Linus tech tips "pirating" OCCT - answer from the dev [Reddit thread]

[Just that Mario]

How can someone pirate a free software??? There's no word about a license and even first thing in Google search says "FREE".

 

[Just that Mario]

On 2/13/2022 at 4:36 PM, BaidDSB said:

and has been free for personal use only for like 10+ years,

Says nowhere that it is free only for "personal use" and tbf the pricing on the damn thing looks like a complete scam.

From website package "Personal Patreon" "16% off for a year", 16% off compared to what?

[Moonzy]

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Not illegally sharing his Plex server with people like Luke might also be a good thing, if he still does that. Maybe stop using Windows in ways that is against the ToS on his test-benches.

i agree with most of your point except these

i dont think he needs to go that far, and people have to understand that "do as i say, not as i do" sometimes apply

it's fine to educate about piracy as a pirate, and if that guilt trips people then perhaps it's a good thing, maybe people are doing things they're not ok with without knowing fully

[LinusTech]

This thread is epic. Thank you all for weighing in

[XGoodGuyFitz]

2 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

This thread is epic. Thank you all for weighing in

You're welcome even though I didn't contribute to this thread at all. 

[kumicota]

6 minutes ago, Just that Mario said:

Says nowhere that it is free only for "personal use" and tbf the pricing on the damn thing looks like a complete scam.

From website package "Personal Patreon" "16% off for a year", 16% off compared to what?

https://www.ocbase.com/about

[Just that Mario]

On 2/13/2022 at 7:44 PM, LAwLz said:

While I understand the thought process, it is still against the terms of service. A company like LMG should take those license agreements seriously, because if Microsoft decides to go after them they will have to pay really hefty fines.

You are not allowed to take illegal shortcuts just because you feel like it makes your life easier.

If Microsoft gave two sh*ts over licenses, they would make inactive OS's obsolete.

[Just that Mario]

1 minute ago, kumicota said:

https://www.ocbase.com/about

Nothing there says about limiting who or how you use it or are you incapable of reading the very page you just linked?

[kumicota]

2 minutes ago, Just that Mario said:

Nothing there says about limiting who or how you use it or are you incapable of reading the very page you just linked?

There's literally a part where it says "Professional and Business use allowed"

[Needfuldoer]

31 minutes ago, Just that Mario said:

Says nowhere that it is free only for "personal use" and tbf the pricing on the damn thing looks like a complete scam.

From website package "Personal Patreon" "16% off for a year", 16% off compared to what?

That's why I think this is an entirely plausible sequence of events:

 

- Long ago, someone at LMG downloaded the old freeware-for-any-use-case version of OCCT and threw it in a folder on a server

- Everyone uses that copy instead of downloading it again

- Time passes, the video in question goes up

- Someone points out "you're using an old version of OCCT!"

- Someone at LMG updates their local copy of the installer to the latest version, not noticing the licensing terms changed. After all, the old version was free, at a glance the OCCT site has "free" written all over it, so it should be fine, right? (They might not have even noticed that much if they got it from a download mirror instead of the official site.)

- Others start using the updated installer from the local share, because why would it be there if it wasn't okay to use?

- Whoops, we accidentally broke OCCT's terms of service by using the free version in a commercial setting.

 

This is a learning opportunity. They bought a license when it came to their attention, so as far as I see it they're square now. It would be a good idea to have someone audit the software toolbox and make sure all their licensing is current. The author should also update OCCT's site to make it clearer that commercial use requires a paid license, because it's highly unlikely this is the only instance of this happening.

 

18 minutes ago, kumicota said:

There's literally a part where it says "Professional and Business use allowed"

Where's the part that says professional and business use of the free version is not allowed? You could say it's inferred, but it's not explicitly stated.

 

This is much further up the page:

 

 

It says there are "a few limitations", but doesn't elaborate.

 

Ironically, their Purchase page breaks the features and allowed use cases down much better than their About page, but why would you go there when the site has "Free*" plastered all over it and a big yellow "Download" button on top?

 

https://www.ocbase.com/purchase

 

The Download page also doesn't say the Free version is for non-commercial use only. The only hint is that the "Pro" and "Enterprise" tabs give you a login button instead of a download link.

[Just that Mario]

8 minutes ago, kumicota said:

There's literally a part where it says "Professional and Business use allowed"

And nowhere on the website or in the "free" section nor when downloading (and from previous comments - during installation) it says it is not allowed to be used by a "professional" or a "business". This is flat our pure stupidity from you, mate. If you want to encourage some license and ToS, you first must have a god damn ToS.

[Just that Mario]

1 minute ago, Needfuldoer said:

That's why I think this is an entirely plausible sequence of events:

 

- Long ago, someone at LMG downloaded the old freeware-for-any-use-case version of OCCT and threw it in a folder on a server

- Everyone uses that copy instead of downloading it again

- Time passes, the video in question goes up

- Someone points out "you're using an old version of OCCT!"

- Someone at LMG updates their local copy of the installer to the latest version, not noticing the licensing terms changed. After all, the old version was free, at a glance the OCCT site has "free" written all over it, so it should be fine, right?

- Others keep using the updated installer from the local share, because why would it be there if it wasn't okay to use?

- Whoops, we accidentally broke OCCT's terms of service by using the free version in a commercial setting.

 

This is a learning opportunity. They bought a license when it came to their attention, so as far as I see it they're square now. It would be a good idea to have someone audit the software toolbox and make sure all their licensing is current. The author should also update OCCT's site to make it clearer that commercial use requires a paid license, because it's highly unlikely this is the only instance of this happening.

Linus shouldn't even have bought the license, there is no reason to. Software has no ToS what-so-ever and the creator(s) didn't even contact LTT. Linus just did it because he could. Personally I would've told everyone to f*ck off and go donate the dude(s) if they feel need to white knight a "FREE" software.

[LAwLz]

30 minutes ago, Just that Mario said:

How can someone pirate a free software??? There's no word about a license and even first thing in Google search says "FREE".

 

It's free for personal use.

It's not free for professional or business use. They make this very clear on their about page, in their EULA which is linked on their purchase page (and probably during install), in their FAQ, and their download page has a specific sections for enterprise users which won't let you download before you buy it.

 

Honestly, I don't see how an SMB or larger company can miss this if they properly vet their programs. My guess is that LMG does "cowboy IT". Basically, no oversight and no structure to how they operate. That works for home stuff and even small company stuff, but maybe it's time LMG start operating and acting as the big company they actually are.

 

 

  

22 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

i agree with most of your point except these

i dont think he needs to go that far, and people have to understand that "do as i say, not as i do" sometimes apply

it's fine to educate about piracy as a pirate, and if that guilt trips people then perhaps it's a good thing, maybe people are doing things they're not ok with without knowing fully

Not sure which part you are talking about specifically. Not sharing his Plex server with Luke or activating Windows on his test benches?

Please note that the list I posted are not necessarily what I want Linus to do/change. The list of things I want LMG to change is way longer than just 4 things. My post was more of a general advice to Linus. Publicly broadcasting that you are doing something illegal is not a great idea when you run a multi-million dollar business. Even if you think you are morally justified in doing those illegal things, displaying that you are doing them is basically begging for trouble and it might come back to bite him in the ass in the future.

[Just that Mario]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

It's free for personal use.

It's not free for professional or business use. They make this very clear on their about page, in their EULA which is linked on their purchase page (and probably during install), in their FAQ, and their download page has a specific sections for enterprise users which won't let you download before you buy it.

 

Honestly, I don't see how an SMB or larger company can miss this unless they are basically sleep walking. 

Firstly, it nowhere has a ToS nor EULA. It doesn't even ask you to agree to anything (except cookies, which you can decline) anywhere on the website and from previous comment neither does so during installation.

 

Secondly, it nowhere says it is free only for personal use. It just has a package called "personal", same as it has package called "personal patreon".

 

Thirdly, their about page only lists different packages and their features. If a package fits everything I need I won't be reading through everything.

 

Fourthly, the download page is so garbage in design I had to specifically LOOK for the different package titles and still those are different package titles not that "enterprises must only use this", "professionals must only use this".

If a service doesn't list direct ToS in their webpage (usually footer) nor makes you agree to it in any point of use, then there is to ToS. From all I can see is that they just sell extra features for extra money.

Are they also going to cry a computer technician doesn't use their "professional" package?

[darkcloud784]

17 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

This thread is epic. Thank you all for weighing in

 

Personally I think the reason why this has blown up so much is just your stance on Adblock. I agree that your word choice was very poor. Adblock can be a double edged sword, while it is not legally piracy, its still something that takes revenue from the platform/creators which in turn reduces growth. Word choice is the key part of this whole fiasco.

It also doesn't help that your rhetoric about the situation is also met poorly and comes off as non-empathetic. Example being

On 2/13/2022 at 6:28 PM, LinusTech said:

I bought a license the second this was brought to my attention. Had nothing to do with the post going viral. If you'd read my post you'd know the dev THANKED US for using the software back when the video came out. 

 

Clearly I figured this was a non-issue. Maybe I should have been clairvoyant enough to know that thank you meant "I did not like this" 

The fact that you add " dev THANKED US" comes off in bad taste and can be taken as if you don't think it was wrong (to be clear it was, though it was not intentional or easily noted). I know this probably isn't the intention, but that's just the way it is. At least you did do the right thing and bought a license.

I do think you need to address this outside of reddit/forums though, only because there are other people that may not be aware of the response. I only realized you responded to this after revisiting the post on reddit after bookmarking it, had i not then I wouldn't have even known.

Lastly, I would really rethink your position on "industry norms" being what you should follow, as they change. I also work in IT and know that it changes rapidly. Not just from a hardware/software point but also from a business point. While it might be a norm, it may not be followed by that given business or group which can make problems like this more prevalent. Them not following the norm also does not make them wrong or bad, due to their business structure or work/revenue flow which there is no way for you to know about before hand.

 

Just my 2 coins. Feel free to ignore or reply.

[darkcloud784]

14 minutes ago, Just that Mario said:

And nowhere on the website or in the "free" section nor when downloading (and from previous comments - during installation) it says it is not allowed to be used by a "professional" or a "business". This is flat our pure stupidity from you, mate. If you want to encourage some license and ToS, you first must have a god damn ToS.

Your looking at their new website. This was done long ago, and I still remember their old website which did not really have a clear "pro" or "personal" selection. Additionally, they had the software on multiple sites that did not have anything linking to the pro version which I think is were they got it from based on what @LinusTech mentioned in one of his posts. Don't get me wrong, I agree they should have paid for a license and got it from the official source but the dev also shares some blame on his poor planning.

[Just that Mario]

1 minute ago, darkcloud784 said:

Your looking at their new website. This was done long ago, and I still remember their old website which did not really have a clear "pro" or "personal" selection. Additionally, they had the software on multiple sites that did not have anything linking to the pro version which I think is were they got it from based on what @LinusTech mentioned in one of his posts. Don't get me wrong, I agree they should have paid for a license and got it from the official source but the dev also shares some blame on his poor planning.

Can't you read or what? I nowhere in hell think LTT should've paid nor do I think people protecting this software are in the right. The software straight up is missing all kinds of ToS/EULA.

[Needfuldoer]

It's good (or at least not damaging) for PR that they paid for a license to use the software, even if you could argue that technically they didn't legally have to if you look at their website at the right angle.

 

In this instance he's wearing his "CEO of Linus Media Group" hat and answering to the company's actions. Brushing it off would've been an even worse look than saying "whoops we effed up, sorry" and buying the license retroactively. Imagine the circular arguments that would've set off!

[darkcloud784]

6 minutes ago, Just that Mario said:

Can't you read or what? I nowhere in hell think LTT should've paid nor do I think people protecting this software are in the right. The software straight up is missing all kinds of ToS/EULA.

A EULA does not need to be packaged with the software and does not need to be a book to be enforced. They have their licensing information on their current website. Although I can not appropriate this to their old one. Additionally a ToS is not the same as a EULA and a ToS does not enforce licensing information only service terms which he doesn't provide. He only provides a product with his license.

https://www.ocbase.com/support/faq-licensing-how-many

 

Edit: Oh and at the bottom of the page https://www.ocbase.com/purchase
 

[Just that Mario]

11 minutes ago, darkcloud784 said:

A EULA does not need to be packaged with the software and does not need to be a book to be enforced. They have their licensing information on their current website. Although I can not appropriate this to their old one. Additionally a ToS is not the same as a EULA and a ToS does not enforce licensing information only service terms which he doesn't provide. He only provides a product with his license.

https://www.ocbase.com/support/faq-licensing-how-many

yes, yes SUPPORT -> FAQ -> LICENSE -> SINGLE SH*TTY QUESTION STYLE BLOCK OF TEXT is a valid EULA to you? There isn't a single agreement "box" either.

Also let's say I use a personal one, I make a video demonstrating the software. Do I now need a professional or enterprise version? I am not an enterprise and heck is a "professional" anyways? Professional in what? Using the software? Professional baker? A chef? A mechanic?
 

Quote

Using OCCT Pro and Enterprise on an after-sale scenario, on your customer's computer, is also allowed as long as the one operating it is someone working for your company, and provided you remove OCCT Pro/Enterprise from the computer afterwards.

This entire paragraph (well, one long sentence), makes it sound as if the owner expects this software to be only used on personally owned computer(s), but then they thought "well f... what about tech support and the likes? idk... let's be a GGG and allow use on customer's computers as well". Also let's not forget the creator/software/whatever is from FRANCE not USA and I don't feel like finding and translating baguette laws.

[darkcloud784]

Just now, Just that Mario said:

yes, yes SUPPORT -> FAQ -> LICENSE -> SINGLE SH*TTY QUESTION STYLE BLOCK OF TEXT is a valid EULA to you? There isn't a single agreement "box" either.

Also let's say I use a personal one, I make a video demonstrating the software. Do I now need a professional or enterprise version? I am not an enterprise and heck is a "professional" anyways?

 

This entire paragraph (well, one long sentence), makes it sound as if the owner expects this software to be only used on personally owned computer(s), but then they thought "well f... what about tech support and the likes? idk... let's be a GGG and allow use on customer's computers as well".

 

If you make any income off said video, yes you are required to get a commercial license if it is part of the license agreement (which is posted on their website as part of their EULA). This is quite literally part copyright and intellectual property laws.

 

As stated a EULA doesn't need to have a terms acceptance, its an End User License Agreement not a Terms of Service which are completely different and I think your getting them confused because your blinded by some sort of outrage.
I find your last sentence not only humorous but also confusing. Reading the first part of your quoted sentence explains it all "Using OCCT Pro and Enterprise on an after-sale scenario". This means after you purchased OCCT pro/Enterprise you can use it on other computers as long as its removed after your done. This in no way states anything about personal use.

[Needfuldoer]

There aren't any "Free for non-commercial use" notices in the actual application you download, either.

 

They link to their full EULA on the Purchase page, but not the Download page.

 

Quote

OCBASE grants you a revocable, non exclusive, non transferable, limited license to download, install and use OCCT in its free edition solely for your personal, non commercial purposes strictly in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Use of OCCT in a professional or commercial environment is restricted to the Pro and Enterprise editions of OCCT. Once acquired, a licensed may be used by the owner of the license, or anyone whose residence is within his household. The Pro and Enterprise license is granted for anyone working on the acquiring company, and can be used on any computer, as long as a member of the purchasing company is using the software. Usage of OCCT Pro and Enterprise is thus allowed on computers foreign to the acquiring company, as long as a company member is the person using it.

Source: https://www.ocbase.com/purchase

 

You can go to the official website, download the personal version of OCCT, run it, and use all of its features, without encountering that message even once. 

 

That's the messaging the developer needs to fix. The Download page should explicitly state that the Personal edition is only for non-commercial use, with a link to the full EULA. The application should also pop open a window with the full EULA on initial startup, to drive the point home. After all, if the software looks free, why would you go to a Purchase page?

[darkcloud784]

3 minutes ago, Needfuldoer said:

There aren't any "Free for non-commercial use" notices in the actual application you download, either.

 

They link to their full EULA on the Purchase page, but not the Download page.

 

Source: https://www.ocbase.com/purchase

 

You can download, run, and use every feature of the personal edition of OCCT without encountering that message even once. 

 

That's the messaging the developer needs to fix. The Download page should explicitly state that the Personal edition is only for non-commercial use, with a link to the full EULA. The application should also pop open a window with the full EULA on initial startup, to drive the point home. After all, if the software looks free, why would you go to a Purchase page?

"That's the messaging the developer needs to fix. The Download page should explicitly state that the Personal edition is only for non-commercial use, with a link to the full EULA. The application should also pop open a window with the full EULA on initial startup, to drive the point home. After all, if the software looks free, why would you go to a Purchase page?"

 

I agree with this part. The Dev definitely needs to make it clear in the program, but its not required to package a EULA with the software in order to enforce it. Although it honestly should be always packaged, to ensure less confusion.

[connorkincaid]

On 2/13/2022 at 5:39 PM, Shadess said:

Literally only because of your adblock piracy video.

There is a distinct difference between KNOWINGLY installing an ad-blocker to disable ads, and unknowingly using a piece of software that is poorly marked as "free". 

It was an honest mistake. 

These two particular things do not run in parallel. They are only similar at surface level, any actual use of logic would dictate that these are not the same situations. 

[LAwLz]

A lot of victim blaming in this thread right now.

 

It's the responsibility of the company (LMG) to assure that their use complies with the license agreement. It's not the developers job to ensure that the license agreement is followed. 

 

If I go to pirate Bay and download Windows, it's not Microsoft's fault that I didn't see the EULA. I'm responsible for making sure my use doesn't break the license. 

 

I am getting major "it's your fault for dressing like that" vibes from the last bunch of replies here.