Access Licensing Question.

[Manuel Canas]

Hi there,

What I'm trying to do here is; I will develope a database
for a small company, they own Office 2000 but don't own
MSAccess. Can they run my database with the run time
files that I would provide or do they have to purchase
the software + licensing? 10 to 20 users would be
accessing the database.

Anyone out there that has had this kind of experience
before could give me some insights in this?

Thanks in advance,

Manuel Canas

 

[Dave]

If you have Developers Edition then you can produce a runtime and they wont
need access

 

[George Nicholson]

If you have the Developers Edition and have the right to distribute run time
files, they don't need anything else.

However, finding a clear statement of that which will set their minds at
ease might be a little tougher. When the question came up and the client
wanted something in writing, I created one of my own from bits and pieces of
help file entries and "product information" snippets with annotations to the
corresponding MS websites. This was sufficient, since they really only
wanted a CYA document for their files. In this case, redundancy is good:
several quotes that say the same thing tend to emphasize that the first
quote wasn't a mistake, typo or loophole. Certainly enough for a "good
faith" presumption of accuracy.

It would be nice if Microsoft actually devoted a page to something that
specifically addressed this from the viewpoint of a Runtime receipient
(right granted, no additional licensing required, etc.) something that
Developers could print out or otherwise refer clients to.

 

[Guest]

Thanks guys for your answers to this matter.

 

[Albert D. Kallal]

The following pagehas the quote:

Licensing and Distribution Rights

The licensing agreements included with Access 2003 Developer Extensions
simplify the distribution of solutions or code segments. They include a
royalty-free Access Runtime, which allows for the distribution of Access
solutions and Access Data Projects, and free use and distribution of
portions of the tools source code as part of your solutions.


Check out:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/office/

and

http://msdn.microsoft.com/office/technologyinfo/devtools/accessextensions/de
fault.aspx

 

[George Nicholson]

Yes, that's the sort of thing I've used in the past to produce a document
that covers Access 97, 2000 and XP. (I haven't needed to add 2003 to it yet


But it is geared to the developer. I wish Microsoft provided something
"cleaner" and specifically geared for presentation to the developer's client
when the question comes up. And, assuming that the time & money that the
software industry has put into anti-piracy efforts have been at all
effective, the client is being very lax if it DOESN'T come up.

In any case, read that again carefully from the clients LAWYER'S point of
view. The developer owns the Extensions, not the client. So, the
"royalty-free" rights applies to whom? The developer, for sure. But does it
really apply to the recipient of the developer's work product? Yes, *I* know
that it does, but a lawyer could easily make the case that the quote you
used provides absolutely NO assurance that any distributed Runtime files are
really free and clear from the clients point of view. And said lawyer might
just think it was a good idea to hold up final payment until they have
something satisfactory TO THEM in writing, which this isn't. (This is also
assuming that everyone involved "knows" what the never defined phrase
"royalty-free" means.)

I know it's OK, you know it's OK. Convincing the guys with the checkbooks
that it's OK can sometimes be problematic. More than seems necessary.

 

[Albert D. Kallal]

It is entirely up to you as a consultant or employee to be able to hold on
to your word.

In other words, when you agree to work for a company and get some work done,
do you ask the manufacture of your car you drive to come up with a letter to
assure you that you can get to work in the morning?

So, yes, it would nice for some documents ready made for developers. I
suppose some documents ready made for teacher might also be good.And, lets
not forget the support people who install software also. I mean, no doubt,
General Motors should supply Pizza Hut delivery people with documents on
issues of delving pizza when using GM cars also!

Really, now....it is up to you as a educated professional to learn that you
can distribute your application without additional license fees. This is
YOUR problem. Once you learn that you can distribute your software, then you
simply have to tell your client this!

The only thing the client needs is a well written letter from YOU!, not your
software tool maker. Perhaps, you need a letter from MacDonald's ensuring
that you will not go hungry during lunch hour also?

Simply put, if you are good consultant with good work ethics and a good
reputation, then why is not a letter from YOU stating in your contract that
the software that you are creating does not requite additional licensing
fees to install on additional pc's? What more should be said?

Further, perhaps maybe YOU DO WANT to charge an additional fee for
additional copies installed on a pc. In other words, perhaps you want to
recover your costs of purchasing the developer tools for office.

And, I suppose if you are not a consultant, but working as an employee, then
this situation can be somewhat different.

However, issues of your car you drive, your food you eat, and the software
tools you use to create your software should be YOUR business. It is most
certainly up to you to informed of any licensing fees involved if you
distribute your software,but that is for you to make clear to your clients,
not the auto industry, nor your software tool vendor.

To me, the real issue are things like did the client ask for the source
code? Often, some of my clients will ask, but most of the time they don't
even bother, and thus I will NOT give it to them. And, if they do ask, the
costs, and other issues such as re-distribution rights do need to be brought
up. Further, for most of my clients I encrypted their Company name into all
reports, forms etc. (I can change one spot, and all of the reports/forms use
this company name). Thus, if they give the application away, their company
name stays with the application.

However, what you do is really up to you in these cases. For some clients,
when I came out with new versions, I did NOT give them the source code,
where as the old version did come with source. (I only done this when NO
agree ment was made to deliver the source, and when they are NOT using the
source code). I also placed my license keys, and source code with a lawyer
in case of something happening to me. So, yes, I do care that if I am not
around, that at least my clients can continue to use my software. So, yes,
some legal considerations should be made, and thought about when doing this
stuff. However, you want to keep things simple, and practical.

I don't think the guy who mows your lawn needs letters from the company that
makes the lawn mover to give to you!. We seem to be loosing sight of what
matters here.

I am certainly not a lawyer, and I suppose it makes some sense to have a few
of your contracts reviewed by a lawyer so at least you get it right when you
have to do this again.