is sourcetree free?

[Alexander Bird]

Everything on this page says that sourcetree is completely free, and when I visit the product page sourcetree doesn't even show up. So I assume it's monetarily free forever in all cases.

But... the first time I run Atlassian SourceTree, I click the link to read the agreement, and this is what it says:

. GRANT OF LICENSE.
The SOFTWARE PRODUCT is licensed as follows:
(a) Installation and Use.
Atlassian grants you the right to install and use copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your computer running a validly licensed copy of the operating system for which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT was designed. 'Validly licensed' means the following:
(i) For evaluation, using the software for up to 30 days free of charge, or
(ii) After purchasing a single license, using the software on a single computer, OR
using the software on multiple computers so long as it is the same person using it
(b) Backup Copies.
You may also make copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT as may be necessary for backup and archival purposes.

... so is it free or not?! the EULA says I have to pay for it after 30 days.

[stevestreeting · Accepted solution]

You do still have to register after 30 days, but the registration has been free since Atlassian acquired SourceTree in late 2011.

[hrobertson]

I belive there is an error in the EULA.

Atlassian grants you the right to install and use copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your computer running a validly licensed copy of the operating system for which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT was designed.

(Bold mine)

It is talking about the operating system that the user is installing SourceTree on, ie OS X or Windows.

However, it then goes on to define what 'validly licenced' means. This makes no sense as Atlassian obviously can not define what constitutes a valid licence for OS X or Windows.

[Alexander Bird]

@Hamish, good point. I am assuming they meant to say "a validly licensed copy on the operating system for which ...". That way they the desciptor 'validly licensed' referes to the product.

[hrobertson]

@Alexander I'm pretty sure it's not just a typo: If you just change of to on, the grammer is wrong and the sentence just doesnt make sense.

Perhaps it should be something like this:

Atlassian grants you the right to install and use validly licenced copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on the operating system for which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT was designed.
'Validly licensed' means the following:
(i) For evaluation, using the software for up to 30 days free of charge, OR
(ii) After being issued a license by Atlassian, using the software on a single computer, OR
using the software on multiple computers so long as it is the licence holder using it.

It's still a bit ambiguous but I can't be more specific becasuse I don't know what they actually want the terms of the licence to be!

[stevestreeting]

It's a typo - if you change 'of' to 'on' it does actually make sense, but maybe could use better punctuation. Changing 'of' to 'on' and adding a comma and a note for extra clarity:

Atlassian grants you the right to install and use copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your computer, running a validly licensed copy [of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT] on the operating system for which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT was designed

I.e. 'copy' is referring to the previously mentioned 'copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT'.

The license has remained mostly the same since SourceTree switched from commercial to being free, it's just that now the licenses are available for nothing.

[stevestreeting]

I'm British too actually ;) But yeah I guess 'running' should be 'and to run'.

[hrobertson]

Sorry but that's not right.

With the comma it doesn't make sense. Without the comma it still isn't gramatically correct but basically says you need a copy of SourceTree running on your computer before you are allowed to install SourceTree on it. How was the first copy supposed to get there?

Source: British private education. We invented English.

[hrobertson]

I'd love to drop this but when it comes to agreements that people are entering into it's important to get it right.

Whilst making it 'and to run' makes it grammatically correct, it still isn't good: What is the difference between 'install and use' and 'to run'? - I'd say they are the same.

It becomes 'we grant you A, and also A if B'. The second clause is irrelevant (so should be omitted), but if left in it would be ambiguous.

Why does it even mention the OS anyway? I suggest it should be either one of the following:

Without OS clause (A):

Atlassian grants you the right to install and use validly licenced copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your computer.
'Validly licensed' means ...

With OS clause (A if B):

Atlassian grants you the right to install and use validly licenced copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on the operating system for which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT was designed.
'Validly licensed' means ...

[stevestreeting]

Fair enough, I'll go with option B since it includes all the elements of the existing text. I'm not sure why the OS is listed either but it's already been via the legal dept in that form ;)

[jjkugler]

If it is free, I shouldn't ever have to register it, period.

[w_litheng]

Hey there, when do you guys plan to update the EULA for this statement?

(ii) After purchasing a single license, using the software on a single computer, OR
using the software on multiple computers so long as it is the same person using it

I am still seeing this old EULA in ProgramFiles directory

[Kriss Emsoff]

Any plans to correct the bundled EULA?  The bundled one still refers to "purchase" which causes issues in an Enterprise environment.

[Stewie]

It appears as though the old EULA still comes bundled with the download. I guess technically the new EULA would apply, but I think it would be best if the new EULA came bundled with the download instead of the old one. The place I looked was here:

Atlassian\SourceTree\extras\licenses\eula.html

Unless I'm looking at the wrong thing?

[Rafael Trestini]

Hi Jim,

I read the license term in this link today (04/01) and still appears the text "(ii) After purchasing a single license", which makes legal people of my company to reject the use of Sourcetree arguing that we have to buy a license (which is not possible for now). There's nothing in the license text saying about the license model (based on free registration).

My legal team agrees with Daniel in sense that "FAQ" doesn't replaces EULA for legal reasons.

[Alexander Bird]

Is there a EULA somewhere other than the inproduct EULA? That is, can we directly download the EULA from an atlassian website?

[Jim C.]

Rafael,

Updating the Sourcetree EULA in the Sourcetree download was out of scope for the announcement of the new Customer Agreement. However, there is a plan to update the embeded EULA, but a date for that has not been determined.

The inproduct EULA is a remnent from before Atlassian aquired and made the product free. We mention on our website that it is a free product in several places including the main Sourcetree product information page. Please rest assured it is a free product and Atlassian has plans to update the inproduct EULA in the future.

[Jim C.]

The current EUA is found here. The new Customer Agreement will go live on 28-Apr-2014 for all new purchases and use of free licenses.

[Chung Park Chan]

It is free. Please see here: http://sourcetreeapp.com/faq/

[Daniel Wojciechowski]

Could you rewrite/correct EULA? Look at this fragment "After purchasing a single license". This fragment is strange because purchasing is not possible. It is not only strange, this condition to use this software cannot be met.

Many peple cares about license. Don't make people feel that Atlasian has errors in EULA's so it is not valid and FAQ is more important.

[Jim C.]

Hi Daniel,

I've raised the issue with our legal team. I can't promise that they will be able to amend the current EULA, as they are working on a new End User Agreement to govern all Atlassian products and license types. I'm afraid I have no time frame when the new EUA will available, it has been postponed for the moment.