Selling on CAM software

[Norman HolifieldParticipant @normanholifield28699]

Hello All.

I have a Tormach PCNC1100, bought it a couple of years back along with a copy of Sprutcam. Bought the Sprutcam out of convenience as the mill post was already there. However I would like to move to Onecnc as I think it's much better and not that expensive. So, does anyone know anything about the legalities of selling on software? I of course have the discs and the dongle and so I see no problem in selling it on to someone else but you don't seem to see much in the way of "used software" for sale.

[Norman HolifieldParticipant @normanholifield28699]

[Brian AbbottParticipant @brianabbott67793]

I know the software venders hate people selling software on, this is why there is a growing trend to lock the software to a pc using node lock software and licence it in such a way that only the original owner can renew the node lock.

With the cad software we use we only buy the rights to use the software and as such never really own it.

If your software is locked only to the dongle then I see now reason why you could not sell it, but the new user would maybe struggle to get upgrade support.

[MuzzerParticipant @muzzer]

Norman – I might be interested in buying it. As you own the software and dongle, you are free to sell it on. Please PM me and let me know what version it is, how old and what you are asking for it.

As Brian says, they are trying to make you rent software nowadays. For instance, even if you "buy" Solidworks, they pressure you into also paying for "support" each year. Believe me, I've been responsible for the budget for CAD s/w and it's constantly evolving…

I'm looking for some form of CAM software for my CNC exploits and would actually prefer Sprutcam right now. Unless someone were able to offer me a full professional CAM application for peanuts of course.

Murray

[David JuppParticipant @davidjupp51506]

Some software companies allow the onward transfer (sale) of licence rights, many don't. The EULA terms may make Sprutcam's policy clear.

[Enough!Participant @enough]

Posted by David Jupp on 09/05/2015 17:33:39:

The EULA terms may make Sprutcam's policy clear.

I've never seen a EULA that made anything clear to anyone but a lawyer.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Bandersnatch on 09/05/2015 19:02:45:

Posted by David Jupp on 09/05/2015 17:33:39:

The EULA terms may make Sprutcam's policy clear.

I've never seen a EULA that made anything clear to anyone but a lawyer.

.

Just our of curiosity, I had a look for the EULA; but it appears that you only get to read it during installation.

MichaelG.

[Norman HolifieldParticipant @normanholifield28699]

I sent an email to Tormach to ask them to clarify the position on selling on but that of course will not get a response untill Monday.

[Bob RodgersonParticipant @bobrodgerson97362]

I would think Tormach will not like the idea of the software being sold onward and as somebody has already pointed out, upgrades will not be possible via Tormach as you will probably have to prove purchase.

I have Sprutcam 8 and have been very impressed with it's capabilities so far. I have not been tempted to upgrade to version 9 as I can't see what it does better for the extra money.

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

I was a director of a company that bought an expensive add-on package for a CAD program that needed a dongle (it was a landscape design extension for, I think, Autocad. They sold it on after the person with the skills to use it left, then process involved the software company but included transferring the support.

Neil

[Enough!Participant @enough]

I'll be interested to see the outcome of this – I'm surprised people are so pessimistic. I've done this a number of times in the past with software licences (Autocad, Photoshop etc) and there's never been a problem as long as the company concerned is reasonably satisfied that the person selling the licence has done so legitimately, has transferred all the original disks, manual and hardware and has not retained a "pirate" copy.

I haven't done it for quite a while now but certainly some years ago companies were not unreasonable in this respect. And support – where it was ongoing and not a function of a periodic fee – was simply transferred with the licence/serial-number to the new owner. If there was a fee, of course, the new owner could simply pay that.

I believe the companies took the attitude that, if an user wanted to sell a licence it was because he now had little or no use for the software. It was better under those circumstance, to let him transfer it to another party who would then be a candidate passenger for the "upgrade train" that the original owner would not be.

[Enough!Participant @enough]

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 09/05/2015 22:34:13:

I was a director of a company that bought an expensive add-on package for a CAD program that needed a dongle (it was a landscape design extension for, I think, Autocad. They sold it on after the person with the skills to use it left, then process involved the software company but included transferring the support.

The (2D) Autocad licence that I referred to in my post was one I bought when I was freelancing. I got it in a retail Autocad package that I bought in a bankruptcy sale for a very attractive price (i.e. next to nothing). I never upgraded that version but about 5 years later I took a permanent job where we used Pro/Engineer (3D CAD) and my Autocad was sitting idle.

It transpired that another group in the company needed a 2D Autocad package and were all set to spring for the latest Autocad version for a few thousand dollars. However it was much cheaper if you bought it as an upgrade to an existing licence. So I cheekily suggested they buy my license, upgrade from that and give me the difference. They were dealing direct with the Autodesk local rep who said "sure". So we did. I was very happy.

[John McNamaraParticipant @johnmcnamara74883]

From Autodesk

**LINK**

So maybe you can? at least for the time being… Autodesk are already moving to an "annual subscription" model.

**LINK**

That is you only get a years use before you have to renew or the software ceases to work. It already applies to AutoCAD LT. Design suites will be changed to this model in a year or two.

So having paid the cost of a small car for a suite you will have nothing to sell.

**LINK**

Regards
John

[MuzzerParticipant @muzzer]

Yes, as I said above, most of the CAD companies are not content with charging you an arm and ten legs for their CAD application, they also expect to charge you an ongoing premium for "support" and get quite irate if you don't pay it. The sales managers are presumably paid on the basis of how much "support" they manage to "sell". If you have several seats, it was never obvious why you'd need "support" for all of them, so we would often just pay for "support" for one seat. That irritated the crap out of the distributors and it would only be at the end of the year when targets had to be met that they might deign to allow you to resurrect any licenses that needed to be updated. Generally speaking, the main benefit of "support" was the opportunity to upgrade to the latest release. Of course, when many of those releases were bug fixes, you question the value for money "proposition". The more bugs in the code, the more reason to pay for "support".

It wasn't just mechanical CAD but PCB layout too – they are all at it. And as you may have noticed, even the likes of Microsoft are selling effectively renting thei software now, so you buy (subscribe to) Microsoft Office 365 with a defined lifetime.

Partly in response to the exciting prospect of the end of ownership and easier new revenue streams, we are already being trained that we are simply borrowing or renting software. You can see that in the wording of the agreement from Autodesk.

One of the logical extensions of this policy is the new business model being pursued by Onshape (3D CAD), where there isn't even any software to install – it's all running on remote workstations. Within the industry, Autodesk doesn't seem to be looked up to in terms of their business strategy. Their CEO in particular draws some pretty unflattering flak. Makes amusing reading if you can be bothered to take a look.

Unless you reckon on forking out professional-level payments annually for "support", the process of selling on your hardware and software is just like anything else – you trade it for a cash payment. Unless you've recently bought (sorry, rented) a more recent type of application.

Murray

[John McNamaraParticipant @johnmcnamara74883]

Yep…..

Now where is that black eye patch and flag…. Maybe time to dust them off.

[Rik ShawParticipant @rikshaw]

Norman – not cad software I know but 7-8 years ago I bought an accounting package at a boot sale for not a lot and in all innocence listed it on an auction site. Two days after the listing started it was removed by the auction site who informed me that the herby "owners" of the software had demanded the listing be removed as it breached their intellectual property rights.

Rik

PS – On another note , very pleased with the arbour press

[Norman HolifieldParticipant @normanholifield28699]

Had a reply from Tormach. It is quite OK to sell on Sprutcam. The new owner would not get the support and Tormach would like to be updated as to the name and address of the new owner. So in this case it is not a problem. That clears that up.

[Enough!Participant @enough]

Posted by Muzzer on 11/05/2015 12:39:28:

Partly in response to the exciting prospect of the end of ownership and easier new revenue streams, we are already being trained that we are simply borrowing or renting software

Well, we never did "buy" software. Right from the beginning of the home computer when Bill Gates released his original version of Microsoft BASIC for the Altair (creating Microsoft in the process), Microsoft retained ownership of the software and the user merely purchased a licence to use it. Somewhere, I've probably got the EULA for my copy. There was a lot of shock, argument and sabre-rattling from prospective users at that time but we got stuck with it nonetheless and it set the precedent for software ever since. (It had, though, been the norm in the commercial world up to that time).

What has changed recently is, as you say, the leasing of the licence for a limited term not to mention the subscription terms that Adobe (with Photoshop) and others are turning to …. where they dip into your bank account or credit card every month or so.

As far as selling a licence, having thought more about it, it seems to me that when this came up in the early days it was reputed to be somewhat "jurisdictional". That is it depended on local laws rather than (or in addition to) simply the software manufacturer's whim. Some jurisdictions held that if you paid money you had purchased an asset, however intangible and you had a right to at least recover whatever value there was in that asset.

[Author]

Posts