To all Works subscribers,

If you have not received it yet, I'm sure you will soon get a letter from Kurt Baker regarding a new approach towards distributing the OpenInsight runtime engines. At first blush, it appears that the only difference is that Revelation will now e-mail developers a runtime engine rather than automatically include one in a development upgrade.

However…[/i]there is a big change in the license agreement where developers must now submit to Revelation Software the names, addresses, and phone numbers of every customer who is using a runtime version of our applications. From page 2 of the new "Runtime License Agreement": II. REPORTING - Licensee must provide (1) the names, addresses, and phone numbers of all customers who have received the Runtime license twice a year as of June 30th and December 31st for as long as this contract is in effect within 30 days after each such date. (2) a semi-annual report on the total number of users of the Applications(s). Unless otherwise authorized, Revelation Software will not use the information provided as part of the reporting process for any purposes other than license verification. Also on the OpenInsight Runtime FAQ: In order for the customer to receive the software, they must read, sign and agree to abide by the runtime license provided with OpenInsight. Secondarily, the users will now be required to report their end users on a semi annual basis. We find this very intrusive and well beyond protocol. The existing runtime license agreement that we have already signed already stipulates our agreement to comply with an already strict and barely useable license. I even wonder if this "modification" can be legally mandated until our current Works subscriptions run their yearly course. Of course nothing we say or do will alter this continued "boiling of the frog" approach Revelation seems to be taking, but hopefully it will cause some to think twice before they renew their Works subscriptions or consider developing in this environment. I know we will. Best regards, SRP Computer Solutions </QUOTE> —- === At 15 OCT 1999 10:21AM amcauley@sprezzatura.com onmouseover=window.status=why not click here to send me email?;return(true)"Sprezzatura Group wrote: === <QUOTE>Why does DSig's response keep getting deleted? It does not seem to violate the rules of the forum? amcauley@sprezzatura.com Sprezzatura Group World Leaders in all things RevSoft </QUOTE> —- === At 15 OCT 1999 10:35AM Kurt Baker (Revelation Software) wrote: === <QUOTE>Don, Thanks for your note, I appreciate the opportunity to address your questions. I have broken up your posting into two points "Licensing" and "Reporting". Licensing Over the last 12 months, I have personally identified a number of organizations who have improperly licensed Revelation products. The value of the improper licenses has cost Revelation license fees well over $1M. Revelation's business is to sell licenses and we actively pursue each violation. Most of these organizations make immediate restitution, but some cases we are actively pursuing legal action. In the majority of the licensing cases, the situation is memorialized immediately because both parties agree that the license was not simply not read. This sounds pretty remedial, you'd think that a document that outlines product capabilities and affects the pricing of the end product - would be examined at length - but in many cases it is ignored. Improperly licensed software damages both parties, and Revelation has dedicated the past year to communicating our licensing - we have implemented a dedictated licensing web section, rewrote our licenses in plain english - not legal mumbo jumbo and have required all Works subscribers to read and sign the license before obtaining OpenInsight. Some people think this is burdensome or 'intrusive' - but it has caused Revelation and our customers to talk about licensing up-front - not after your product is already developed, priced, or delivered with the wrong license. The change to the distribution of the Runtime license is a natural extension of the need to communicate licensing as early as possible. Reporting When writing the letter you mention in your note, I mentally separated the license (price, capabilities, legalize) from the reporting of these licenses - at second blush, I could have worded the letter a little bit better. License reporting has not been that big of deal - Revelation has required runtime license reporting in the past (this has been a requirement for all Arev RDKs and OpenInsight Lan RDKs). Our customers have never voiced a problem with the reporting requirements EXCEPT they do not want us to contact their customers for marketing reasons. Therefore we added the phrase "Unless otherwise authorized, Revelation Software will not use the information provided as part of the reporting process for any purposes other than license verificaiton". Thanks for the opportunity to address these quesions. If you (or anyone else) have further questions, please feel free to contact me at (978) 247 7165, 800 262-4747 (ext 7165) or via email at kbaker@revelation.com. Kurt Baker </QUOTE> —- === At 15 OCT 1999 10:55AM Mike Ruane wrote: === <QUOTE>Don- I don't usually jump in on these topics, as I suspect it will take a lot of time, but… I can't think of any software that I get that doesn't require me to register in one way or another- most seem to require a name and email address, name and serial number, or something. I know RTI's gotten hit badly lately with illegal copies of bumped engines. I, like you, make most of my living off of RTI and their products and want to ensure their financial health as it directly affects mine. I guess don't see why its such a big deal. Mike Ruane WinWin Solutions Inc. WWW.WinWinSol.Com </QUOTE> —- === At 15 OCT 1999 10:59AM amcauley@sprezzatura.com onmouseover=window.status=why not click here to send me email?;return(true)"Sprezzatura Group wrote: === <QUOTE>Mike I can't help but think you are missing the point? If I develop an app in VB do the users of my app have to register with MS? Do I have to register them with MS? amcauley@sprezzatura.com Sprezzatura Group World Leaders in all things RevSoft </QUOTE> —- === At 15 OCT 1999 11:02AM dsig@teleport.com wrote: === <QUOTE>Kurt, while I wait for the other reply .. If someone is stealing your software (improper licensing etc) what makes you think that making all developers report their user base is going to help this situation. IF someone has stolen the software is there any reason to think that they will comply with this new mandate? AND if RTI will not contact any end user without prior authorization then how will you know if there is a problem? dsig@teleport.com onmouseover=window.status=imagine … ;return(true)" David Tod Sigafoos ~ SigSolutions dsig@teleport.com </QUOTE> —- === At 15 OCT 1999 11:08AM Mike Ruane, WinWin Solutions Inc wrote: === <QUOTE>Getting pulled into this already… The VB Apps we've generated effectively compile into an EXE, with some supporting DLLs and programs, right? With OI we need to deploy many disparate pieces, including the Engine. The engine can be a runtime or a development, most of the other pieces don't care which EXE they're talking to. It's fairly easy for a unethical developer to deploy full development systems without paying the licensing fees. As an aside, since Arev or OI are so little known outside the community, if the number of users or organizations that knew they were using a Rev product increased, wouldn't that be a good thing? It might be a more representative indicator of the Rev market share. Mike </QUOTE> —- === At 15 OCT 1999 11:14AM amcauley@sprezzatura.com onmouseover=window.status=why not click here to send me email?;return(true)"Sprezzatura Group wrote: === <QUOTE>I think the license needs clarification. To OUR reading our Users don't need to know anything. We are meant to tell RevSoft who our users are. We do not need to have our users tell RevSoft who their users are nor is there any clear mechanism provided for making them do it. amcauley@sprezzatura.com Sprezzatura Group World Leaders in all things RevSoft </QUOTE> —- === At 15 OCT 1999 11:17AM dsig@teleport.com wrote: === <QUOTE>Mike, 1) I don't want someone to steal rti's sw no do I want mine or yours or anyone elses stolen. The simple fact is that this will not stop that. There is no way to verify. 2) I don't want anyone to know who my clients are and in some cases I have clients that would not let their name be revealed. SO what do I do in that case .. lie? 3) I don't think that all the clients knowing who else is using OI (or any product for that matter) is necessary a good idea. Some clients are in competition .. they don't want that info out. 4) And finally .. what is to keep someone from contacting the client. Licenses come and go .. get changed etc .. but the names will be there. Just my thoughts .. and as we have seen .. they are deletable dsig@teleport.com onmouseover=window.status=imagine … ;return(true)" David Tod Sigafoos ~ SigSolutions dsig@teleport.com </QUOTE> —- === At 15 OCT 1999 11:40AM Don Bakke wrote: === <QUOTE>David, Even though your posts were deleted, I was able to read them before hand. Here is my response to your question: There are two reasons why I posted this message here (as well on the Works discussion base): 1. I assumed that many (if not most) Works subscribers are like me and read the public board first. So this is a "heads up" for them. This also catches their attention in case they weren't planning on visiting the Works discussion thread anyway. 2. Prospective Works subscribers should be aware of this so they can make an informed decision. This could have been an easy point to overlook. Some credit should go to Revelation for pointing this out in their FAQ however. One additional comment regarding the license: there is already an AUDIT section that allows Revelation to inspect our books and records. This is in the original and the new agreement. This, too, is enough to give Revelation all the resources they need to secure compliance. Now they just want us to do their leg work. dbakke@srpcs.com SRP Computer Solutions </QUOTE> —- === At 15 OCT 1999 11:43AM Cameron Revelation wrote: === <QUOTE>Andrew, If I develop an app in VB do the users of my app have to register with MS? Do I have to register them with MS? Let's state the obvious: Not all software is licensed in the same manner. When I used MASM for DOS, there were no redistributables because everything would get linked (maybe with some overlays) and so the license basically said "please don't make copies of MASM". With VB, the license is clear WRT redistributables. For example, you cannot freely redistribute the Crystal Reports tools, whether or not you tell Microsoft . With OpenInsight, our developer-customers are typically VARs, consultants, and packaged application vendors. In each of these cases it is typical that our developer-customers will distribute (in the literal sense of the term) the OpenInsight environment to their customers. If you want to compare this to developing in assembly, then yes, we are asking too much. But if you compare it to a contract supplied to a software distributor or OEM, then what we are doing is quite similar to how the industry works. Find for me a distributor that gets to distribute VB software for Microsoft without having a reporting and audit clause in their distribution contract. Finally, please note the explicitly worded phrase in the contract: "Unless otherwise authorized, Revelation Software will not use the information provided as part of the reporting process for any purposes other than license verification." If that phrase were missing, then I would be very concerned, but it represents a license agreement of its own: that Revelation Software is licensed to use the provided information only to ensure that the OpenInsight software is properly licensed. (So by objecting, are you saying that you do not think that we would adhere to a license agreement? What would Freud say? ) Cameron Purdy Revelation Software </QUOTE> —- === At 15 OCT 1999 11:55AM dsig@teleport.com wrote: === <QUOTE>Don, Thanks for the reply. #2 .. That is part of my point. They have the 'power' to look at the books if they have a reason to. But to just sent the information without warrant to me seems wrong. As my new flyby says .. all opinions are deletable dsig@teleport.com onmouseover=window.status=all opinions are deletable … ;return(true)" David Tod Sigafoos ~ SigSolutions dsig@teleport.com </QUOTE> —- === At 15 OCT 1999 12:01PM dsig@teleport.com wrote: === <QUOTE>Cameron, But doesn't the current license give RTI the right to look at books and check distribution IF there is a need? That is my understanding. If this is true then why do you need names etc before there is a 'reason'. I know you are going to take this wrong .. and believe me I don't mean it wrong but .. what is going to guarantee that the license wont change in the future saying that that rti can talk to any one they want .. once you have the names who is going to protect us? And finally .. what about clients that do not want their name released? How do we protect them? dsig@teleport.com onmouseover=window.status=all opinions are deletable .. ;return(true)" David Tod Sigafoos ~ SigSolutions dsig@teleport.com </QUOTE> —- === At 15 OCT 1999 12:22PM dsig@teleport.com wrote: === <QUOTE>Kurt, In reading the current agreement (no date or number on the software license but back page says 'pt#19-479') under 'Entire Agreement' section it says '… This Agreement may be modified, changed, or revised only by a written agreement between Company and an authorized officer of Revelation Software.' I have a question. Does this mean that I can continue to use my current version (since i was asked to leave the works I can't upgrade) without this 'new' agreement being enforced. dsig@teleport.com onmouseover=window.status=all opinions are deletable … ;return(true)" David Tod Sigafoos ~ SigSolutions dsig@teleport.com </QUOTE> —- === At 15 OCT 1999 12:24PM dsig@teleport.com wrote: === <QUOTE>Kurt, In reading the current agreement (no date or number on the software license but back page says 'pt#19-479') under 'Entire Agreement' section it says '… This Agreement may be modified, changed, or revised only by a written agreement between Company and an authorized officer of Revelation Software.' I have a question. Does this mean that I can continue to use my current version (since i was asked to leave the works I can't upgrade) without this 'new' agreement being enforced. dsig@teleport.com onmouseover=window.status=all opinions are deletable … ;return(true)" David Tod Sigafoos ~ SigSolutions dsig@teleport.com </QUOTE> —- === At 15 OCT 1999 12:44PM Revelation Software wrote: === <QUOTE>This change affects only OpenInsight version 3.7.2 and above. </QUOTE> —- === At 15 OCT 1999 12:45PM Revelation Software wrote: === <QUOTE>This change affects only OpenInsight version 3.7.2 and above. </QUOTE> —- === At 15 OCT 1999 12:54PM David Tod Sigafoo wrote: === <QUOTE>Thanks for the reply .. </QUOTE> —- === At 15 OCT 1999 03:48PM Don Miller - C3 Inc. wrote: === <QUOTE>Ah well..might as well stick my nose into this honey-pot. I think some of the mistrust sensed out here comes from the past practice of RTI mailing my registered users offering "deals-du jour" on NT service, NLM's, etc. Many is the time that I have had a quote out there and the price offered by RTI is less than my quote..soooo I just tell them to get it from RTI, if they wish. However, they have to pay my outrageous hourly rate for me to install it, test it and hold their hands, etc. Mostly, this is merely annoying, but it does indicate that the name of a user is a marketing potential for RTI. Secondly, we routinely distribute copies of our software on single-user runtimes for demo/evaluation purposes. All of this software has a 90-day drop-dead feature built in. What about this? Do I have to keep track of this caca as well? I hope not since if they don't buy, I don't have any further interest and don't want to have them sign the "I will remove all copies … or forfeit my first-born child…" statement. The demo simply refuses to run unless the clock in the computer is diddled (in which case the software won't work for real either). Thirdly, I have a vested interest in the future success of RTI since we have a large backlog of experience with REV, AREV (less with OI, but we're getting there). If providing RTI with a semi-annual audit of what we're doing helps this process, then I don't mind; however, if piracy is what it's about, then it is a useless waste of time since nobody would run the risk of giving accurate data anyway. Last, the restrictions already imposed on the RunTime license have caused us some embarassment already. One of my users opted that any product which shipped without basic database repair / recovery capability (especially when the error can be due to a but in the product itself), was fatally flawed. This same user uses AREV 3.1 run-time and is able to repair damaged files, rebuild indexes. Without this capability, won't upgrade to our OI product unless I provide a development copy at NO COST (which I'm disinclined to do). Oh well, the honey spread fine on my biscuit. Don Miller C3 Inc. </QUOTE> —- === At 15 OCT 1999 04:35PM Kurt Baker (Revelation Software) wrote: === <QUOTE>Don, I understand the need for consistent pricing for our resellers. To address these concerns, Revelation has implemented Volume Purchase Agreements (VPAs). The VPAs provide product discounts based upon the quantity of products purchased. When Revelation promotes a product via discounting pricing, extra care is taken to ensure that our resellers prices are protected (e.g. we won't undercut). I agree that every name is marketing potential, but let us not forget that the Runtime license is a countersigned legal document that states that Revelation will not use these names for marketing purposes. In the case of evaluation copies or special circumstances, we are more than willing to have a dialog with you and we can customize the agreement that meets our mutual requirements.. Finally, by addressing licensing issues up-front we can ensure that they don't become an "embasassment." Revelation provides a variety of licenses that enable a variety of capabilities. I am more than willing to make recommendations that best meet functionality/pricing concerns. If anyone has questions on pricing, licensing or how to get set up on a VPA, give me a call at 978 247 7165 or 800 262-4747. Kurt Baker </QUOTE> —- === At 15 OCT 1999 06:02PM Steve Smith wrote: === <QUOTE>Kurt, I'd like to register my grandmother's Pacemaker monitoring software written in OI. Due to several recent group format errors I am uncertain as to whether she'll like being on your books. How should I break it to her that Revsoft want a surveillance satellite to monitor her every peristalsis? Steve PS. It's written in version 1.0 (run-time). Will you be applying this licensing condition retrospectively, or is retrospective condition of sale as illegal in the USA as it is here in Australia? PPS. I'm parked in the car with the tinted windscreen across the road from where you are now. I'm the one with the binoculars. </QUOTE> —- === At 16 OCT 1999 10:33AM dsig@teleport.com wrote: === <QUOTE>Kurt, "I understand the need for consistent pricing for our resellers." I did not see this in any of Don's post .. what I did see is " … I think some of the mistrust sensed out here comes from the past practice of RTI mailing my registered users offering "deals-du jour" on NT service, NLM's,etc. " This is a very different thing. Also … When you say "In the case of evaluation copies or special circumstances, we are more than willing to have a dialog with you and we can customize the agreement that meets our mutual requirements.." Will this be on a one by one basis OR will RTI write up a specific addition to the agreement which will be the same for all developers? It would seem that if we have to sign the new agreement it should contain all the important bits .. THanks .. dsig@teleport.com onmouseover=window.status=imagine … opinions that seem to scare will be deleted;return(true)" David Tod Sigafoos ~ SigSolutions dsig@teleport.com </QUOTE> —- === At 21 OCT 1999 04:05AM Dean Todd, Computer Resource Team - Orlando wrote: === <QUOTE>Many of our clients require us to sign strict, non-disclosure contracts. Some of these, U.S. Gov, Defense Contractors, Medical clearing house and others will not allow us to even admit they are clients. For some, we cannot even mention their names or organization. I haven't done a poll, but many would view this as intrusive and an invasion of their privacy. Dean </QUOTE> —- === At 21 OCT 1999 04:40PM DSig wrote: === <QUOTE>What is he posting that keeps getting deleted? </QUOTE> —- === At 21 OCT 1999 05:10PM Kurt Baker (Revelation Software) wrote: === <QUOTE>Dean, In the case of evaluation copies or special circumstances, we are more than willing to have a dialog with you and we can customize the agreement that meets our mutual requirements. Please give me a call at 978 247-7165 or toll free at 800 262-4747. Kurt Baker </QUOTE> View this thread on the forum...