and a software license can include a copyright restriction, but can include any other condition that the seller wishes to enforce... and the buyer wants to agree with. So go READ the license agreement... its not in the FORUM or up to the FORUM to determine what the licensing agreement states... all you need to do is read it. If it doesn't state anywhere you can't use the s/w for a specific purpose, or if there are specific conditions for the use of the s/w, then you are free to do whatever you want to do with it ... within the laws governing what you are doing however...

Mach3 and Mach4 products are sold through the "ArtSoft" entity. Over the years this entity has been a freestanding company in Canada then owned by Art Fenerty, a division of NewFangled Solutions, LLC in Maine and now a division of MachMotion (aka Edge Solutions, LLC) in Missouri.

The word "license" in the context of software can refer to three different concepts.

A "license agreement or EULA" which states the rights and responsibilities of the buyer and the seller. It can be in the form of a signed contract or in the form of automatic effects such as proceeding to use a web site after notice is presented or opening a physical package with a notice on it. ArtSoft currently and historically has not used a formal "license agreement". Statements made in marketing materials or on a forum do not constitute a "license agreement".

A "license key" which is a mechanism to protect a software product which is designed to not operate fully if the license key is not present. This is the method that ArtSoft has traditionally used to protect their software. Mach3 license keys, when applied to the software, will show the buyers name on the startup screen so that it is possible to see if the name matches the user who presumably purchased the software. Mach4 utilizes a more robust mechanism that verifies that the license key matches the signature (PCID) or footprint of the characteristics of the PC for which it was issued, otherwise Mach4 runs in Demo mode.

"License policies" are restrictions presented or implemented outside of a formal "license agreement". These policies are often stated by the seller in their marketing materials and other documentation. Policies may interact with "license keys" to achieve control of usage. The "license key" for Mach4 is an example of this. A user of Mach4 Hobby is allowed to have up to 5 active "license keys" at once for Hobby use. If you already have 5 keys active, the license server will not generate a new license key until you deactivate one of the old keys. The license server also monitors activity to detect abuse of new key generation and may enforce management approval before more keys are generated. Mach4 Industrial and some optional software will restrict users to only one active license key at a time.

One policy that is stated in ArtSoft materials is that for commercial use (making money by using the software) the user is expected to purchase one "license key" for each machine that is engaged in commercial activity.

ArtSoft also suggests in its marketing that Mach4 Hobby is targeted at hobby users, but has never stated that commercial use of Mach4 Hobby is a violation of "License Policies".

Hi,
very concise reply, thanks Steve.

I must say I feel somewhat guilty in that I have a Mach4Hobby license I bought ten years ago, and I use that in just one machine, but for commercial purposes.
By comparison to the cost of the machine, north of 30k  USD by now, or even my yearly expense of carbide tools, about $750 USD/year, then Mach4Hobby is virtually nothing.
Its not that I'm doing anything wrong exactly, but the developers/owners of Mach4, whomever it is deserves credit for the excellence of their product.

I was very much opposed to subscription software until I subscribed to Fusion. I have, albeit reluctantly, come to consider the subscription model a very fair idea. I get, for my subscription,
a Pro level software that I could not afford to buy outright in a single purchase.

If any of the Mach4 developers/owners are reading this I would ask that they consider selling their 'best ever Mach4 variant' as a subscription. I would pay. Simply Mach4 gives me good value, and
it is MY BEST INTERESTS that the developers/owners of Mach4 get financial benefit of that. This would inspire further investment in the product. I note that MachMotion are making improvements to Mach4,
but excuse me for saying that the improvements are cosmetic, at least they seem so to me. I apologise if my ignorance has belittled others work, but it is my opinion at the current time. For this reason I have
not upgraded to MachPro.

I would pay, and pay well if Mach4 were to gain genuine RTCP. If Mach4, maybe as MachPro(industrial users), were to offer genuine RTCP, I would pay $500 USD/year as a subscription to be in on it.

I realise that Mach's roots are firmly in the hobby market, and most, if not all hobbyists would be appalled at my suggestion. Indeed ten years ago I probably would too, but now using Mach4
commercially inclines me to want Mach4 to grow and expand, and for that to happen there needs to be considerable investment in the product, and that in turn inspires my inclination to pay.....
as I've already said, it is in my best interests that I do.

Craig

first, RTCP is nearly impossible under standard Windows... next.. I don't believe MachMotion can generate sufficient capital selling Mach4.. they are in the business of selling and installing entire CNC packages... so generating funds by selling s/w, and then trying to support this when the majority of users have only light knowledge of what is involved. If you charge for support, most users won't pay.. some will but at $150~$200/hr they will only get annoyed when their problem isn't resolved and their CC has a $850 charge on it... if you don't charge its a real losing battle... you can't sustain that for very long.
I emailed them with a problem I had with Mach4... I would pay for support but never received any response... I tried twice... support ain't coming at least for now.. so I told my client to find a different solution for 5~6 machines... something that is supportable. And we did.. and it didn't involve Mach4. 

Hi,

first, RTCP is nearly impossible under standard Windows

I am intrigued, as I believe that RTCP is rather like a post processor that 'processes Gcode' to accommodate the actual machine center being at some offset to the
nominal machine center about which the original (unprocessed) Gcode was composed by CAM. This does not require any realtime support, and therefore Windows would be highly suitable.

What is it that makes you contend that makes Windows unsuitable?

I don't believe MachMotion can generate sufficient capital selling Mach4.

I have long been of that opinion too, and that extends to the previous owners as well. That is why I suggest a subscription model as it provides a steady income stream which makes it worth while to continue
investment in Mach4. Unless there is a business case for investing in or growing Mach4 then Mach4 will not.

I recognise that most hobbyists will not engage in a subscription model, but full time users such as my self will.  Thereby MachPro (or any other suitable moniker) would become exactly as the name suggests.

Craig

that would be true... but i think from what i see in the forums that there are more 'hobbyists' and simply people of all sorts simply playing around... time invested seems not to matter much.. most can't program and many don't seem familiar with G-Codes... many don't know anything about electrical... or steppers... or servos either... how in any remote fantasy world can anyone support them without a $10k invoice? There will be some that will benefit... but I'd guess a small percentage... once you start paying maybe $300-$500 for a subscription, that still really won't cover a lot of support. So then you need to charge for support also... at that point, and with all the time savings, you probably better off letting MachMotion do it as a turnkey, or purchase a CNC controller such as FANUC or SIEMENS. 

Hi,
the thing is I seldom require support, and that I need has come from the forum. That is adequate......its not support I need, but capability, RTCP in particular.

This is largely a one-time investment. That is to say Mah4 owners, whomever they are, would engage three, four or five of their best developers, go hard at it for a month
or two, and sell the results. Aside from potential bug-fixes there should be no on-going development demand.

Lets say that the effort to code RTCP cost $50,000USD. Then MachMotion needs to recoup that at least and some more than that hopefully. Selling to hobbyists is unlikely to
generate that level of sales, and then as you so rightly point out then have to baby-step them through every step, a sure-fire money loser. Someone like me however will pay for the investment, be it
as a perpetual license one-time purchase or as a subscription, and beyond the initial set-up and learning curve not need any support. Naturally like everyone I want good value from any purchase,
but I'm not suggesting that MachMotion sell that capability cheap. That will pretty much preclude hobbyists but be an open invitation to serious CNCers. Pricing alone would suggest that only
serious CNCers would apply anyway.

My understanding was that Mach4 was to appeal to OEM manufacturers, and that New Fangled Solutions revenue stream would be dominated by that demand. How that panned out I don't know.
I do believe however that without RTCP then Mach4 will always lag other solutions.

Craig

I would think $50k is not nearly sufficient.. if I had to take a guess, its probably closer to $300-$500k.
and the standard Windows environment isn't suitable... once you get out of that its difficult for 'novices' to work with.. so you're support goes way way up. And its almost a must to narrow down the h/w (i.e. controllers).. so you also need to get some of them onboard with the changes...
To make this really a useful product, it probably needs to be closed loop.. so go away from steppers.. that leaves a lot of users out in the cold... and if so, its probably better now to be in pulse and direction mode... so there goes the cheap stuff... so the casual user is gone... now you are just looking for a small fraction of the users of Mach4.. so MachRTOS won't succeed. 
you are probably in a minority... I'm not sure what 'functionality' you require that necessitates a RTOS, but you can purchase a new cnc package, with all the servo's, etc. for under $20k. If you have a CNC business, not a CNC hobby or a CNC in my garage I make money on, and can't afford $20k, then you are not in business. Or probably won't be for long. You can't hire a plumber and pay him in yearly subscription fees, or an electrician, and I don't believe many auto repair places do that either. And most s/w companies went to subscription because no one really needed the updates... so they weren't purchasing new versions of Autocad, MS-Word, Excel, and many many others. Subscription nearly forces you to upgrade continuously and also costs you a lot more. And many of those s/w suppliers don't offer support anyway for a normal subscription. 

Hi,
I'm still intrigued by why you think Windows is unsuitable. My understanding is that RTCP is effectively a post process, it does not need to be realtime.

My machine is servo operated with the servo loops closed by the servo drive. Thus Mach4/ESS/BoB supply step/direction pulses to the servo drives and thereafter the
servos just do the business.

The vast majority of my work is three axis, but I have a trunnion/platter fifth axis that I use occasionally. Mach4 very handily produces a simultaneous five axis trajectory and my machine follows it
perfectly. So five axis machining with Mach4 is not a problem, but you need reverse kinematics if the machine center is not coincident with the assumed machine center when the five axis
tool path was composed by CAM.

I suppose you could do it 'live'.....that is to say that the trajectory of Mach4 would be modified in realtime, but just as Mach4's trajectory is not realtime, but a buffered control solution,
so would an RTCP module within Mach4 processes that trajectory, and it need not be realtime either. I had proposed that effectively the Gcode could be re-written, and thus the Gcode
would be processed before it ever got read into the machine.

Craig

no... to be deterministic you either need a different OS, or there are certain extensions for Windows. Even so, if you are using an external controller, you would need to make your communications different... that why they offload all the actual motion to an external device... Mach4 doesn't actually 'control' any of the motion... it just tells the controller what the move should be...
But you haven't indicated why you feel you need an RTOS?