Re: FrameMaker License Issue

[Dov Isaacs <isaacs@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dan,

Fair questions! Any licensing differences are probably to differentiate
between the standard and "server" versions of FrameMaker. But I really
don't know. Thus, I will pass your email along to the proper folks to 
clarify and publish results when I get them, OK?

        - Dov

At 5/31/2002 04:18 PM, Dan Emory wrote:
>The following phrase appears in Adobe's EULA (license agreement) for FrameMaker:
>
>"this Agreement does not permit the Software to be Used in any
>batch-oriented environment where such Use of the software is to produce
>Postscript or PDF output from data originating from any other
>application"
>
>It is being argued by several people that this restriction would bar the use of database publishing products such as Miramo, UniMerge, and (perhaps) PatternStream from being used with FrameMaker. But it could also be argued then that it would also be a license violation to import SGML or XML document instances produced by, say, Adept, into FM7 or FM+SGML 6.0. Or, for that matter, to open in FrameMaker any file (graphic, Word file, ASCII text) produced by any other application. This is an absurd limitation that would never be upheld in a court of law.
>
>This gives rise to the following questions:
>
>1. Is this something new in the FM7 EULA, or did the clause also appear in earlier versions of FM?
>
>2. What is the intent of the operative phrase "where such Use of the software is to produce Postscript or PDF output?"
>
>3. What definition of a "batch-oriented environment" did Adobe intend to apply here? Here are three possible scenarios:
>
>a. In a batch-mode operation, I pour "data" from some other application directly into FrameMaker, and then command FrameMaker to produce postscript or PDF output.
>
>b. In a batch-mode operation, I use some other application to produce a data file, and, after the file is saved, I command FM to open that file and produce postscript or PDF output.
>
>c. Same as a or b above, except the last step in the a or b batch mode operation is to save the resulting FM file without producing postscript or PDF output. Then, sometime later (1 second later, for instance), I launch batch mode operation c, which commands FrameMaker to produce postscript or PDF output from the FrameMaker files that were saved in the a or b batch mode operation. During the interval between the end of batch-mode operation a or b and the launch of batch-mode operation c, FrameMaker is not being used in a "batch-oriented environment".
>
>CONCLUSIONS:
>
>The process to which the license restriction applies always has two distinct actions, each of which, by itself, is entirely legal:
>
>Action 1. It is always legal, even in a batch-oriented environment, to command FrameMaker to take data produced by another application and save the resulting data as a FrameMaker file.
>
>Action 2. Is it always legal, even in a batch-oriented environment, to command FrameMaker to open FrameMaker files and output postscript or PDF.
>
>If there is an interval (no matter how short) between the end of Action 1 and the beginning of Action 2 during which FrameMaker is not operating in a batch-oriented environment, then Actions 1 and 2, when performed separately, are completely legal. Consequently, even if Adobe intended to bar the combination of Actions 1 and 2 in a single batch-mode operation, the separation of the two actions makes them completely legal, thus this license restriction is completely toothless.
>
>====================
>| Nullius in Verba |
>====================
>Dan Emory, Dan Emory & Associates


** To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@omsys.com **
** with "unsubscribe framers" (no quotes) in the body.   **