Using trial versions of software in practice 1

[skeletron]

I'm reviewing a submission where the designer is clearly using a trial version of software to produce calculation reports and the design. What is everyones unfiltered take on this in practice?

I have used trial versions before. Typically I would be double checking my own output with that of the software program. And the intent would be to "take it for a spin" before letting it become my main workhorse. I also acknowledge that engineers are now using more and more software, which can come at a price and sometimes a one-off project necessitates a short window of usage. Hence...the 30-day trial version. But is there some sort of unspoken professionalism that is being voided by submitting calcs with the "Trial Version" watermark pasted over them?

 

[dik]

As long as the output is correct, I just don't care.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[skeletron]

Lol. I get you dik. The output did have some...oversights...and look rushed.

 

[dik]

Anytime I check designs, I never rely on the other design. It's faster if I do a quick design of my own. I'm also not likely to get caught up in their design methodology.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[Lomarandil]

I know a lot of people won't see anything wrong with it.

For me, if an engineer is willing to sacrifice integrity to save a buck on software... I'm going to start wondering what else they're willing to sacrifice. Not a good look.

And while I know there are also a lot of engineers misusing and abusing software that they've paid for.. there does seem to be correlation between the piracy-inclined and those whose designs belong at the bottom of the ocean.

 

[phamENG]

I'm with Lo. How could I not be, with such a marvelous, Davy Jones themed post? It's not good for a number of reasons. When I was first starting out without much of a software budget and finding I'd purchased the wrong one, I gave into the temptation and dipped my toe into that water a bit, but quickly got bitten as a result (see Issue 2).

Issue #1 - Integrity and Ethics. When you download the software, you're agreeing to not use it for commercial purposes. That means you're agreeing to not rely on its output for a production job that will be built and you'll be paid for. If you use it for that, you've broken your word, violated your integrity, and at the very best called your ethics into question. An engineer with questionable ethics is not an Engineer.

Issue #2 - Accessibility and Record Keeping. How many jobs have you designed, released, had reviewed and permitted, materials purchased, built, inspected, and go through their entire service life in the span of a 30 day software trial? I'd wager a big fat goose egg. What if there's an issue or an unforeseen condition on site and the design needs to change? What if there's a failure 3 years in? You need to produce/review/revise your calculations in these situations. If your trial's over, you're hosed. Most trials won't let you save or at least won't let you print the output. What then?

EDIT: one exception: software that has a 1990s style licensing system where a live person has to email you a key. You buy it Wednesday afternoon but don't hear from them until Monday. So you start using the trial version for production because you have deadlines and need those 3 days of production. I have a few file clacs with TRIAL plastered on them for that reason.

 

[CWB1]

IME licensing agreements generally exclude commercial use until after purchase to prevent this practice. You're welcome to run hypotheticals on the trial version for 2-4 weeks but any IP created remains the property of the software company. My employers have always had the policy that if software piracy or other IP ownership issues were suspected we pause that individual/company's work until the legal dept can confirm. I'm sure it varies by industry, but IP ownership is hugely important in mine.

 

[271828]

Aside from what has been typed, I'd wonder if the engineer is good at using the software. That might make me look at the calcs with a bit more suspicion. Maybe that's a good thing anyway. Ha.

 

[GregLocock]

When we get a new version of software (not a new software package entirely) we run it through the old models and check we get the same results. I'm sure you do that as well.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[geesaman.d]

This is, for once, a good reason for subscription-based software licensing.

I'd be equally concerned to rely on someone who's been using the software for less than 30 days. That's never my best quality (or at least, most nuanced and value-added) work.

 

[jerseyshore]

I agree with 271828. It's definitely not unusual for anyone to use a trial version, but to send out calcs with that all over it, I'd look into it a little deeper.

This feels like one of those situations where an engineer doesn't do a lot of, say aluminum design, downloads a free trial version of a program, does the job and boom, never had to pay for the software. But do we really trust them and their design?

The only thing I can think of that maybe justifies this is could it be that XYZ company only has "n" number of licenses for the software and they were all in-use so they use or printed from a trial version instead? IDK even if I was using a trial version I certainly wouldn't send it out like that. At least crop it out. That makes me even more nervous about their judgement than just using it in the first place.

 

[zelgar]

Most trial versions of software stipulate that it's not to be used for commercial use. If so, then there are technically both legal and ethic concerns, but some people don't care.

 

[IRstuff]

I agree with 271828. It's definitely not unusual for anyone to use a trial version, but to send out calcs with that all over it, I'd look into it a little deeper.

If nothing else, it's highly unprofessional; if there are issues with the results and the software needs to be used again, but the trial period expires?

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[Sparweb]

I can admit to using software trials to aid my calculations, but I can't think of a case where the SW wasn't just a convenient starting point, not the final solution. Things like free FEA packages that can help run a few dozen preliminary iterations quickly, before narrowing down the optimum and then turning the big guns on that. When the boffins who use ANSYS or NASTRAN get their hands on a problem, it can take them days before they come back with an answer. I didn't have the stomach for a 2-week optimization programme, so I ran the numbers on the side myself until I had a configuration to give them. They could work out the decimal places, but the ideal solution was well defined already.

 

[milkshakelake]

I have my own story for this. I used a trial version of slope stability software (I think it was GEO 5 or something) to do a proposal for a slope stabilization job. It took days to learn the software and produce the trial calculation. After securing the job, I bought the actual software for a year and did the real job, and I've done a couple since then. So I think there's a time and place for using trial software in actual production.

If an engineer is constantly using trial software for all their production and just using new emails, I'd definitely be wary. Dik mentioned that he doesn't care as long as the output is correct, but I agree with others in that there are other issues that pertain to the reliability of the engineer in question. But life isn't black and white, and this is very much a per-case thing, unlike a clear ethical violation like bribing a code official.

 

[PersonalProfile]

In addition to the earlier comments, a trial version may prevent recovery damages etc in the event of software error etc, due to no contract etc. The recovery of damages may be challenging etc despite the existence of a contract etc, considering licensing conditions etc.

 

[GregLocock]

Every software license I use excludes any chance of blaming the software for calculation errors, so I suspect that is not an issue.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[IRstuff]

I have read in the past that PE's are solely responsible for any calculations they stamp or endorse, and therefore, they do not have the recourse to blame the software they use.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[XR250]

I used a piece of software a while back called Virtual PC. Allowed me to emulate Windows on my Mac. Apparently, due to roundoff errors converting from 64 bit to 80 bit, it would give wrong answers in the Light Gage software I was using as it required repetitive calculations to converge on an answer. They were close enough that it was not obvious (off like 20%), but enough that it could have been dangerous. They would never take responsibility for it nor provide any warnings that you should not trust any math done while using this emulator.

 

[milkshakelake]

@XR250 That's why we should never trust software until we test it. 20% off is scary. I'll keep that in mind. I don't use emulators, but some software (like modern Woodworks and old versions of ETABS) are developed simultaneously for x64 and x86 platforms, and I really don't want to be caught off guard by a rounding error because of that.