beta redistribution license question

[urbansound]

Hi,

I have 5 alpha/beta personal home users I consult with regularly.  In wanting to be sure not to violate any of the Avast copyright considerations, I would care to allow the 5 users to try the beta product but not have to register each as beta testers since they are less versed and disciplined at beta reporting and analysis.

I do receive compensation from them on unrelated services I perform for them,  on occasion, but certainly not for redistribution of other's beta products and I do not market, design or create anti-virus, anti-malware products at all.

1) Is it permissible for me to download a copy of the beta on to their home machines, using my registered beta link with Avast that will remain fresh through 4.x updates I would think?,

2) or do I have to re-distribute a copy of the executable to them, (which I would prefer not to do).

3) or will either of these create a licensing conflict.  It is fine if the applications dial home to report beta activity, I just don't want Avast to see other's reporting from multiple locations and think I was in any way attempting to misuse the Avast products, but to truly do beta testing with my team.

Thanks in advance.

Mike

[DavidR]

There currently isn't a beta version of avast 4 home/pro, that has just completed culminating in the current 4.7.827 version.

Although they could register to become part of the beta process, beta releases are usually notified on these forums along with a link to a small executable that downloads and installs the beta version, this way they don't have to specifically register for the beta versions and you wouldn't have to physically install it for them.

As far as I'm aware there isn't a beta download that you can install on subsequent machines even if it was permissible (and I don't know that but I would doubt it). So they would either have to download the executable or you would need to send it.

If you don't feel that they can be trusted to run the executable then they may not be suitable for trialling beta software, especially critical security applications if it is their only machine. Beta software comes with the usual health warnings. Although avast's beta releases have be more stable than many others I have tried, but some do experience problems and the solutions may not be easy for the technically challenged.

The beta releases don't effect any current license Home or Pro and when the regular release is done the application reverts to the standard version without the need to do a clean install.

There is a beta sub forum that is used for reporting any issues with beta releases this keeps everything together and provides a good pool of information for other beta users to see if others are experiencing similar issues, etc.

[urbansound]

If you don't feel that they can be trusted to run the executable then they may not be suitable for trialling beta software, especially critical security applications if it is their only machine. Beta software comes with the usual health warnings. Although avast's beta releases have be more stable than many others I have tried, but some do experience problems and the solutions may not be easy for the technically challenged.

Thanks David,

The issue is not one so much of trust, but expertice.  I monitor these five clients live from my location in a secure tunnel connection with their machines online and look at the effectiveness of my own efforts for them in that profile. 

A big concern for me however, is that I not accidentally cause any infringements by simply how I facilitate the users to receive and use the product.

I also try to toss in other particularly good products just for the benefit of developers and reporting back casual beta and user information as I see it, being a nice source of feedback for developers I do that with, but also assuring I'm not causing too much hassle for my five users.  I always demo the product on my own demo machines 9x and xp for some days before extending it to my team.

i.e.  I want their less informed and less experienced opinions, feedback and and untrained experiences.  This plays well into recommendations I will ultimately make to potential commercial users down the road so I'm not making untried recommendations at the typical user level.  I end up in beta frequently because that provider was leading the path in a need I was trying to solve for potential clients I would later refer the product to for commercial application, knowing the average user still faired well with it, even as a beta release at the time it was tried and can prove it.

It sounds like if I log on to my account at Avast! and download the 4.7 to their machines, I should be fine I would think, if nobody else sees a redflag in doing that.  That keeps it very simple and clean for my guys which is also good for the product overview in the end. 

Thank you.

Mike

[DavidR]

It sounds like if I log on to my account at Avast! and download the 4.7 to their machines, I should be fine I would think, if nobody else sees a redflag in doing that.  That keeps it very simple and clean for my guys which is also good for the product overview in the end.

Sorry I don't understand what it is you mean by logging on to your account at avast!

If they have already got avast installed and register on their system that would probably (note probably, I can't speak for Alwil) be OK. The problem occurs when you install avast for home for them, they have to register it and in doing so effectively declare that they conform to the home/non commercial use. No one else can make that declaration for them.

[urbansound]

The problem occurs when you install avast for home for them, they have to register it and in doing so effectively declare that they conform to the home/non commercial use. No one else can make that declaration for them.

That's why I hold a written, signed, agreement with them extending me explicit and expressed permission by them, to install other's software on their machine's for them as a consultant for the purpose of evaluation of their use of the product.  The question might become am I required to run it or are they?  Well, their machine is running it, physically in their respective homes, on non-business use machines, which was the software developers intention to begin with and the users are aware of it because I confirm same with them in writing prior to making the installation so they are informed.   

I make no changes in packaging or product so their confirmation is still binding, the same as any product post-install.   There never is a "Transfer of license" if you will, only a representation of obligation and a fiduciary responsibility that I not misuse the product on their machine, standing in their first person place of installing it for them.  They already are aware they may not use the machine at all, let alone software for business purposes by agreement with me, regardless of anyone's software I put on it, so the overall premise is strengthened.

It does however put me in a particularly beneficial position to recommend to potential commercial users that corporate-wide use of the product would be a plus based upon our very unique evaluation process.  Haven't had too many complaints about that from vendors, at least the better ones.   If I'm going to be doing consulting work for larger organizations, I would want to know they will all end up running the same commercial products in harmony, if at all possible for consistency and reliability and if I can advocate a suite of proved products I know will give that reliability, my assurance to them becomes far superior to that of my own competition who cannot make such confirming and experienced claims and proof.

The other side of the coin is this, if all I have to do is have the individuals themselves make the individual confirmations and that's all it takes to circumvent the spirit of the end-user agreement and end use value of the product, then the license has no substantial ability to protect the product from mis-use anyhow, so I become doubly a watch-dog on their use or rather non-misuse of the product in my monitoring of their use of the product.
 
Mike