Why should their agreement with Steinberg factor into this?
There is no need to maintain the auth server just make the one-time cost of removing the requirement of the auth server.
As for this particular EULA, if the publisher stops selling the software, they shouldn't be able to revoke existing licenses based on it. The license was granted in exchange for a fee, creating an expectation that the software could be used indefinitely under the agreed terms. Their EULA specifies that revocation is linked to breaches by the licensee, not the publisher's business decisions.
Their EULA lacks any clause that allows revocation simply because the software is no longer sold. Revoking a license under these circumstances would remove their right to use a product they legally purchased, which is a violation of their consumer rights. The publisher's decision to withdraw the software from the market shouldn’t negate the licensee's ability to continue using it as originally intended.
Software being remotely authorized is an implementation detail not a contractual one. It literally doesn't matter. It's their job to allow software legally purchased to continue to function however they are able to do it.
> Why should their agreement with Steinberg factor into this?
I’m speculating, but it could be possible that turning off authorization is Steingberg’s request or stipulation for offering a Dorico discount. Was that not clear before this point? If true, does it change your calculus at all?
> Software being remotely authorized is an implementation detail not a contractual one.
Section 9 “Authorization” of the June 2021 EULA disproves that claim.
> It’s their job to allow software legally purchased to continue to function however they are able to do it.
Says who? Do you have any laws or contracts you can cite to back that up? I know you’re just trying to convince me that they shouldn’t be able to turn off remote authorization of new installs next year, however turning off authorization is a thing that can happen with any software packages that use remote authorization, because remote authorization is a common practice. Again, I’m not debating the ethics of said practice. But if you think that remote auth should be illegal, then you should never have bought Finale in the first place.
> Section 9 “Authorization” of the June 2021 EULA disproves that claim.
Yes, that binds the user to authorize their copy. The company must therefore provide the means for them to authorize.
As for the legality, this is pretty contentious issue in many countries which is why we are having this discussion rather than it simply being an open and shut case. A fair amount of this Wikipedia article is dedicated to this subject:
Authorize contractually. It is not an implementation detail, right? It’s specified that it will authorize by internet connection, or otherwise by manual key entry on every subsequent launch.
> The company must therefore provide the means for them to authorize.
That’s a logical assumption, if the company wants to do business, but isn’t stated in the EULA or the law. Pay special attention to Finale EULA sections 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15.
All this gets extra problematic when a product or a company dies or is transferred. There are very few laws that try to force a product to continue existing once its creator decides to shelve it for any reason, even if it would be trivial for the creator to do so.
Personally, I agree with the guiding principles of the First Sale Doctrine. What we’re concluding here is that your beef is with the idea of software authorization for purchase-once (non-subscription) software that is locally installed and doesn’t depend on cloud services. As a principle, that’s fine, I don’t disagree with it. Given the specifics in this case, it’s not known yet how many people the auth server shutdown will affect next year, but it is possible (I speculate!) that the discounted upgrade path to Dorico might not exist in it’s current form if Finale left the auth server on.
There is no need to maintain the auth server just make the one-time cost of removing the requirement of the auth server.
As for this particular EULA, if the publisher stops selling the software, they shouldn't be able to revoke existing licenses based on it. The license was granted in exchange for a fee, creating an expectation that the software could be used indefinitely under the agreed terms. Their EULA specifies that revocation is linked to breaches by the licensee, not the publisher's business decisions.
Their EULA lacks any clause that allows revocation simply because the software is no longer sold. Revoking a license under these circumstances would remove their right to use a product they legally purchased, which is a violation of their consumer rights. The publisher's decision to withdraw the software from the market shouldn’t negate the licensee's ability to continue using it as originally intended.
Software being remotely authorized is an implementation detail not a contractual one. It literally doesn't matter. It's their job to allow software legally purchased to continue to function however they are able to do it.