wanted to buy: Wealth-Lab Developer

Quote from Turok:

Agrau:
Does the WL license agreement actually attempt to impose anything of the sort or is that just your assumption? (not a loaded question...really just want to know)

I click on those stupid license agreement and don't even look at them. Probably should, but have always had better things to do with my time.

JB
More...

I was merely replying to Volker's statement " The license is per user and can not be transfered. " - and he should know, as he seems to be a partner/shareholder of Wealth-Lab Inc. (reference: http://www.vtad.net/mjoin_vorstand.html)

VTAD, "Verband Technischer Analysten Deutschlands", should you care to be curious, is the German "Market Technicians Association".

But, Volker, maybe you can join in and clarify.


[Added:] Just to add to my viewpoint, I must say that what I saw and heard about WL is just fine. I never tried myself, I am more a Unix guy, but WL seems to be good from other people's comments. So I am in no way trying to value the WL software.

I chimed in because I dislike WLs, and other companies, licensing restrictions. If I buy something, I want the right to give this something away for free, swap it against something different or sell it if there's a market. I see that a software manufacturer fears to loose control over market prices or is uncertain about software piracy. I see their point, but it's their problem to solve, not mine. I want to keep the handle on my property. Imagine you bought Enron at the stock market, don't read the fine print, only to find out you have a life-long ownership of Enron stocks. Oops. :p
 
Quote from agrau:

The view that a licence it neither re-sellable, nor transferable, is what software developers, vendors and resellers, obviously *wish* to enforce in order
to push sales. And most users humbly comply to whatever restriction are put on them. However, many national laws see this point differently. While you, quite naturally, can not claim ownership on the software, you do have an ownership on the right to use the software (aka license). If this ownership (the license) is not transferable (which is as such already a questionable business attitude), the licensor must take the license back and refund you appropiately.

So I'd suggest not to trust Volker's comment unquestioned, as he is not independant in his views, and is merely stating the official companpy's wish as reflected by the license agreement WL tries to impose on you. Better check with a lawyer or a local comsumer protection agency.
More...

I used to be in a similar industry line and I have to say that I like to pay 650 dollars and get a good software and support them then trying to be a smart guy and save a few hundred dollars. MS can be the richest company in the world if they produce a good OS and the same goes for WL. OJ Simpson and others have had good lawyers, I rather do what I feel is right and I never have read the license agreement of WL.
 
Quote from samaras:

I used to be in a similar industry line and I have to say that I like to pay 650 dollars and get a good software and support them then trying to be a smart guy and save a few hundred dollars. MS can be the richest company in the world if they produce a good OS and the same goes for WL. OJ Simpson and others have had good lawyers, I rather do what I feel is right and I never have read the license agreement of WL.
More...

Absolute agreement from my side. I, too, pay for my software. If the software is good, I pay.

But remember how this all started on the thread: Foz asked if someone has a free WL license s/he would like to sell. Which is, imho, absolutely possible and by no means a constructed situation. Now Foz seems to know that there's nothing like "used software" - so why not buy at a better price?

If I had a license I have no further use for, I would be glad to sell it with a discount to Foz. But hell, no, I would not be allowed to do so. I am allowed to pay. I am allowed not to use the license. I am allowed to destroy the license. But I am not allowed to trade it. And neither are you, whether or not you read the license terms and how you feel about what is right.
 
I don't understand where the problem is.
Did you have a gun aimed to your head while you were accepting their licence agreement?
If you don't like their so called "restriction", please don't buy their product, btw a great product if you ask me.

I think they have the right to sell a licence with rules they think are good for them , and you have the right to accept them or refuse them (we are not talking about cure for cancer).

And bashing a Company like WL is totally nosense, they are the best on the market when it comes down to customer support.
And i speak for personal experience.

But , hey, I believe WL is one of the best weapons in my arsenal, so less people are using it, more profit in my pockets, so go on with this bla la bla...
:D
 
>But , hey, I believe WL is one of the best weapons
>in my arsenal, so less people are using it, more
>profit in my pockets, so go on with this bla la bla...

LOL, I often say to myself "what the hell am I doing recommending this wonderful tool to the competition?"

So yeah, please the license sucks...don't anyone get it. ;-)

(for the record, I have no idea if it sucks and I really don't care)

JB
 
Quote from agrau:

"If I buy something, I want the right to give this something away for free..."

Really? Hmmm... what if you can easily copy the thing and give away hundreds of copies of it? Surely you wouldn't respond by saying 'Yes, but I would never do that'...

I take it that you aren't a huge fan of copyright laws.

QUOTE:

"I see that a software manufacturer fears to loose control over market prices or is uncertain about software piracy. I see their point, but it's their problem to solve, not mine."

Isn't the licensing agreement the creator's attempt to solve the problem?

Yes, I am a content creator, but don't get me wrong. Some will say that once you buy a thing which is clearly 'intellectual property', you shouldn't be able to, for example, return it for a refund if you don't like it, as you can do with other things which are not as easily classified as 'intellectual property'. I am not so sure about this. Also, I assume we would agree that the record companies made their own bed by ignoring the reality of file-sharing for so long, then trying to threaten lawsuits (a complete joke). Nonetheless, I understand the complaints of content creators who know that their ability to enjoy the fruits of their labour is being undermined by piracy.

You may not abuse the opportunity to re-sell someone's intellectual property, but others will.
More...
 
Quote from traderNik:

Quote from agrau:

Really? Hmmm... what if you can easily copy the thing and give away hundreds of copies of it? Surely you wouldn't respond by saying 'Yes, but I would never do that'...

I take it that you aren't a huge fan of copyright laws.

QUOTE:
More...

Don't think in boxes, and even more important, don't put me into one. And please don't try to guess what I think about copyrights and intellectual property. Should you want to know: Ask.

Secondly I reject your attempt to start talking about abuse. Copyright fraud will happen no matter what is written in the license agreements. As of me, I have been talking about owning one (1) license and transfering one (1) license. And my demand to have the right to do so. Nothing more, nothing less.
More...
 
Quotes from agrau:

"Don't think in boxes, and even more important, don't put me into one. And please don't try to guess what I think about copyrights and intellectual property. Should you want to know: Ask"

How didactic - and disheartening. Are you a fan of Derrida by any chance? Don't think in boxes? Is that something you read recently?

"Secondly I reject your attempt to start talking about abuse. "

You what??

"Copyright fraud will happen no matter what is written in the license agreements. As of me..."

That should be 'As for me'. As a didact, you should appreciate this clarification.

"I have been talking about owning one (1) license and transfering one (1) license. And my demand to have the right to do so. Nothing more, nothing less."

What part of my post inspired this statement? I am having a hard time following your train of thought.

To the rest of you, sorry - just thought I'd post in the spirit of honest debate. This is a question in which I'm keenly interested. However, I'm not interested in engaging anyone like our friend here, so.... all the best.

BTW, I recently spoke with a successful trader and systems developer; he uses two programs for analysis, one of which is WLD
 
Quote from agrau:

I was merely replying to Volker's statement " The license is per user and can not be transfered. " - and he should know, as he seems to be a partner/shareholder of Wealth-Lab Inc. (reference: http://www.vtad.net/mjoin_vorstand.html)

VTAD, "Verband Technischer Analysten Deutschlands", should you care to be curious, is the German "Market Technicians Association".

But, Volker, maybe you can join in and clarify.


[Added:] Just to add to my viewpoint, I must say that what I saw and heard about WL is just fine. I never tried myself, I am more a Unix guy, but WL seems to be good from other people's comments. So I am in no way trying to value the WL software.

I chimed in because I dislike WLs, and other companies, licensing restrictions. If I buy something, I want the right to give this something away for free, swap it against something different or sell it if there's a market. I see that a software manufacturer fears to loose control over market prices or is uncertain about software piracy. I see their point, but it's their problem to solve, not mine. I want to keep the handle on my property. Imagine you bought Enron at the stock market, don't read the fine print, only to find out you have a life-long ownership of Enron stocks. Oops. :p
More...

agrau, are you German? I am flattered that someone here knows that I am the president of the VTAD. For our US friends, the VTAD is the German version of the MTA (Market Technician Association).

I understand your point of view and I in fact was arguing just as you did before I really started to think about it. To boil it all down, I think if one is not happy with the license agreement he should not buy the product (whatever it is). There is a tremdendous amount of work that needs to be done to keep WLD3 on the top of the other trading softwares available. One thing we have in common with competitors who sell for a few thousand dollars is the license agreement. I guess that is the way we like to ensure that money keeps coming in and Wealth-Lab remains the trend setter (even if not all know yet :) - see next posting http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=27550).:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top