What does the "Making Copies" provision in the Movable Type license mean?
May 14, 2004 4:35 PM Subscribe
Not to drag the current MovableType Love-fest over to AskMe, but I was wondering if any of the lawyers out there would be able to explain why this provision is in the new license:
As djc pointed out:
Making Copies. You may install the Software on only one (1) computer or server having a single CPU. You may make one (1) copy of the Software in any machine readable form solely for back-up purposes, provided you reproduce the Software in its original form and with all proprietary notices on the back-up copy.
As djc pointed out:
I'd wager that 95% of hosting clients have no clue what kind of server their website is running on, while 90% of hosting providers use multi-CPU servers. That clause is basically setting up thousands and thousands of people to break the license agreement they agreed to without even knowing it.I'm just wondering why a company would want to limit the number of CPUs in a computer running their software?
Well, sure, so it makes sense, if you're charging by the server, to charge per CPU (as does for example Oracle). But if you're allowing the software to be used for free for personal use, it does basically exclude those using shared-server hosting services.
posted by nicwolff at 5:09 PM on May 14, 2004
posted by nicwolff at 5:09 PM on May 14, 2004
Generally the number of CPUs you have provides some indication of the scale of the service that you are running. The more heavily you are using the software, the more money they want. Although, as many have pointed out, this doesn't really match very well with the large number of MT users who have installed it on shared hosts and are making only fractional use of the CPUs.
posted by sad_otter at 6:06 PM on May 14, 2004
posted by sad_otter at 6:06 PM on May 14, 2004
I'm just wondering why a company would want to limit the number of CPUs in a computer running their software?
As nic pointed out, Oracle charges per CPU and - even more ridiculous - they used to charge per 'computational unit' which was based upon the clock speed of your CPU (Mhz). Each Mhz on an pentium class computer equaled one 'CPU unit', so a 450Mhz PII was 450 units at a price of like $125/unit or something outrageous. A modern SMP capable machine could run you into the many 10's of thousands back then. And hopefully you had an abacus or 3 laying around if you wanted to run it on a SPARC based platform, where every CPU Mhz was equal to 1.75 'units' and the average server had between 4-24 CPU's standard... Then came along the P3 and the whole equation changed.
The moral of the story is that customers revolted about the wacky pricing scheme, thinking that if they needed an enterprise class RDBMS to calculate the cost of their enterprise class RDBMS, they should look elsewhere. And that was for Oracle, a hardcore piece of enterprise class software.
6A somehow decided to lump their software into that category too. Why, I can't be sure.. but I can take a guess. They want people to use their own hosting service Typepad, so (almost) no matter what, you're going to have to pay to use their software free/personal version or not.
That, or it's a huge oversight on their part, because they literally are blocking a very large number of casual users from migrating to 3.0 with that clause.
The website hosting service I run has about 800 MT users, and they are all SOL because the servers their sites sit on run on SMP class hardware.
Anyways, I'll stop the rant there, but I don't think it has much to do with their lawyers, more to do with 6A forcing their user base into a very uncomfortable position: Never upgrade, find a hosting provider that you know has single CPU machines, or come pay us to host your personal webog.
posted by djc at 9:45 PM on May 14, 2004
As nic pointed out, Oracle charges per CPU and - even more ridiculous - they used to charge per 'computational unit' which was based upon the clock speed of your CPU (Mhz). Each Mhz on an pentium class computer equaled one 'CPU unit', so a 450Mhz PII was 450 units at a price of like $125/unit or something outrageous. A modern SMP capable machine could run you into the many 10's of thousands back then. And hopefully you had an abacus or 3 laying around if you wanted to run it on a SPARC based platform, where every CPU Mhz was equal to 1.75 'units' and the average server had between 4-24 CPU's standard... Then came along the P3 and the whole equation changed.
The moral of the story is that customers revolted about the wacky pricing scheme, thinking that if they needed an enterprise class RDBMS to calculate the cost of their enterprise class RDBMS, they should look elsewhere. And that was for Oracle, a hardcore piece of enterprise class software.
6A somehow decided to lump their software into that category too. Why, I can't be sure.. but I can take a guess. They want people to use their own hosting service Typepad, so (almost) no matter what, you're going to have to pay to use their software free/personal version or not.
That, or it's a huge oversight on their part, because they literally are blocking a very large number of casual users from migrating to 3.0 with that clause.
The website hosting service I run has about 800 MT users, and they are all SOL because the servers their sites sit on run on SMP class hardware.
Anyways, I'll stop the rant there, but I don't think it has much to do with their lawyers, more to do with 6A forcing their user base into a very uncomfortable position: Never upgrade, find a hosting provider that you know has single CPU machines, or come pay us to host your personal webog.
posted by djc at 9:45 PM on May 14, 2004
It's pretty simple really:
They do it because they can.
Imagine if stanley could charge you for each and every nail you hit with their hammer (Note: Paying for the hammer doesn't mean you own it, it's just on lease, like the british did to irish farmers way back when [similar punishments, too]).
Welcome to the world of software.
Don't worry, the bubble is already popping. It won't last long. You can only be greedy for a while. Then...
posted by shepd at 12:21 AM on May 15, 2004
They do it because they can.
Imagine if stanley could charge you for each and every nail you hit with their hammer (Note: Paying for the hammer doesn't mean you own it, it's just on lease, like the british did to irish farmers way back when [similar punishments, too]).
Welcome to the world of software.
Don't worry, the bubble is already popping. It won't last long. You can only be greedy for a while. Then...
posted by shepd at 12:21 AM on May 15, 2004
From http://www.sixapart.com/log/2004/05/movable_type_30.shtml:
Why is there a single CPU restriction in the license?
The single CPU usage statement was not intended to be in the license. It has been struck from the license, and everyone who has downloaded Movable Type 3.0 thus far can officially consider this change retroactive.
posted by armage at 6:27 AM on May 15, 2004
Why is there a single CPU restriction in the license?
The single CPU usage statement was not intended to be in the license. It has been struck from the license, and everyone who has downloaded Movable Type 3.0 thus far can officially consider this change retroactive.
posted by armage at 6:27 AM on May 15, 2004
The single CPU usage statement was not intended to be in the license.
Read: The single CPU usage statement was not intended to cause so much negative feedback so we've stricken it and are going to pretend we never meant it. Now, leave us alone.
posted by Mick at 9:43 AM on May 15, 2004
Read: The single CPU usage statement was not intended to cause so much negative feedback so we've stricken it and are going to pretend we never meant it. Now, leave us alone.
posted by Mick at 9:43 AM on May 15, 2004
As I was following this thread, I was thinking that 6A's legal had cut & paste boilerplate license restrictions. I think that those who think 6A was trying to scam people into paying for MT with this line is just silly.
Yeah, it sucks that if you have multiple authors you have to pay now, but so many people here are piling on like 6A is Microsoft or something.
posted by birdherder at 10:00 AM on May 15, 2004
Yeah, it sucks that if you have multiple authors you have to pay now, but so many people here are piling on like 6A is Microsoft or something.
posted by birdherder at 10:00 AM on May 15, 2004
Read: The single CPU usage statement was not intended to cause so much negative feedback so we've stricken it and are going to pretend we never meant it. Now, leave us alone.
Read: I, personally, fucked up. There are actual humans behind errors sometimes. I'm not saying you have to leave me alone, but I'm not sure it merits the assertion that we're being dishonest.
posted by anildash at 1:43 PM on May 16, 2004
Read: I, personally, fucked up. There are actual humans behind errors sometimes. I'm not saying you have to leave me alone, but I'm not sure it merits the assertion that we're being dishonest.
posted by anildash at 1:43 PM on May 16, 2004
This thread is closed to new comments.
Because when it comes to server software, running it on a computer with two CPUs is basically like running two copies on two computers.
posted by kindall at 4:45 PM on May 14, 2004