Ellis, I understand and respect your point of view. I find most of these device registration/licensing requirements an annoyance at best, often a hindrance, and sometimes a major obstacle. I could write a long tirade about the days I have wasted in obtaining working installations of MATLAB.
The licensing restriction in FoCal will not impact me, since I will probably use it for only one or two cameras. If you are interested in FoCal, but put off by these restrictions, why not write the developer and tell him why you are reluctant to use it? Maybe he will make a work-around for you, or (if enough people complain) maybe he will change the policy.
I recently acquired a copy of FoCal, and have just begun to use it. So far I have run "automatic" calibrations on a Nikon D800E, with 14-24mm and 24-70mm lenses. For Nikon bodies, the process is not completely automated, because there are no public APIs for some of the remote control functions. This means that the user is prompted to manually change the AF Fine Tune settings. But the FoCal software controls the sequencing of the adjustment values, autofocus initiation, mirror up delay, shutter, plotting of results, etc. It uses a reasonably intelligent search algorithm to find a max in focus quality with a minimal number of trials. I ran the program on a Mac, running Win7 via VMware. The user interface and documentation could be improved (with more clarity, better organization), but my calibrations ran without any glitches.
Unfortunately for me, the results I obtained for my 24-70 produced a dilemma. The optimum Fine Tune values vary significantly with focal length: 0 at 24mm, -20 at 50mm, and 0 at 70mm. I may need to send the lens and camera to Nikon for evaluation. The plots that I obtained from FoCal are posted in this web gallery
. Note: the shots of the FoCal target that appear in this gallery are not the shots that I used in the automated calibrations.