Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Navy Denies Pirating Software on 550K Computers, Says It Had Bought Licenses For 38 Machines (arstechnica.com)

Posted by msmash on from the between-the-lines dept.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Navy was accused of pirating 3D software after testing a software package offered by Germany company Bitmanagement Software GmbH. The company had sued the United States of America for nearly $600 million. The U.S. Navy has now responded to the accusations, saying that though it did install the aforementioned software on "hundreds of thousands of computers within its network" without paying the German software maker for it, it did so with the consent of the software producer. Many might disagree, however. From a report on ArsTechnica: The Navy says that it could use the software on hundreds of thousands of computers with licenses for 38 machines. The Navy denied that a procurement official "acknowledged that additional licenses were necessary for it to distribute BS Contact Geo to its users." The government admitted that it had purchased 38 licenses, but "denies that the software licenses were 'limited,' as alleged by Plaintiff."

115 of 170 comments (clear)

  1. rofl by shaitand · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "The Navy denied that a procurement official "acknowledged that additional licenses were necessary for it to distribute BS Contact Geo to its users." The government admitted that it had purchased 38 licenses, but "denies that the software licenses were 'limited,' as alleged by Plaintiff.""

    Then why did they buy more than one?

    1. Re:rofl by whoever57 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "denies that the software licenses were 'limited,' as alleged by Plaintiff."

      Umm, I don't think copyright works like that.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    2. Re:rofl by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      My guess is that, the way they saw it, they needed 38 licenses for employees doing X with the software (e.g. producing new content). Meanwhile, those purchased licenses (again, as they see it) also allowed them to have free reign to install it for everyone else who is doing the lesser task Y (e.g. viewing content).

    3. Re:rofl by Culture20 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Another possibility is that the Navy thought the 38 licenses were for concurrent use a la network licenses, or were restricted to specific users or hardware tokens, meaning that having the software on 550,000 machines isn't the same as being able to use it on all 550,000 machines at the same time, or by 550,000 users.

    4. Re:rofl by ZecretZquirrel · · Score: 2

      38 is DOD-speak for 1.

    5. Re:rofl by jandersen · · Score: 1

      Look, 500,000 heavily armed soldiers looking at you in a menacing way aren't wrong, are they? Think about it.

    6. Re:rofl by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · · Score: 2

      Technically, as it's the Navy, they would be Sailors - not Soldiers. And as the Navy is the only US armed force that owns and operates a nuclear powered rail gun, I would much rather take my chances with the Soldiers...

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
    7. Re:rofl by shaitand · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's possible but the Navy does this all kinds of things. They buy a handful of licenses that are absolutely not concurrent then roll it out in a desktop image to the thousands of machines. The Navy is big on copyright infringement. It isn't just software either, you'll find bootleg movies/music content being played to large groups in barracks all over the place.

    8. Re:rofl by shaitand · · Score: 2

      Technically, as it's the Navy, they would be Marines which for some reason people forget are actually part of the Navy and not a separate branch.

    9. Re:rofl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sounds like they thought there was a difference between dev seats and production seats and maybe there wasn't. A lot of developer tools only require licensing for developer seats, while allowing you to distribute the software you produce without restriction. Other software charges no fees for the developer but requires a license for each production user. Some do both.

      I would guess that the Navy had devs build software around this package, and distribute it. They paid for 38 licenses for their devs and thought they were good. The German company disagrees.

    10. Re:rofl by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but if you read into the details of the suit, you find out that the Navy didn't even stick to the terms of the licenses they acknowledge they had with the company. Apparently, they purposefully disabled functionality built into the software that allowed the developer to track the number of installations during the trial phase of the deployment. The license explicitly said that the functionality needed to stay in place, presumably so that the company could find out if the Navy pulled a stunt like this, and the company even acknowledges that the actual number of installations is likely far higher, since that 550K number was how many installations they were aware of when the Navy disabled the functionality in 2014.

      So even if the Navy wants to play the "we didn't need 550K+ licenses" game, they still failed to abide by the ones they already had.

    11. Re:rofl by kelemvor4 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Technically, as it's the Navy, they would be Marines which for some reason people forget are actually part of the Navy and not a separate branch.

      Not for almost 200 years, if this is to be believed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

      In 1834, the United States Marine Corps came under the Department of the Navy.[46] Historically, the Navy has had a unique relationship with the USMC, partly because they both specialize in seaborne operations. Together the Navy and Marine Corps form the Department of the Navy and report to the Secretary of the Navy. However, the Marine Corps is a distinct, separate service branch[47] with its own uniformed service chief – the Commandant of the Marine Corps, a four-star general.

    12. Re:rofl by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Umm, I don't think copyright works like that.

      This is not just about copyrights. It is mostly about contract law. Have you read the purchase contract or license? No? Me neither. So anything either of have to say about this matter is pointless and meaningless.

    13. Re:rofl by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      This is not just about copyrights. It is mostly about contract law. Have you read the purchase contract or license? No? Me neither. So anything either of have to say about this matter is pointless and meaningless.

      We can, however, reasonably speculate whether the Navy's claims are plausible.

      And as software developers, we can take this as a warning to make our contracts extra clear when dealing with the Navy.

    14. Re:rofl by jittles · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is not just about copyrights. It is mostly about contract law. Have you read the purchase contract or license? No? Me neither. So anything either of have to say about this matter is pointless and meaningless.

      We can, however, reasonably speculate whether the Navy's claims are plausible.

      And as software developers, we can take this as a warning to make our contracts extra clear when dealing with the Navy.

      Maybe the Navy is arguing that they had 38 seats that could be active at one time. Maybe they installed the software on 550k machines but only had 38 active users at a time? I don't know why they would install the software on so many machines, but who knows? Without the contract and an understanding of the software, we can only speculate.

    15. Re:rofl by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      And as the Navy is the only US armed force that owns and operates a nuclear powered rail gun

      The Navy actually operates one? As in it's installed on a ship and actually functional? I thought they were all still in design/testing phase with only the USS Zumwalt having excess power capacity to fully power one.

    16. Re:rofl by bobbied · · Score: 1

      "Hillary Clinton said we could do it"

      Case dismissed.

      But she deleted the E-mail that said so using bleach bit..... FBI investigating.... Or not...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    17. Re:rofl by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Sounds like they thought there was a difference between dev seats and production seats and maybe there wasn't. A lot of developer tools only require licensing for developer seats, while allowing you to distribute the software you produce without restriction. Other software charges no fees for the developer but requires a license for each production user. Some do both.

      I would guess that the Navy had devs build software around this package, and distribute it. They paid for 38 licenses for their devs and thought they were good. The German company disagrees.

      EXACTLY THIS!

      Often you get a development seat which entities you to develop and build an application that uses a licensed product, then distribute said application free of runtime licenses. Other times, you pay per runtime seat and they give you the development tools. Usually, they charge for development tools, then expect a per-seat royalty for runtime installs. It all depends on the exact terms of the software license..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    18. Re:rofl by Megol · · Score: 1

      That's not how the law work.

    19. Re:rofl by afidel · · Score: 1

      No, the Zumwalt class have the power, but so will the Ford class carriers. The Ford carriers were designed with solid state lasers and rail guns in mind, they produce 3x the power of the Nimitz class and have a vastly superior distribution network to enable many high power hard points.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    20. Re:rofl by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      I think the idea was that it would be there for the trial deployment of 38 computers only. Once it was accepted for full deployment, a new contract/license would be drawn up (which they were apparently in the process of doing when all of this went down), that stipulation would be removed, and the Navy would deploy the software without concern of that sort of tracking.

    21. Re:rofl by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or they're creating one huge standardized install image containing all software which could conceivably be needed, and installing it on all their computers to simplify IT administration. Mainly to eliminate the need for someone to have to dig through the basement of a warehouse or run to the store to find an install disk when they suddenly find out they need a program and it isn't on the computer - kinda important when you're in the middle of the Pacific ocean. And they only paid for 38 licenses because that's how many computers they're actually planning to use it on at this time.

    22. Re:rofl by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Oh don't worry, the Donald will call Angela on the phone and explain that because the Navy is getting sued for $600 million, he's going to have to make some cut-backs on civilian staffing at US bases in Germany to take up the slack, how NATO is kind of obsolete and our allies really need to step up and be more responsible for paying for their own defense. After that the DOD is going to ask the vendor how they knew about the over-installs and how the DOD frowns on call-home features in software on DOD computers, because it's, well it's spying.

      The next thing you know, the software vendor apologise and work something out with the Navy, just after the Navy announces it'll investigate funding a competing open-source software project, and all will be forgotten or forgiven.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    23. Re:rofl by stephanruby · · Score: 2

      Yes, that's what the Navy claims in its official answer to the claims by the plaintiffs.

      15. [...] Defendant denies that the licenses were limited to installation of BS
      Contact Geo on a total of 38 Navy personal computers, and Defendant further avers that the
      Navy procured concurrent-use network-installation licenses of BS Contact Geo.

      By the way, avers means asserts. So the sentence should read as "Defendant further asserts that the Navy procured concurrent-use network-installation licenses...".

    24. Re:rofl by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      They actually have a signed contract with the vendor and they inserted "unlimited" or "concurrent users" ... and the vendor didn't notice or the vendor's own Salesperson/VP made the special deal - and now years latter the vendor's staff is "wtf we sell named seats, why do you have a million installed copies" - and literally, the only thing that will save the Navy's butt is if they can pull the contract out of archives and point to the specific line and say "see this, gtfo".

      I have personally negotiated a contract to buy software that was controlled by a floating license. In this case, in order to run the software, the client contacts a license server, which is a process on a local machine and a license is checked out. The license server ensured that the licensed number of concurrent users of the software is not exceeded. Furthermore, the software would not be installed on the the machines on which it might be run: it was installed on a file server.

      So, when the proposed license said that the software could be installed and run on one or perhaps two machines, I pushed back, pointing out that I needed the license server to run on one machine and the actual software to run on any machine (but only one or two instances at the same time), while the software would be installed on yet another machine (the file server). The vendor's legal team clearly talked to their engineers to understand how floating licenses really work and came back with a usable license.

      This was all normal, but what I found hilarious was that several very large companies had also licensed the software before us and presumably* used the original license, which did not really allow those companies to use the software in any meaningful fashion. None of those big company lawyers had spotted this problem.

      (*) I can presume this because it was a fundamental flaw in the license, making it unusable for any customer, and it would be reasonable to assume that if any company pushed back on it, the standard license terms would be changed to accommodate the actual usage model.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    25. Re:rofl by martinX · · Score: 1

      "The Navy denied that a procurement official "acknowledged that additional licenses were necessary for it to distribute BS Contact Geo to its users." The government admitted that it had purchased 38 licenses, but "denies that the software licenses were 'limited,' as alleged by Plaintiff.""

      Then why did they buy more than one?

      Because government is full of ignorant spenders who don't care about the taxpayer dollars they waste.

      --
      When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
    26. Re:rofl by Bender0x7D1 · · Score: 1

      The Commandant is, indeed, the head of the Marine Corps; however, it is definitely part of the Department of the Navy. (See the Marine logo.)

      --
      Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
    27. Re:rofl by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      the Navy has many levels of air gaping and they can't open the networks to some 3rd part non us server. They also have systems / networking that are very locked down and don't have a local server licensing at each site for each network.

      Adobe CC has a offline ver for government

    28. Re:rofl by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Make it clear in the license about how many machines or devices it is allowed to run on. Because no matter how bizarre you think the misunderstanding might be, there are contractors who operate that way and contractors who don't. Every single contract they have is unique. If you're dealing with the government then never ever rely upon them following the common practice used in corporations (best not to even assume corporations follow an unwritten common practice).

      We haven't seen the contract so it's just speculation for now. And speculating based upon what happens on PCs or off the shelf software is most likely not even close to the situation here.

    29. Re:rofl by ninthbit · · Score: 1

      There probably isn't a contract. They most likely picked up the 38 licenses on a p-card, and then their proof of concept test moved to full production.... Just like all the other government It projects.

    30. Re:rofl by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Maybe the Navy is arguing that they had 38 seats that could be active at one time. Maybe they installed the software on 550k machines...

      Which is why this lawsuit should serve as a warning: make sure your contract is bullet proof and crystal clear, because this contract obviously somehow failed to be.

    31. Re: rofl by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      Which would give everyone not being "more equal" jail time for hacking under the DCMA. Well, just throw in a good measure of blanket terrorism.

      --
      bickerdyke
    32. Re:rofl by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      The Navy actually operates one?

      No.. it's too expensive.... :-)

      https://news.slashdot.org/stor...

      --
      bickerdyke
    33. Re:rofl by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Both are copyright infringement and the same level of concern both ethically and legally. It isn't like there are some people who represent the Navy and some who don't, they all represent the Navy and are just of various ranks. Anything being displayed publicly is being okayed by the highest ranking person who ever steps in eye or earshot and in all cases it is the Navy and not the individual committing copyright infringement.

    34. Re:rofl by peawormsworth · · Score: 1

      38 licenses ... Then why did they buy more than one?

      In large companies they may have hundreds of computers but only tens of licenses. The license server monitors and limits the number of running instances of the software to remain within the number of purchased licenses. The idea is to purchase enough licenses to cover the max total number of users at all times. I don't know if they did this, but the logic seems reasonable.

    35. Re:rofl by shaitand · · Score: 1

      That would still be "limited" but the vendor would likely know if they sold them a site license.

  2. Was anybody actually using the software? by CajunArson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Copying the software to those machines might be a technical violation of the license, but was there any evidence that those unlicensed copies were ever actually used?

    Otherwise, this is more of a theoretical violation as opposed to showing that the Navy was using software that it just didn't want to pay for.

    --
    AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    1. Re:Was anybody actually using the software? by Calydor · · Score: 3, Informative

      It seems pretty unlikely that less than 0.1% of the total installations would be used at any given point in time. I mean, you can install on multiple machines to make things easier and faster, but THAT MANY?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    2. Re:Was anybody actually using the software? by TWX · · Score: 1

      It was probably part of their standard image.

      Some software uses the local network or even the Internet connection to the vendor to determine active count.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:Was anybody actually using the software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It seems pretty unlikely that less than 0.1% of the total installations would be used at any given point in time.

      True. OTOH, when you are in charge of installing software on hundreds of thousands of computers, you probably have at least of modicum of responsibility to know the basics of software licenses and be aware of open source alternatives.

    4. Re:Was anybody actually using the software? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      or it's part of some software catalog system and some things that it being listed as being able to be installed. Counts as being installed on each system.

    5. Re:Was anybody actually using the software? by shaitand · · Score: 3, Informative

      It doesn't matter if they were used or not. It is copying that is restricted by copyright law and requires a violation not use, you can use copyrighted material however you like copyright grants no control over that to the software producer. They could have burned 40 copies of the disk and stuck them on a shelf gathering dust and still be guilty of 39 copyright violations (you get one backup under fair use provisions, you lose it in practice under the DMCA if they've used copy protection on it thought).

    6. Re:Was anybody actually using the software? by wienerschnizzel · · Score: 1

      It seems pretty unlikely that less than 0.1% of the total installations would be used at any given point in time.

      0.1% would still be 15 times the amout of licenses they had purchased.

    7. Re:Was anybody actually using the software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You've never read a site license.

      Don't feel too bad; nobody has except the DoD lawyers. Yes, I had to wait 2 months for legal to finish reading a license to let me buy a $12 piece of software.

      And yes, nobody really cared that I spent $3K in lawyer time for a $12 piece of software.

    8. Re:Was anybody actually using the software? by Calydor · · Score: 1

      Indeed, miscounted the decimals. Not that "Less than 0.01% of the installations were in use!" sounds any better for their efficiency.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    9. Re:Was anybody actually using the software? by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      Copying the software to those machines might be a technical violation of the license, but was there any evidence that those unlicensed copies were ever actually used?

      Otherwise, this is more of a theoretical violation as opposed to showing that the Navy was using software that it just didn't want to pay for.

      "USED" vs "Installed" may not be something the owner differentiates in the license. In which case it would not matter if the software was actually used.

    10. Re:Was anybody actually using the software? by iCEBaLM · · Score: 1

      I have no idea of the terms of the license given to the Navy which may have granted to them the ability to copy the software to any computer they wanted, however, this is not theoretical.

      Absent any additional rights transfer, whether or not a copyrighted work is used or not doesn't matter, all that is required for a violation to occur is for a copy to be made.

    11. Re:Was anybody actually using the software? by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Do you think that is unique to the military?

      I was an engineering intern that wanted a $150 HTML editor for my semester project of updating a part of the company website. I spent at least a day writing a proposal to get a $150 HTML editor, getting paid for this time. So that the proposal could disappear for much of my internship, where I don't know who looked at it, and those people were getting paid to look it over. Not near the scale you speak of but I'm sure it happens all the time.

      The alternative is to have "petty" expenses get fast tracked and therefore likely abused. I didn't think much of it at the time but after my discharge from the Army I went into a VA vocational training program to take some network certification classes. I asked for a computer, a nice computer, to run some network simulation software. I was told that if it was under $3000 it would get approved quickly, so I was told to put part of my order (the laptop itself) on one proposal and the rest (software, cables, and such) on another proposal. Years later I hear on the radio on how people in the VA are submitting sub-$3000 orders for all kinds of crazy stuff because they rarely get questioned.

      People are people so we need watchmen. Who watches the watchmen then?

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  3. Contract Law 101 by paiute · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't sue parties armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re:Contract Law 101 by Dorianny · · Score: 1

      If you are going to sue a party let it be one that can afford a stockpile of 3,500 single use $1.41 million a piece,Tomahawk cruise missiles

    2. Re:Contract Law 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm German and living in a cave. Most of us are. There are a few that aren't, but they are the outcasts.

      Maybe try learning some FACTS.

    3. Re:Contract Law 101 by Coisiche · · Score: 2

      Although their assets are rather tied up in inventory. Which does admittedly have a resale value but there will be other laws governing who would make an acceptable buyer. I don't think it's a long list.

      $600 million? Maybe they're set on 425 cruise missiles as settlement?

    4. Re:Contract Law 101 by MikeKD · · Score: 1

      That's covered in the graduate-level course.

  4. What Happened To NMCI? by HangingChad · · Score: 2

    NMCI was supposed to prevent all that. Is it gone now or still not working?

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  5. Re:We bought 38 licences! by rastos1 · · Score: 2

    I wonder why does Navy need 550k computers that need to do 3D modeling. That is more than one per man in service.

  6. We didn't! by MarcoPon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Never underestimate the negotiating potential of a fully armed aircraft carrier. Or more than one.

    --

    SeqBox
    1. Re:We didn't! by ghoul · · Score: 1

      Never underestimate the power of a virus which can make a modern network centric aircraft carrier a sitting duck.( I saw it on Independence Day so it must be true)

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    2. Re:We didn't! by Tom · · Score: 1

      Silly, of course. Germany doesn't need an army anymore. All it needs to do to make everyone in every government office and three-letter-agency in the USA shit their pants is to leave NATO and make a free-trade agreement with Russia. It would pull the rest of the EU with it and the american economy would crater faster than you can say "oh shiiiiiit".

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  7. Concurrent Licenses? by Ronin+Developer · · Score: 1

    Given that the copy protection / license management was disabled by the vendor and 38 copies were purchased, I have to wonder if the Navy purchased a 38 user concurrent license vs a per machine license or believed they had done so. If so, the software is responsible for communicating with a license manager to ensure that a maximum of 38 machines can use the software at a given time.

    1. Re:Concurrent Licenses? by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      One wonders how practical that would be on a submerged submarine. It would be difficult enough on a surface vesel.

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    2. Re:Concurrent Licenses? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      No, even if so the Navy is responsible for making sure they comply with the terms they agreed to not the vendor. The vendor might well require the use of something like a license manager to ensure the same and provide incentive not to pirate the software but it is piracy to violate the terms whether there are technical restrictions or not.

    3. Re:Concurrent Licenses? by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      How many people needs to do 3D modeling in a submarine?

      Granted, this sounds like a great life to some basement dwellers, but the lack of internet access is going to be a blocker.

    4. Re:Concurrent Licenses? by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      On modern submarines a few because they don't carry spare parts any more they simply 3D print them as they need them

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  8. Concurrent users vs installations by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 2

    Part of the user discussion on the article is about whether the licenses are for concurrent users or installations.

    Now the software uses a central Flexnet licensing server and that supports a license pool and concurrent users. It depends on the terms of the license, but if the Flexnet allows an instance to start, then by my definition, that instance is licensed.

    --
    Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    1. Re:Concurrent users vs installations by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      and what if they need to have it run on systems that are very locked down / have limited out side networking?

      Need to have more then central Flexnet licensing server for different areas do to locked down networks?.

    2. Re:Concurrent users vs installations by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Apparently the vendor disabled copyright management at the Navy's request. I'm guessing the Navy has a specific resilience requirement that no software can rely on network availability, cos war can, y'know, break things.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    3. Re:Concurrent users vs installations by BenJeremy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yeah, when deployed, seats cannot be pinging the internet over a ship's intranet (and the severely limited internet connection), it's seen as a security threat, and from my own experience working on the NMCI contract, vendors WILL hear about it.

  9. Our Navy is Pirating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Does that mean that they are kidnapping, raping, robbing, and murdering on the high seas? If not, please use a more appropriate term, such as copyright infringement.

    You are framing the argument from the perspective of the MPAA/RIAA/BSA. That is not honest journalism.

    1. Re:Our Navy is Pirating? by sinij · · Score: 1

      Does that mean that they are kidnapping, raping, robbing, and murdering on the high seas?

      Insofar as software licenses, they are allegedly doing exactly that.

    2. Re:Our Navy is Pirating? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      There is nothing honest about the MPAA/RIAA/BSA, their actions are closer in spirit to piracy than copyright infringement.

  10. Re:We bought 38 licences! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Well when you count each os reimage as a new system or each VM a system they can add up fast.

  11. Network Licensing by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 1

    It's a bit of an extreme example but plenty of companies sell network based licenses. So you can install on an infinite number of machines, but can only be running simultaneously on 38 machines at once.

    1. Re:Network Licensing by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      But then it comes down to: Did this software have such a license? If so was the license server configured for only allowing 38 uses at once?

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    2. Re: Network Licensing by Entrope · · Score: 2

      When it comes down to that, the story is awfully vague on what those 38 licenses were for: Named users? Node locked? Floating? Site? Enterprise? Creation? Playback?

    3. Re: Network Licensing by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1
      The story is not vague at all, it references this from the next link down:

      As if the unauthorized installation of software onto hundreds of thousands of computers wasn’t enough, Bitmanagement is alleging that the Navy during 2014 began disabling the Flexwrap software that is tasked with tracking the use of BS Contact Geo and helping to prevent it from being duplicated.

      which actually isn't true, based on the direct court case filing also linked one level down, where Bitmanagement Software removed it's tracking and licensing software in preparation for a wide scale rollout, possibly for validating that it would be possible?

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    4. Re: Network Licensing by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      but if that's true and the Navy did the rollout w/o paying for the licences to back it then it's still a problem.

      It sounds like:
      Navy bought 38 licences with a licence manager to test SW
      Navy liked SW and told vendor they wanted to roll it to fleet but wouldn't pay unless the enforcement mech was removed.
      vendor removed mech, expecting payday
      Navy rolled out and went with the "we already paid (for 38) licence fee". - this step is fraud

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    5. Re: Network Licensing by Entrope · · Score: 1

      That says nothing about the nature of the licenses in question.

    6. Re:Network Licensing by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Or there are site wide licenses. So 38 different licenses could means 38 different facilities. For any particular scenario you can think of for a license, it's likely the US government has dealt with that type of license at some point.

    7. Re: Network Licensing by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      It certainly implies that existed, and that the software was specifically designed with a particular licensing model in mind. I too haven't read the actual license, but you can find them here and elsewhere in their website. Granted, those licenses may have changed since 2012, unfortunately I misplaced my Tardis.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    8. Re:Network Licensing by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      Then there would be no reason to sue. The software vendor would know if licences were floating or site or any other kind that would make 500000 copies legal.

      --
      bickerdyke
    9. Re:Network Licensing by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Well yes. But there's likely a misunderstanding of the terms between the two parties.

  12. Re:Somebody's legal department is getting fired by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    or the contract says this but the EULA says this and that over rules the former.

  13. Re:We bought 38 licences! by Peil · · Score: 1

    Civilian contractors and suchlike with Navy issued IT equipment.

    Almost certain some clown added this software to a gold image for deployment

  14. Re:Somebody's legal department is getting fired by Wulf2k · · Score: 1

    A contract would override the EULA.

    The words you say to each other at the time of exchanging money for goods/services are your contract. The EULA is a bunch of words that the author really hopes you'll read and listen to.

    In the absence of a contract, the EULA will sometimes be used in its place.

  15. What license? by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Which license did the software in question use?

    1. Re:What license? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A proprietary license written specifically for that project, since the plaintiff indicated that there were terms specific to the project that the Navy is in breach of. For instance, the license stipulates that the Navy agrees to keep some tracking functionality in place, presumably so that the company could track the number of installations during the trial phase in order to ensure that the Navy didn't engage in any shenanigans. After installing the software hundreds of thousands of times, the Navy disabled that functionality without having first negotiated a new contract that allowed them to do so, so the number of installations may actually be far higher than the 550K number that the plaintiff is aware of.

  16. Re:Soverign Immunity by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't even understand why the government buys software. With sovereign immunity copyright law doesn't apply to them. Just pirate it and be done with it.

    I don't think the concept of "sovereign immunity" is part of the Berne Convention....

    --
    Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  17. Re:We bought 38 licences! by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    Surely that covers all 550k of our computers.... right?

    Well, they bought it for the 38 people in the US Navy smart enough to use the program, and may want to use it on any of several .. errm ... hundred ... thousand computers - what if you need to quickly draw something on the missile guidance computer onboard a submarine?

    Too bad they didn't ask the one guy in the Navy who is smart enough to understands EULAs-

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  18. Arr matey by mu51c10rd · · Score: 5, Funny

    The US Navy are pirates? Can't wait for the new whites and blues to be issues with eye patches...

    1. Re:Arr matey by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      they're not pirates, they are privatized (or whatever that term was for ships aligned with the British Empire). uhmm, yes it's a joke or maybe not as more of the US military is contracted out.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    2. Re:Arr matey by WallyL · · Score: 1

      You keep looking for that word: privateer. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

    3. Re:Arr matey by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Works for me, our foreign policy is just a few steps removed from "Plunder".

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  19. Law of the Sea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If the navy only uses it while on the high seas, what copyright rules apply?

  20. Written Contract vs Oral Contract by penguinoid · · Score: 2

    I'm no expert, but if the representative on the phone promises something that makes it an oral contract, and could potentially supersede the written contract and especially any EULA. For example, if they specifically asked whether the contract meant 38 concurrent users vs 38 installs and they were told it was concurrent users. Of course, proving it in court is a different story.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    1. Re:Written Contract vs Oral Contract by msauve · · Score: 1

      It depends on whether that rep had the authority to do so. Just because the bank janitor says you can take some cash from the vault, doesn't mean you're not stealing.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    2. Re:Written Contract vs Oral Contract by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Ever actualy been on a conf call for a big company every sales money has a vp title that implies authority to enter into contracts.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
  21. Re:Soverign Immunity by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

    What does that matter? He didn't even win his party's nomination.

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  22. EULA URI on packaging by tepples · · Score: 1

    The words you say to each other at the time of exchanging money for goods/services are your contract. The EULA is a bunch of words that the author really hopes you'll read and listen to.

    Compared to those, what weight do words printed on the packaging have, such as "By purchasing this product, you agree that its use is subject to terms at (some URI)"?

    1. Re:EULA URI on packaging by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Those would be words exchanged "at the time of exchanging money for goods/services", so you tell me.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    2. Re:EULA URI on packaging by tepples · · Score: 1

      About as much as a spoken word since it is always possibly to claim that the page contained some other content when viewed.

      So long as the domain where the EULA is hosted doesn't use robots.txt, Wayback Machine can be used as evidence.

      Some countries have contract law that requires that both parties ensure that the other party has read the contract

      An Internet connection in the store would allow reading. And a prompt on the cash register to ask "Have you read the terms?" in the same manner as prompts to check ID for drug purchases would cover the store's behind. Finally, national anti-circumvention laws pursuant to the WIPO Copyright Treaty of 1996 can make decrypting the installer a crime even for the owner of a lawfully made copy.

    3. Re:EULA URI on packaging by tepples · · Score: 1

      The words are on the box and visible to both parties at the time money is exchanged, so I'd assume so.

  23. should have contracted to utilize blender by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    Honestly, they should have contracted the work to a company that would make the program they needed based on something free like blender and then bought 3d/texture asset data. When you pay for a license, you are at the mercy of the copyright holder, even if you are the Navy.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:should have contracted to utilize blender by Megol · · Score: 1

      LOL! I hope you are kidding, for some uses it can actually be orders of magnitude of price difference between buying some _expensive_ software and taking open source software and funding development (in the case of blender probably rewrite the whole lot). Not in the favor of open source. Oh, and that assumes you can wait let's say 10 years on the result.

      Or else one could buy that _expensive_ software and after 10 years of updates have a cheaper and more capable alternative.

  24. Re:We bought 38 licences! by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

    Surely that covers all 550k of our computers.... right?

    Well, they bought it for the 38 people in the US Navy smart enough to use the program, and may want to use it on any of several .. errm ... hundred ... thousand computers - what if you need to quickly draw something on the missile guidance computer onboard a submarine?

    Too bad they didn't ask the one guy in the Navy who is smart enough to understands EULAs-

    Too bad eula's are so complex they may really need someone who specializes in such a thing. There ought to be a law ;)

  25. Re:We bought 38 licences! by rikkards · · Score: 1

    And probably had a Public Servant approve it.

  26. yes. Just remove the sarcasm tags. by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Seriously??? Yes, they installed it on 500,00 computers FOR NO FUCKING REASON AT ALL. Makes perfect sense. Go to all the effort of rolling it out everywhere because nobody wants to use it.

    See, this guy gets it.
    Welcome to the Navy.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  27. It seems to be a web plugin by Peter+Desnoyers · · Score: 1

    If you look at the demo video on their website - http://www.bitmanagement.com/en/demos/geo - it appears to be a browser-based plugin; the actual "demo" link tries to download a file called "BS_Contact_VRML-3DX.exe from www.bitmanagement.com. The demo shows a user-controlled fly-over of an urban area, and seems highly applicable to a lot of military uses. (the software to *create* the model seems to be different - the software named in the suit is the viewer for the 3D models)

    It's quite possible that the 500K number refers to the number of machines which downloaded and installed the plugin. It's also possible that the Navy "disabled tracking of installations" (as the FA states) by putting a copy on their own server, and that the vendor was tracking installations by looking at their web server logs.

    That's all speculation. It's definitely a job for a lawyer at this point, and it also points out the risks of per-user licenses when you might not have control over the number of users.

  28. Usage doesn't matter in the US by HannethCom · · Score: 1

    You haven't been following court rulings very well.
    There was a case of Microsoft vs a company where they had an enterprise license, meaning to OS is not locked to a machine. They had under the number of licenses in use on active computers, but they had some computers that were scheduled for wiping and hadn't been wiped yet putting them over the legal number of "active" licenses.
    The judge ruled in Microsoft's favor as lawfully she had to, but as part of the judgement stated that morally Microsoft was in the wrong.

    --
    Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon what's the difference? All steal money from devs and control with walled gardens.
  29. Site License by BrookHarty · · Score: 3, Informative

    Oracle tried to do this when I was ATT Wireless, we had a site license for oracle. When we ran a contact address book with multiple users, oracle tried to make us pay per server, then tried pay per user for millions of users. Oracle kept calling me in operations to try to get me to pay, I passed it onto legal and they smacked the shit outta them.

    We had a great deal, 5 or so million a year for an unlimited license, and you can believe me, everywhere a database was needed, we ran mostly oracle.

    (This was 10+ years ago, so Who knows now)

  30. Licenses or Seats? Bad summary. by chispito · · Score: 1

    The summary is terrible. There are these things called site licenses. TFA indicates the developer claims the software was only licensed for 38 devices.

    --
    The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
  31. EQUALITY by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    You know sex is only dirty when the other guy does it. By what magical use of logic does a license for 38 machines equal a license for an unlimited number of machines? Now what would happen to you or me if we purchased 38 copies of Windows 10 and decided to send out 10,000 copies? This is why it is time to admit that the absurd notion that we are all equal before the law is identified as 100% bullshit.

    1. Re:EQUALITY by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      two words, nuclear fucking weapons. the U.S. Navy has them, you and me and Bitmanagement do not

    2. Re:EQUALITY by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Nuclear weapons are useless for anything except deterring a lethal attack. When Argentina invaded the Falklands/Malvinas in 1982, nobody I read seemed to even think about the British nuclear weapons.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  32. Re:We bought 38 licences! by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

    They really are not all that complex... you just have to actually read them. Which nobody does.

    --
    My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
  33. Like Bob & Doug McKenzie...They're using metri by mandark1967 · · Score: 1

    Just double the number of licenses and add 300,000 (instead of 30)

    --
    Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain