Universal Extractor non-commercial use files

webfork · **Posted:** Fri Mar 19, 2010 8:45 am

Although the base software is GPL'd some of the included libraries do not allow for commercial use without registration.

From \docs\uharc_license.doc:

Quote:

The commercial use of UHARC package requires a registration (contact: Uwe.Herklotz@gmx.de). No registration is needed for private or other non-commercial use.

I'm assuming this affects two files:

UHARC02.EXE
UHARC04.EXE

So if you're at work, you should delete these files or register.

If nobody minds, I'd like to put up a note on the Universal Extract entry.

Paxophobe · **Joined:** Wed Jul 08, 2009 4:23 pm **Posts:** 10

or you could just not be a pedantic lamer?

MiDoJo · **Joined:** Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:36 pm **Posts:** 312

Paxophobe wrote:

or you could just not be a pedantic lamer?

That was uncalled for, to some people this information is both important and without this information it may get others who distribute certain softwares (including this site and Lupo's unofficial updating uniextrator) in trouble. perhaps you should consider the number of posts you have and the number of posts the person you are chastising has.

Webfork, I think you should provide this information on the page (a la SIV) I for one, though, will continue to use my build as uharc might??? be important to some of my unextract. That said, does the maker of Uniextract realize he includes a library he probably should not?

webfork · **Posted:** Fri Mar 19, 2010 12:08 pm

Quote:

That was uncalled for

Don't worry about it, MiDoJo, he's a troll -- Paxophobe literally means fear of peace.

But to answer the implicit question, "who cares?" :

Some places (especially law firms and high-security institutions) can be very paranoid that everything is VERY licensed and VERY legal. I've gotten a fair share of nastygrams from people who are very interested in protecting their intellectual property. Since something between 10 and 20% of the programs listed here don't just suggest but require Universal Extractor to make them work, ignoring might mean legal trouble for some of our visitors.

donald · **Posted:** Fri Mar 19, 2010 4:41 pm

webfork I would expect "non commercial use" to mean merely that you not use it for a commercial purpose, but would not effect your location, even if you work there. An example might be someone who works at a restaurant, and uses a computer before and , after work and during breaks, as no commercial purpose is involved the license has been honored. (netbook)
******************
Further I would not think anyplace as paranoid about software as you mention would allow you to use outside software at all.
(Or to use a computer personally either.)

webfork · **Posted:** Fri Mar 19, 2010 8:53 pm

> I would not think anyplace as paranoid about software as you mention would allow you to use outside software at all.

This is really at the heart of portable software: you can take software places where computers are locked down and still get things done. Similarly, one of the advantages of Universal Extractor is that you can download installers and still make them work on computers that won't allow installations, which is awesome.

The truth is I don't really know if this is an issue (IANAL), I just want to empower users with more information. The reason for the forum post was kind of an informal poll to see if this is something that should be made part of the main program description for one of the most popular entries.

guinness · **Joined:** Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:00 am **Posts:** 3717

Hypothetically speaking if you/we were to extract a piece of software that was both for commercial and non-commercial using UHARC included in UniExtract, but at the time no intention was to use the software in a commercial environment, is the license agreement being broken? For Example (BAD Software Choice) PicPick, lets pretend that's extracted with UHARC and at the time it was being used for personal use, but months down the line and not updating (idiot!) you/we use it in a commercial environment and forgot how it was extracted, down to negligence is the License between the owner and developer being broken?

Probably! I'm not up to date with Licensing.

Paxophobe · **Joined:** Wed Jul 08, 2009 4:23 pm **Posts:** 10

AT WORST, you'll get a couple of butthurt GPL geeks giving you filthy looks. heavens!

webfork · **Posted:** Sat Mar 20, 2010 8:02 am

> you/we use it in a commercial environment and forgot how it was extracted, down to negligence is the License between the owner and developer being broken?

Yeah that makes sense. I'm going to guess that if it ever went to court, just having unregistered commercial software on a machine isn't necessarily infringement. Still, with the way intellectual property law is going with recent RIAA / MPAA wins, they don't need much evidence.

More to the point, its just not getting flack from your boss who we're expecting to be a lot more paranoid than we are.

joby_toss · **Posted:** Sat Mar 20, 2010 8:07 am

Every bit of information regarding the licenses should be posted on the front page, especially something like this! That's how I feel about it.

Universal Extractor non-commercial use files

Who is online