

Interesting observation. Its the way the commercial industry operates now as a whole, as long as everything is on their side they are happy, but mention the consumer getting any thing at all and they turn all sour. Its the reason that EULAs are basically packaged "inside the box" instead of disclosed on the front end before a purchase. There are actually people who would read it and not buy the product as a result of reading it. Heck, lawyers don't even like EULA's in court because enforcing it makes it look like someone being beat on with no fair chance because most EULA's actually don't give the consumer any rights they can really exercise in defense. A EULA is not actually a contract, its an agreement, they are two different things - in a contract there is a tit-for-tat (no pun intended) in a "in consideration of this then this happens" manner, in an agreement like the EULA its a statement of the owners (IP owner) intent.

Tipperton · Post by **Tipperton** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:54 pm

the.weavster wrote:It's interesting that the same individuals who were so keen on the law protecting them from pirates don't like the idea of a law that protects the end user from them.

That's because there's a fundamental flaw in their thinking.

There are so many possible hardware configurations, add to that all the possible variations in a machines software configuration. That conflicts that cause improper operation are bound to happen, not if, but when.

The problem is that EU is asking software developers to be responsible for improper or incorrect operation of their software when the real cause is not their fault at all.

An analogy: Your neighbor borrows your lawn mower and begins mowing his lawn. While mowing his lawn your neighbor hits a rock with your lawn mower which hits someone in the face and takes out an eye.

What this new law proposes is that you or the lawn mower's manufacturer be held responsible when the cause and fault of the accident is your neighbor's for not checking his lawn for debris before mowing it.

Kaeru Gaman · Post by **Kaeru Gaman** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:59 pm

The problem is that EU is asking software developers to be responsible for improper or incorrect operation of their software when the real cause is not their fault at all.

is it this? I mean... where is it said?

I could interprete "responsability" for simple refunds of the price of the product.
so, if the software don't work on my configuration, why shouldn't I have the right to give it back?

if the mower doesn't mow my lawn because it's to hobbly ground, not stomped flat english lawn, the tyres are simply to small, I will give it back, too, wouldn't I?

Trond · Post by **Trond** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:02 pm

Tipperton wrote: There are so many possible hardware configurations, add to that all the possible variations in a machines software configuration. That conflicts that cause improper operation are bound to happen, not if, but when.

You should have some relatively clear system requirements. If the program does not work even though someone's fulfills the system requirements, I think it's fair that they can get their money back (and their license to the software revoked of course). No blame or shit-throwing, just their money back.

Btw I bought a watch which didn't work. The salesman said something was wrong with my arm. No, this is not how we want it.

The problem is that EU is asking software developers to be responsible for improper or incorrect operation of their software when the real cause is not their fault at all.

Are you sure? In my opinion, software developers should be responsible for "improper or incorrection behaviour" ("operation" is done by the user) by their software. If the software crashes due to a hardware bug, or because of a virus, then it's not behaving improperly or incorrectly even though it's crashing.
If the EU thinks this, then they are stupid. Well, I was agains membership even before this, because they think free flow of money and services is more important than getting people food and jobs and a good life. IMO nothing is more important than that, it's the reason why we live.