Licensing question. (1 Viewer)

[jal]

Suppose a student owns a student-version of Access. Excited about his latest class project, he decides to share his Access VBA code on the web. So he uploads an .mdb file or .accdb file to his website.

As a result, numerous programmers download his project and use it in their business applications.

So here we have a student license put to use for business profits. I would assume this is legal.

I'm in a similar situation. I have a home-and-student version of Access (it's a promo-edition of Office 2003 Pro), which I only use at home. I do this on my own time (I don't get paid for this time). However, I occasionally create some projects (at home) useful to my boss at work. Often it's not even code - sometimes I just design a table at home and bring the table-structure to work. But in some cases it is VBA code as well. One thing is sure. At home I only use fake data. None of our real customer data is ever used at home. So it's not like I'm "conducting business" at home.


Am I violating the home-and-student license? I'll be happy to correct this if I am. But I'd also like to save a buck if possible.

 

[jal]

Might I add that I am not in the IT dept. My job is only data-entry, not programming. I've never been hired as a programmer.

 

[ajetrumpet]

You might be looking past the fact that microsoft issues a license to you to use access when you buy it, regardless of the version it is. the license allows you to use access 24 / 7 and for whatever you want to use it for.

why would it be illegal to use application content that is access oriented if you already paid for a license from microsoft to use the program? they certainly don't care what you are using it for. they got their money, bottom line

 

[jal]

They certainly don't care what you are using it for. they got their money, bottom line

It's true they don't much care about me personally, but I need to be above aboard here in case my employer asks me if I have violated the license. Microsoft Eulas indicate that student software is not for businesses. However, my situation isn't quite black and white - hence this thread.

 

[ajetrumpet]

It's true they don't much care about me personally, but I need to be above aboard here in case my employer asks me if I have violated the license. Microsoft Eulas indicate that student software is not for businesses. However, my situation isn't quite black and white - hence this thread.

i suppose you're right, so I guess you have to decide if it's ethical not to tell your boss that you are getting content from a database that was compiled with student software.

I can tell you however, that if you talked to a good lawyer about if this is legal, he can find away around it, just like an accountant can find a way around the supposed "laws" that seems to get in the way of people making the amount of money they desire. I think it all boils down to what you think is ethical. If you are OK with not telling your boss, then do it. why not?

people go to their accountants all the time and say something like "I have 500 in donations" when they really donated 200. some accountants will still file the tax return anyway. In this situation though, people are more likely to get caught via an audit.

If you ARE ok with using student software, ask yourself this: does microsoft actually have the time and money to use to see if people are doing this? the answer is obviously NO. so the chance of getting caught (if it is illegal in the first place) is almost 0%.

 

[jal]

I just noticed something. The Eula (attached) doesn't even say anything about restricting the software to non-business purposes. All it says is that "this is a Home-use Eula." So I guess I don't see where it restricts my usage. Apparently, as long as I only install the software at home, I'm probably complying.

 

[ajetrumpet]

I just noticed something. The Eula (attached) doesn't even say anything about restricting the software to non-business purposes. All it says is that "this is a Home-use Eula." So I guess I don't see where it restricts my usage. Apparently, as long as I only install the software at home, I'm probably complying.

well I can tell you that I'm the best at thinking too much. there is noone better than me at that. and I can tell you that you are thinking too much about this. My advice to you would be to just do it. but then again, it's up to you.

I would compare this to stealing a penny from the government. Are they going to care? of course not...

they have other important things to do..

 

[jal]

I'm pretty optimistic that my reading is correct. Originally I thought it was home-and-student software but, as I noted above, it's home-software. Microsoft's Eula's apparently distinguish between "home-software" and "academic software".

Home-software can be used, apparently, for commercial purposes, for instance if your run a business out of your home. The only restriction is that the software must be installed only in your place of residence (your home) - you can't install it in a non-residential office. Whereas academic software is not intended for business purposes, not even for a home-business.

So I'm growing confident that I'm not stealing - not even a penny.

 

[gemma-the-husky]

2 problems, as i can see (UK law at least, anyway - for the second point)

1. definitely using a non-commercial version of access for commercial use sounds problematic. A full version isnt that expensive. And there must be something in the code that identifies your access serial no, i would think. If you are getting paid, there is a problem. If you are not, then you are just giving away some thoughts, which is your prerogative - and the users will have their own licensed copy of access, on which they are running your app - I would think

2. You may also be on dodgy ground with your employer. Anything work-related that you do while in employment in theory belongs to the employer - so in many ways you are better not to take anything in to your work that you develop at home.

 

[Boro]

Logic says itself. If everyone should use cheaper version for business purposes Microsoft should earn nothing. Just this year they should invest 9 mlrd dolars for development. That costs should be covered only by money from licencing. I should agree that maby soft products which are in massive usage should be cheaper. It should be better for Microsoft also, because illegal soft should be minimised. Think that should be much more purchases of eg Windows at 100 dollar price than at 200.

 

[ghudson]

I believe in the US it is illegal for a non exempt employee to do any business related work or training outside of company time, including offsite work or training unless you are on the clock and getting paid for it.

 

[vbaInet]

I just noticed something. The Eula (attached) doesn't even say anything about restricting the software to non-business purposes. All it says is that "this is a Home-use Eula." So I guess I don't see where it restricts my usage. Apparently, as long as I only install the software at home, I'm probably complying.

The Student version of Ms Access doesn't permit development for the purpose of profit. But if you put this into perspective, exporting the project to a Professional version (if you have one) and doing further development on that (in theory) doesn't violate the agreement.

You sign an agreement, you're bound by it

 

[ajetrumpet]

But if you put this into perspective, exporting the project to a Professional version (if you have one) and doing further development on that (in theory) doesn't violate the agreement.

as I have said before, if you try hard enough, you can find away around this "possible" illegal act. and right here is a perfect example!

 

[jal]

2 problems, as i can see (UK law at least, anyway - for the second point)

1. definitely using a non-commercial version of access for commercial use sounds problematic. A full version isnt that expensive.

Yes, I rethought the matter and purchased a "full retail box" edition online (upgrade version).

 

[jal]

I believe in the US it is illegal for a non exempt employee to do any business related work or training outside of company time, including offsite work or training unless you are on the clock and getting paid for it.

I didn't realize that. Ok, fair enough - but it's also illegal to drive over the speeding limit, jaywalk, park your car in a restricted zone, etc. Look, I'm not trying to be morally perfect here. I'm just trying to uphold some kind of minimal moral code. My present code is averse to stealing software. It's not averse to driving a little over the speed limit - nor is it averse to doing some work off the clock. Fact is, right now the only thing that motivates me to keep up to date with technology-learning is the praise I get from my coworkers who use my apps. Without that minimal incentive, I would desist from programming and therefore my knowledge would become obsolete. But you do make a good point (I may need to rethink this issue).