License question, legal issue?

[rylin]

few interesting points there

anyway, to be honest i don't really care for compensation, as soon as i get a fair shot at keeping my community intact.. and who knows, since "they"'ve (*g*) been reading this thread, maybe they'll realize that and just let me do my own thing

anyway, i'm too bitter atm
*goes iaw*

[John.Ross]

Originally posted by okidoki
few interesting points there

anyway, to be honest i don't really care for compensation, as soon as i get a fair shot at keeping my community intact.. and who knows, since "they"'ve (*g*) been reading this thread, maybe they'll realize that and just let me do my own thing

anyway, i'm too bitter atm
*goes iaw*

Sounds like their loss anyway.

Not so many employees are passionate about what they do.

Good luck

[Blink|vB]

There are scripts that take vB data from a vB databaes, and that is totaly fine

That vB database is nothing special, it is the PHP that reads the DB that is better then the rest

[DirectPixel]

Yes, but when you have a vB database with hundreds of thousands of users and posts, then it is worth something.

Personally, I think the database should belong to the owner of the vBulletin license. If my host said that the databases on my site belonged to him just because they were on his server, then some legal action would be filed.

[ManagerJosh]

okidoki, perchance are you Oscar for MGOForum.com?

[rylin]

yup, that be me

[MacKenzie]

If paid for by company the license belongs to them. Does not matter the user name on the license, only who paid for it and who URL it belongs to.

Incorrect, it's the name on the liscence.

If the company did pay for it and it was in his name, the company might have grounds to sue him for compensation for the liscence, but they cannot take the liscence itself.

It's the same basic concept as gift giving. I buy you a gift, I have a credit card statement or a canceled check and a recipt showing I purchased the item, I still gave it to you, be it a VB liscence, magazine subscription or a watch.

As for the URL the liscence is attached to, I do not beleive that has anything to do with ownership of the liscence. I do not own the server or the URL my forums are on, but I own the VB liscence. I could choose to yank my board off that server, and put it on another one, then simply change my URL in my customer profile here to the new URL.

I could be wrong on that, but if I was, I would be amazed. It is completely illogical, and just downright stupid that the person who owns the URL your forums is attached to suddenly has legal claim to your VB liscence.

[ManagerJosh]

ummm......anyone from Jelsoft/vBulletin Team/legal expertise care to back MacKenzie?

[MacKenzie]

Moo

[John.Ross]

Originally posted by MacKenzie
Incorrect, it's the name on the liscence.

If the company did pay for it and it was in his name, the company might have grounds to sue him for compensation for the liscence, but they cannot take the liscence itself.

It's the same basic concept as gift giving. I buy you a gift, I have a credit card statement or a canceled check and a recipt showing I purchased the item, I still gave it to you, be it a VB liscence, magazine subscription or a watch.

As for the URL the liscence is attached to, I do not beleive that has anything to do with ownership of the liscence. I do not own the server or the URL my forums are on, but I own the VB liscence. I could choose to yank my board off that server, and put it on another one, then simply change my URL in my customer profile here to the new URL.

I could be wrong on that, but if I was, I would be amazed. It is completely illogical, and just downright stupid that the person who owns the URL your forums is attached to suddenly has legal claim to your VB liscence.

Sorry, I strongly disagree.

But. Been there, argued that. Precidence has already been established in some such cases where the 'owner' of the license is not neccessarily the same as the registered user in commerical cases.

Giving gifts is not the same as this, if I have picked up the situation incorrectly then I will apologise to all in advance.

My understaning is that okidoki is the owner & registered user. He worked for a company and allowed them to use his license isntead of buying their own. The site used was the companies URL and the site was operated for company business. Then okidoki leaves, and takes license with hime and instruct company to stop using it. But database belongs to company, I am not sure about world, but in most EU contries and US States (regardless of principles is an expression i see all the time) this would be the case.

If you paid for the license and use it, then you are both owner and user.

If you did not pay for the license, but are registered as the user, then you are not the owner, only the user.

Same argument if you got a new notebook supplied by the company for work use with MS stuff preinstalled. On startup it asks you to enter user name and so on. Do you beleive by entering your username that you then own that copy of windows/word/.... of course you don't.

In the same argument ownership of the database can also be by a different entity. You made that argument yourself, I just do not think you realise it.

The ISP has the MySql database (licensed) running on his web server software (licensed), he is running the php engine (licensed) for your vB scripts (and that is all they are). These are all just mediums / tools. This does not always give rights to the database contents.

Regardless of the ownership or user name the actual contents of the database can be a seperate entity. Sure in 90% of cases the owner of the vB install/URL/dB contents are all the same.

But in okidokis case, he owns & is registered user, but as such may not have any rights to the database contents any more than the ISP has. Because the contents of the database were directed to the company and via the company URL. If the company buys there own license then they can use the database themselves.

Even if Jelsoft license agreement definitively states exclusions to this (which I cannot see in it) then definitive ownership is usually established by bill of sale. Only emphasised point is that the s/w can only be used for one site, one URL per license.

I do not particularly like Jelsofts argreement, it seems particularly obtuse IMHO, and the additional parts they add in to check logins to admin panel to prevent piracy I do not like, but I can respect it.

Personally, any of the software my company releases or licenses to OEM's as object library or rom images is watermarked per customer as they must purchase a seperate license for each product they release. I have already argues this against employees who leave a company (owner) thinking they can take a copy of the software & set up business on their own as they have their name on contract/license. They were wrong.

I did not mean this to end up in a protracted argument, sorry to all, but of all things were clear, the only lawyers around would be poor ones and I have not seen any of those around !

[George L]

Originally posted by okidoki
Hey.
Recently, I've been "****ed over" by my old company, to whom I borrowed the license.
In essence, they've taken a "backup" of the forums (to which I own the license). The backup is both the actual files (quite hacked by me during my free time), as well as the database.

What exactly does the license entail though?
The database is (imo) by all means associated with *my* license, and so they wouldn't be allowed to touch it (although knowing my so called colleagues, they will). On the other hand, what would happen if they purchased a license of their own? Would they be allowed to use the current DB?

To me, it's a question of property (and I consider it *all* to belong to me), but I want to know what you guys think, and also what any of the Jelsoft people say (eg. possible upcoming piracy issue?)

not sure if this has been discussed, but depending on the terms of your employment contract, work done/created during employment with them related or derrived from their company would be considered company property in some cases...

i'd re-read your terms of your employment contract and consult a lawyer

[MacKenzie]

If you paid for the license and use it, then you are both owner and user. If you did not pay for the license, but are registered as the user, then you are not the owner, only the user. Same argument if you got a new notebook supplied by the company for work use with MS stuff preinstalled. On startup it asks you to enter user name and so on. Do you beleive by entering your username that you then own that copy of windows/word/.... of course you don't.

Yes and no.

If you worked for a company and they gave you the computer, it's theirs. It's registered to them.... "John Doe, TheCompany Co. yada yada".

However, if the computer was paid for by the company via an expense budget by the employee, it's the employee's, same as if he bought a suit or plane ticket with that expense budget. I am under the impression that Oki either owned the liscence previously, or bought the liscence while in the employ as he said...

Recently, I've been "****ed over" by my old company, to whom I borrowed the license.

We both don't know for sure, don't think Oki's said for sure. It could be that the company bought the liscence themselves, or he bought it before or while.. However, I do know from experience that when I gave an employee money towards buying expenses he needed for his job, rather than having him requisition the materiels, they're considered his.

In the same argument ownership of the database can also be by a different entity. You made that argument yourself, I just do not think you realise it.

Er, I did? I don't recall saying anything about the database either way on the matter...

[ManagerJosh]

Judging by what oscar commented about the status of MGON, i doubt they will ever resurrect themselves. So technically Oscar doesn't have to worry much. All he needs now is a nice server rig and a place to move vBulletin

[rylin]

Working on a few things as we speak.

Might have something finalized this week (wahey!)

[ManagerJosh]

hmmm I should perhaps consider asking you to get a position to mod, Oscar :lol: