An annoying thing is that we learnt this change in Data API licensing not in a webinar where Claris explained the details and reasoning, but by doing a diff on old and new license.
Communication is everything as usual.
13 Likes
Christian, I thought exactly the same thing. Partnership is meant to be a two-way relationship.
11 Likes
This also means that for each and every update, everyone has to read the EULA for each of the vendor’s products very carefully before installation, because it may contain a clause that can severely impact a business.
2 Likes
Well, I have read interesting opinions in this thread.
The facts bring to my mind one question: is Claris shooting at himself ?
4 Likes
Communication experts at work 
2 Likes
This may be less problematic for you guys than we through on the first look.
It may limit people from developing their own clone of FileMaker Pro without paying for user licenses.
This may not relate to connecting to a web shop, CRM or other external applications for data exchange.
But let's wait a see if we can get something directly from Claris on the details.
This would be more reasonable limitation. For example Slack has also terms of use in their api that using real time message api to create similar featured app as their own desktop or mobile app is prohibited.
How about some one using a Web App to replace WebDirect because of the license prices ? That was easily being done in the past using CWP, but with Data API, it's another ball game !
Splendid idea. @rickkalman is a member of the.fmsoup.org community and he may read the posts in this thread.
Plenty of Claris customers do web apps to handle anonymous clients and that is just fine as far as I know. Web Direct is not written to handle thousands of requests per minute.
Anyway, we await an official statement to clarify.
I've asked a question in the Claris Partner community about this. No further reply yet. I expect that you are right about the intention.
I've just had a reply from Marie Normand, EMEIA Partner Manager at Claris.
the only intent for this change is to prevent a native app running as a replacement of a FileMaker client syncing back to server using only Data API and not being covered by a proper licensing model (user or concurrency).
I see three key items:
- a native app
- using only Data API
- not covered by a proper licensing model
Most web apps are not native apps - but convergence will close that gap.
This is the case described by @bhamm: a native app on iPhone, iPad or any Android device. A license is required for each and every user who connects via a native app. Even when the user does not have a FM account in file (anonymous).
Web apps are covered, for now…
Yes, seems to try to prevent people on building their own FileMaker Go clone with iOS or Android.
I thought the 10 GB limit was the proper licensing model.
That said… intent be damned. The license makes no mention of intent. Its wording can be used against any use case where a FileMaker client is not used.
2 Likes
Unless you find a judge who values intent higher than a written contract, with intent issued by non-executive staff. Whoever fancies finding it out...
This I found on Wikipedia regarding the 'intent/intention', related to obligation law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_to_create_legal_relations
In my understanding, the legal term 'intent' has nothing to do with one party unilaterally altering a written contract with a statement outside that contract, that is not an amendment of the contract.
There are going to be cases that are blatant (LiveCode), and other cases that are/have been absolutely fine (using DAPI to publish an online directory). Those are pretty clear cut. Some of the scenarios in between will need some guidance from Claris.
In my case, I'm not trying to recreate Go/SDK. I wouldn't use Go/SDK in the first place, because it doesn't provide the features I need. In the (unlikely) event my Art Con app – https://apps.apple.com/us/app/art-con/id1174686520 – is something Claris takes issue with, I'll take a weekend and rewrite my URLSession calls to CloudKit. I'd prefer to keep FileMaker as a backend because it's flexible, and easier to modify, but I won't pay for more than five users when CloudKit is free.
I mean, ideally, I'd like for Claris to offer a single-user license with Sever, and just let me pay for DAPI bandwidth. But I understand that's not realistic, so I'm fine paying for five.
4 Likes
Minor correction: per user, the customer receives 2 x 12 = 24 GB Data API volume per year. [Source: "API usage: 2 GB outbound data transfer of FileMaker Data API per user/month" — see On-premise FileMaker Server pricing — Claris].
6 Likes
I also have the feeling this has to do with the LiveCode runtimes recently announced. Actually, I wonder what’s the status of the FM Go for Android Claris was working on, since LiveCode also offers FM for Android..
Why it's not realistic? that's how it always worked before "FLTs". The 5 users minimum is making it difficult for small FM development shops and independent FM developers to get new customers into FM.
1 Like
Hi Klemens,
willkommen in der Suppe 
3 Likes
welcome to the soup, Klemens!!
2 Likes