Juce 5 license agreement questions

I have a quick question about a couple of sections of the Juce 5 license agreement, specifically:

“1.9. Provided the Program is used by only one user per seat authorized for the specific JUCE licence, you may transfer the Program from one computer to another.”

This would seem to me to want to cover things like cross platform development by a single developer using multiple machines. Can a legal representative from Raw Material Software please comment specifically about the definition of the word “transfer” in this context? Are license owners allowed to “copy” the Progam between machines? I would hope so otherwise every developer would be forced to use a triple boot machine if they wanted to develop on macOS / Windows / Linux!

and:

“1.10. You may make a single copy of the Program for back-up purposes, provided that you reproduce on it all copyright and other proprietary notices that are on the original copy of the Program.”

I don’t know about other developers but I like to have a backup of both my macOS and Windows development machines, which would already mean two copies of the Program for back-up purposes. Is this clause meant to indicate I can make a single backup of just Juce 5 in addition to my regular machine automated and manual backups? Again, can a legal representative from Raw Material Software please comment on me being able to backup my machines that contain the Juce 5 folder somewhere on them without violating the license agreement?

We realise the language used in the agreement is not the easiest to understand - our lawyers insisted upon a lot of it.

1.9. Each developer is allowed to use their seat on an unlimited number of computers.

1.10 This is a line from the standard EULA template the lawyers didn’t want to move from, which doesn’t really sit well with things like distributed version control and other modern ways of managing source code. We will be removing this clause in the JUCE 6 EULA. Please feel free to keep as many backups as you want.

4 Likes

Thanks very much @t0m for the clarification of these two points, much appreciated.

As a programmer I am also uncomfortable with something else, which may be totally fine in non-strict law logic. If you’re going to make some changes to the EULA for Juce 6 I would also appreciate an extra bit added to:

2. Restrictions
Except as expressly set out in this Agreement or as permitted by any local law, you undertake:”

since section 2 also contains things which are “expressly set out” in it, and it is indeed “in this Agreement” and contains things that definitely clash with things in other sections, it would be nice to make this more explicit as to which section has precedence. Something like:

2. Restrictions
Except as expressly set out in other sections of this Agreement or as permitted by any local law, you undertake:”

or something similar that clearly indicates that section 2 has a lower precedence than other “expressly set out” statements in the agreement. Again, if this is already strictly defined in a legal sense then I’m good with no change, but would still like to hear that this is the case :slight_smile:

OT: Legalese would take so much benefit if it were converted to some language with more structure like C or Python :grin:

1 Like