Back to the "Don't Pay Twice" page.

Dan Klein at Business Objects made the following claim in his letter to training companies:
"The Crystal Reports license agreement does not permit the Crystal Reports software to be used for the purpose of training third parties."

According to Beth Christopher, who works for Dan, this is based on a license clause that states that software must be used  "solely for your internal business purposes".  The assumption being that training 3rd parties can not be an "internal business purpose".  However,  this is contradicted by the official response I have received from BO.  I asked Dan to read the following statement and confirm that it was correct:

"According to my official responses from Business Objects, an instructor is permitted to use one licensed copy of Crystal to teach a public class.  Business Objects considers the one copy used to teach the class to be in full compliance with the EULA, including the "Internal Business Use" clause.  So, for example, if all of the students brought their own laptops and software there would be no question of the class being in violation of the EULA"

Since it was for publication, Dan had my official response come from corporate communications.  After conferring with Dan, they agreed that this was accurate.  So clearly the instructor is not violating the EULA.  This brings up the key question:

Q. For what purpose is the instructor's software being used? 
A. for the purpose of training third parties.

So if Joe comes to my class and I teach him from my laptop, BO says I am using my software for a valid "Internal Business Purpose".  So what if I buy extra copies of Crystal and I assign Joe as one of my named users.  Ask the same question:
Q. For what purpose are my extra copies of the software being used? 
A. The exact same purpose as above - for the purpose of training third parties.

So, I have two of my named users (me and Joe), both using my software to accomplish the same exact purpose.  Can one be in compliance and the other be a viloation?  My position is that as long as I own a valid named user license for each student in class, I am not in violation of the license in any way.  If anyone sees a flaw in my logic, please share it with me.

Now, Beth's letter throws out another issue which I consider a red herring.  She states that:

"Each individual user must be specifically identified as the sole holder of a Named User License. 
The sharing of licenses is expressly prohibited and is a material breach of this agreement."

I agree.  But if you read the rest of that clause it adds:

"In addition, NUL(s) may not be transferred from one individual to another  unless the
original end user no longer requires, and is no longer permitted, access to the Software."

Once Joe is done with class he no longer requires or has access to my software, so I can transfer that NUL to another student.  My students do NOT share licenses. 

I have asked Business Objects to clarify the contradiction in Dan's letter, but have not received a response yet.  If I get something clear I will be happy to share it with you.