Chromatography Forum

In relation to an other topic a question came to mind which i thought would be quite relevent to discuss.

Does anyone know the rules or polices of the chromatography compagnies on sharing of their old software? Ex. an old dos version of Chemstation or an old varian software that varian themselfs don't support or deliver anymore?

Personally I don't see any reason for the compagnies to mind their custermers helping each other with sharing/exchanging old software.. esspecially if the software isn't available from the compagnie anymore... even if the compagnie still has some sort of copyright..

Let's hear your view or any experience you might have.

This is similar to companies who offer older versions of their software on cover disks for computer magazines. They provided a licence for the application to be distributed at no direct financial benefit to themselves, in the hope that at least some people will want to upgrade to the latest versions with all the extra features and bug fixes it provides.

In a similar way, if a chrom company has made available an older version of their software, it would be less of an issue to "share" it with others. However, depending on how public you were about sharing it, they may turn a blind eye to users exchanging older versions (and as you indicate, they would have to be really old versions). Alternately they could put it in the public domain, in which case free sharing of it would be OK, but then they may also have to release the source code, depending on the GPU licence they used.

Having said that, it doesn't make it right to share any software and I in no way condone it.

If you query was more on getting a copy of the software for something that you had previously purchased, but for which you'd mislaid the original disks and you just need a backup copy to restore a system, that , in my opinion, would be less of an issue - ultimately with most software you purchase a LICENCE to use it, not the physical media it comes on.

Having been in the chromatography software business for a decade and a half, I'd like to elaborate a bit on Tim's comments.

There are really three issues involved: legal, commercial and ethical.

Legal. As Tim pointed out, most software is licensed rather than sold. While that may sound like a distinction without a difference, it is, in fact a big deal. It means that you don't "own" the software in the same sense that you would own a piece of equipment. What you have is the right to use the software under a defined set of conditions. You have to read the specific license agreement to see what you are or are not allowed to do. If, for example, the license is for unlimited-time use on a single system, then you would be perfectly within your rights to borrow a copy of the software in order to re-install it on that system. You would be out of compliance with the license if you used your original disks to install the software on a second system.

Commercial. Software users (rightly) expect support. The catch is, that support has to be paid for somehow. "Subscription-based" support has been, in my experience, hard to sell. In practice, that means that support costs are subsidized by sales of new or upgraded software which, in turn, means that there is no incentive for the manufacturer to provide you with a copy of old disks. It is in their interest to have you upgrade to the latest and greatest version.

Ethical. In general, depriving someone (the manufacturer) of revenue that is rightfully theirs is theft, pure and simple. Otherwise, "no harm, no foul". The catch is that you have to make that decision without sophistry. Examples of copying software:

• - you have a "use" license and you're reinstalling on the original system (per above). This is both legal and ethical.
  
  - you have a use license and you're installing on a replacement computer connected to the original system. This may or may not be legel (depends o n the fine print in the license), but would certainly be ethical in my book.
  
  - you have contacted the manufacturer and have been told that the old version is no longer available and that you should upgrade to a newer version. Unethical
  
  - you have contacted the manufacturer and have been told that the old version is no longer available but We don't have it, but ". . . if you can find a copy, go ahead . . ."). Ethical
  
  - the manufacturer has gotten out of the business entirely (not sold the line to a different company). Ethical

The list could go on and on, (but I've been too wordy already! )

My views on data systems.

From my experience whilst old versions of software are not supported an upgrade path will be. The manufacturer will consider this as good reason for not worrying about old versions. Some big manufacturers put data file readers/converters in new software to give compatability for old files again you would be expected to get the new software.

Just lost your disks, I think it is ethical to get a copy from anywhere and re-load, it all depends how it is licensed. We as a company support Fisons/Thermo Chromcard, it was limited by a software key and as such this is the licence. If you have the key you can run the software, even the original DOS version is available as a free download. Newer versions read Masslab MS files and XChrom files.

If a company has gone bust and they were properly set up they should have kept a copy of the source code that becomes public domain on their bankrupcy, we had this on several tenders as conditions of purchase.

For many data files both MS and chromatography files can be converted and read to enable archive of files and subsequent reading even if the original software is unavailable. A lot of data systems allow saving in a universal read format to allow this and can hence take files from any system compatible.

The hacking of Software to give free access is unethical. I would however not worry about licence issues if I had a copy loaded on a PC that worked. I have yet to come accross any software for data aquisition that is any use without the suppliers a/d and having that means someone who bought it paid for a licence.

www.ceinstruments.co.uk
The opinions stated above are personal interpretations and do not necessarily represent actual company policies.

(Just in case any corporate lawyers disagree )