I agree. We all know what abuse of the license intent looks like. One would think that a lawyer that is worth anything at all would be able to craft the necessary legal gobbledegook to make it possible to prevent the type of license abuse that led to this miserable situation where we are all punished.
As it is, whatever lawyer WA has can't seem to find the language to express the intent.
TM
Excellent point. Any IP or Licensing attorney should be able to resolve this issue rather quickly.
I wonder if this event also lead to this egregious clause in the EULA:
Message(f) You agree that WebAssist may examine your computer equipment and audit your use of the Software, Solution, or Training for compliance with these terms at any time, upon reasonable notice. In the event that such audit reveals any use of the Software, Solution, or Training by you other than in full compliance with the terms of this Agreement, you shall reimburse WebAssist for all reasonable expenses related to such audit in addition to any other costs and damages that WebAssist may incur as a result of such non-compliance.
I discovered this just after my purchase of Security Assist. While I have no intention of violating any license agreement I also don't want vendors poking around on my machines where I have personal and client confidential information.
This may be the nail in the proverbial coffin for me regarding future purchases. And I was just getting to the point of considering the subscription model...
