First and foremost, I'm sorry for any upset we caused by using OCCT without paying for a professional license. I've gone ahead and picked up a pro license to cover our use. https://imgur.com/HlDn2Ic
The truth is I had no idea OCCT was a paid software. There is a donation prompt in the application, but otherwise no indication that I should have been using a paid version.
Ignorance doesn't excuse our sloppy approach to software licensing here, though. The simple fact is we pirated your software (which as some of you realize I never said we were perfect about, and in fact have pointed out times when my own ethics aren't bothered by it, but whatever) but hopefully our purchase of a paid license will allow us to put this behind us.
There are some other aspects of your post that I could probably type out a longer reply to - like the insinuation that (even if we wanted to) LTT could somehow destroy your OCCT business, or that we don't reply to outreach (I searched our public email and we only have two emails containing the characters OCCT, and neither of them are from you), and the fact that honestly I've got a little bit of whiplash right now from how abruptly this went from "thanks for the shout-out" to "I'm upset enough to write a novel on reddit about it".
Most devs recognize that our use of their software is closer to educational use than it is to commercial use and don't mind us using their software for free if we are demonstrating how to use it and showcasing it to potential customers on the channel. Based on this Twitter post, I assumed you felt the same way. I guess you don't.
But assumptions lead to disasters, and we absolutely should have reached out. Hopefully you can understand how the error occurred and we can put this behind us.
I read through that Reddit thread before I saw this post. My takeaway from the thread was this: the dev didn’t make it clear to the user that the license was for personal use only. The download...
I read through that Reddit thread before I saw this post. My takeaway from the thread was this: the dev didn’t make it clear to the user that the license was for personal use only. The download page does not mention it (I know when I try a new software, I usually look for a download page first, unless it is a SAAS or I can’t find a download. Only then do I go to the pricing page). While the pricing page does mention commercial use, this is easy to miss, especially when the software is advertised as “free”. And, the prompt within the app looks like a standard donation prompt. It does technically mention commercial usage, but it is in fine print that is easy to miss.
The dev should have just contacted LTT to ask them to buy Pro. The dev states that they did this, but that seems questionable to me. They were cagey on the details. Including the email they supposedly sent to LTT in that thread would have been great. My guess is, if the email was sent, it was phrased in a way that was unclear and easy to miss as a large company. And LTT couldn’t find any record of that email.
Most importantly, when it was brought to their attention, they rectified the issue.
This is completely bogus, right? Linus Media Group is a commercial venture. "Educational use" would be something like demonstrating the software in a class at a public library, I thought?
Most devs recognize that our use of their software is closer to educational use than it is to commercial use and don't mind us using their software for free if we are demonstrating how to use it and showcasing it to potential customers on the channel.
This is completely bogus, right? Linus Media Group is a commercial venture. "Educational use" would be something like demonstrating the software in a class at a public library, I thought?
That's the one bit of the response that really rubbed me the wrong way - because LTT are absolutely making money on it, that's commercial use, and saying that other devs "recognise" something that...
That's the one bit of the response that really rubbed me the wrong way - because LTT are absolutely making money on it, that's commercial use, and saying that other devs "recognise" something that dubious just feels kind of slimy to me; uncharacteristically so, actually, based on the general impression I had of Linus.
The whole situation does indeed seem like it could've been solved with a direct conversation, so I'm not saying either side is totally right or wrong, but throwing that point in there suggests a level of entitlement I don't like. They should be grateful that others throw them freebies, and I'm sure it is generally beneficial for both sides, but I don't want to see them expecting it.
Generally yes but there's a lot of wiggle room for developers to accept LTT's use case also as educational (or promotional), so they will overlook or even reject the notion that a paid license is...
Generally yes but there's a lot of wiggle room for developers to accept LTT's use case also as educational (or promotional), so they will overlook or even reject the notion that a paid license is required. It's basically all up to the developer/company on how/if/when they want to enforce their paid licenses. Based on the wording there, it seems there may be some who don't agree and ask for a paid license anyway.
I don't know. Probably? But on the other hand, the developer said they would've been willing to give Linus a license for free (presumably partly because Linus would use the application for...
I don't know. Probably? But on the other hand, the developer said they would've been willing to give Linus a license for free (presumably partly because Linus would use the application for educational purposes, but also partly for the exposure).
In general, this just seems like odd software to have a license split for personal/commercial use. Don't get me wrong; I'm thankful for free personal licenses. But I'm not sure what the "commercial" use case is for OCCT (maybe just out of ignorance). I mean, I doubt the license split was written specifically with YouTubers/livestreamers in mind, but I'm also not sure who else would actually use the software commercially.
He talked about it in the original post. Apparently hardware manufacturers make use of it.
He talked about it in the original post. Apparently hardware manufacturers make use of it.
As a closing note, most companies are like that. Some are really nice. I'm not afraid to cite them : Asetek, NZXT, Cooler master, Videocardz,... they're all really, really nice people. They use OCCT, support me, and I even got an AIO for free from Asetek since I made a function they had the idea of (Steady mode) (I was beyond thrilled). But lots of others aren't. I did fight for 3 months with a popular graphic card manufacturer to make them pay for a Pro license when they were using it in their after-sale services (I had proof sent by a user).
Thanks for pointing that out; I read the post but maybe not carefully enough. A bit of a tangent, but I still wonder how many companies use this software commercially (or pay for a license, at...
Thanks for pointing that out; I read the post but maybe not carefully enough.
A bit of a tangent, but I still wonder how many companies use this software commercially (or pay for a license, at least). The developer lists four companies and then an ellipsis. Is that ellipsis indicative of a half dozen more companies or a hundred more companies? A hundred feels generous for something so niche (again, that might just be a lack of imagination on my behalf), but it would need to be something of that order of magnitude if they're working on this project full time ($250/yr *100 = $25000/yr).
I guess my point (from my admittedly ignorant perspective) is that this doesn't feel like a viable business model.
Evidently enough for the idea of it being a full time job to not be instantly dismissed, even with a wife working part time at minimum wage and 3 children to worry about. But those companies he...
Evidently enough for the idea of it being a full time job to not be instantly dismissed, even with a wife working part time at minimum wage and 3 children to worry about.
But those companies he mentioned, I'd expect they'd want an enterprise license that comes with features that make it suitable to be integrated into some sort of automated testing whatever. With that being $849.00 per year, 100 big companies like that would make for an $85k salary. But outside of the like. I guess big hardware manufacturers that would want that, you probably have a number of repair shops that might want to keep it close at hand at that $250/yr price.
Linus responded:
I read through that Reddit thread before I saw this post. My takeaway from the thread was this: the dev didn’t make it clear to the user that the license was for personal use only. The download page does not mention it (I know when I try a new software, I usually look for a download page first, unless it is a SAAS or I can’t find a download. Only then do I go to the pricing page). While the pricing page does mention commercial use, this is easy to miss, especially when the software is advertised as “free”. And, the prompt within the app looks like a standard donation prompt. It does technically mention commercial usage, but it is in fine print that is easy to miss.
The dev should have just contacted LTT to ask them to buy Pro. The dev states that they did this, but that seems questionable to me. They were cagey on the details. Including the email they supposedly sent to LTT in that thread would have been great. My guess is, if the email was sent, it was phrased in a way that was unclear and easy to miss as a large company. And LTT couldn’t find any record of that email.
Most importantly, when it was brought to their attention, they rectified the issue.
This is completely bogus, right? Linus Media Group is a commercial venture. "Educational use" would be something like demonstrating the software in a class at a public library, I thought?
That's the one bit of the response that really rubbed me the wrong way - because LTT are absolutely making money on it, that's commercial use, and saying that other devs "recognise" something that dubious just feels kind of slimy to me; uncharacteristically so, actually, based on the general impression I had of Linus.
The whole situation does indeed seem like it could've been solved with a direct conversation, so I'm not saying either side is totally right or wrong, but throwing that point in there suggests a level of entitlement I don't like. They should be grateful that others throw them freebies, and I'm sure it is generally beneficial for both sides, but I don't want to see them expecting it.
It is, but this entire thing was pointless. A lot of drama for something that could have been solved with a private message.
Generally yes but there's a lot of wiggle room for developers to accept LTT's use case also as educational (or promotional), so they will overlook or even reject the notion that a paid license is required. It's basically all up to the developer/company on how/if/when they want to enforce their paid licenses. Based on the wording there, it seems there may be some who don't agree and ask for a paid license anyway.
I don't know. Probably? But on the other hand, the developer said they would've been willing to give Linus a license for free (presumably partly because Linus would use the application for educational purposes, but also partly for the exposure).
In general, this just seems like odd software to have a license split for personal/commercial use. Don't get me wrong; I'm thankful for free personal licenses. But I'm not sure what the "commercial" use case is for OCCT (maybe just out of ignorance). I mean, I doubt the license split was written specifically with YouTubers/livestreamers in mind, but I'm also not sure who else would actually use the software commercially.
He talked about it in the original post. Apparently hardware manufacturers make use of it.
Thanks for pointing that out; I read the post but maybe not carefully enough.
A bit of a tangent, but I still wonder how many companies use this software commercially (or pay for a license, at least). The developer lists four companies and then an ellipsis. Is that ellipsis indicative of a half dozen more companies or a hundred more companies? A hundred feels generous for something so niche (again, that might just be a lack of imagination on my behalf), but it would need to be something of that order of magnitude if they're working on this project full time ($250/yr *100 = $25000/yr).
I guess my point (from my admittedly ignorant perspective) is that this doesn't feel like a viable business model.
Evidently enough for the idea of it being a full time job to not be instantly dismissed, even with a wife working part time at minimum wage and 3 children to worry about.
But those companies he mentioned, I'd expect they'd want an enterprise license that comes with features that make it suitable to be integrated into some sort of automated testing whatever. With that being $849.00 per year, 100 big companies like that would make for an $85k salary. But outside of the like. I guess big hardware manufacturers that would want that, you probably have a number of repair shops that might want to keep it close at hand at that $250/yr price.