1)Why not? It's geeky, it's fun, it's what being a nerd is all about.
Can't argue with that one at all.
2)Games. What if you want to be productive on OSX but want to reboot to play some win-only games every so often
In the short-run, this is a great take. In the long-run, however, it is not. This'll repeat often, so I'll italicize it when it comes up: if you buy Windows software, you'll get Windows software. While it seems trite, the fact is that you're voting with your wallet, and if you buy a Windows game, there's little impetus for the developers to develop for Mac--some (or heavens forbid most) of the (already arguably almost negligible) Mac userbase will already have Windows and will use it. This is yet another of Linux's chicken-and-egg problems: be as compatible as possible to help ease transitions to Linux, but generally then there's no need to support Linux because your app targeting Windows will run on Linux just fine. There are, of course, other chicken-and-egg problems such as getting a countable userbase and hardware vendors to actually have some support for us, but this is a huge one as well.
3)tax software. This is a big one for this, why bother buying a win machine for something you do once a year when you can just install win on your nice mac.
Thus far, there's always been a Mac version of the Big Two (TaxCut and TurboTax). I know, because I keep eyeing it with envy.;) If you just buy the Windows version, This Will Change. Additionally, you can do what many of us Linux users do and use the web-based one.
And again, if you buy Windows software, you'll get Windows software.
4)Some people honestly like apple hardware but need to run windows. Try finding a non-apple box with as small a desk footprint as a mac mini.
This is also a good reason, though I'd argue that vmware is the better route, if you can afford it.
5)Along the same lines, people who do all their work on laptops and dont want to carry 2 laptops around can now just carry a macbook pro.
Same as #4.
6)Quick compatability checks for software. Yes, I realize that for major cross platform dev you might want 2 boxes, but for quick checks (see the laptop comment too) this is invaluable.
Same as #4.
I guess it didn't repeat that often. While I understand that, due to Microsoft's monopoly, there is a lot of Windows-only software, you really do have to vote with your wallet. That is what businesses listen to. Many will likely say that they need Windows-Only-Application-of-Rule; I understand this position. The industry has effectively put its eggs into one basket, and the gravitational pull of the amassed mass makes it potentially very hard to move any of your eggs to another basket. That doesn't mean you should not give it your all to try and change. If you want to try another OS, do so wherever you can, and let your suppliers know of your desire.
With games, my take on it is that it's entertainment and hence fully optional. IMHO, there's no excuse to play a game that doesn't support your platform of choice (unless it's on the discount rack;).
It's interesting to note that the python script is much simpler:
# HelloWorld python script for the scripting framework
def HelloWorldPython( ):
"""Prints the string 'Hello World(in Python)' into the current document"""
#get the doc from the scripting context which is made available to all scripts
model = XSCRIPTCONTEXT.getDocument()
#get the XText interface
text = model.Text
#create an XTextCursor
cursor = text.createTextCursor()
#and insert the string
text.insertString( cursor, "Hello World (in Python)", 0 )
return None
The JavaScript is about the same as the BASIC one, tho:// Hello World in JavaScript
importClass(Packages.com.sun.star.uno.UnoRuntime);
importClass(Packages.com.sun.star.text.XTextDocume nt);
importClass(Packages.com.sun.star.text.XText);
importClass(Packages.com.sun.star.text.XTextRange) ;//get the document from the scripting context
oDoc = XSCRIPTCONTEXT.getDocument();//get the XTextDocument interface
xTextDoc = UnoRuntime.queryInterface(XTextDocument,oDoc);//get the XText interface
xText = xTextDoc.getText();//get an (empty) XTextRange interface at the end of the text
xTextRange = xText.getEnd();//set the text in the XTextRange
xTextRange.setString( "Hello World (in JavaScript)" );
Of course, if you prefer, there are also Java and BeanShell demo scripts too. All are under share/Scripts.
I can see why they did it, but you shouldn't have to deal with the importing framework stuff--it should already be there. For example, with JavaScript, you should't have to importClass--it should already be an available object. These aren't standalone scripts---they're run by OpenOffice, for pete's sake.
Really, the only positive thing I can say is that at least you can choose the language that's most comfortable to you. Does MSOffice allow you different programming languages natively? How about as a plugin or something?
Here's to hoping they make the scripting suck less!
He discusses particularly the opposition raised in Mass. wrt the (in-)compatibility of OpenOffice on Windows with the current Windows accessibility technologies (interestingly, OOo is better accessibility-wise on Linux than Windows!) However, it outlines a lot of stuff and is definitely relevant to this discussion.
but when you are talking about most tax laws things become much more cut and dried - hence the reason why software manages it so well these days.
Tax is anything but cut-n-dried.
Software is not a replacement for a tax advisor! Thinking so is foolhardy at best! There is much grey area in taxes, such as what expenses you can take deductions on. While software can give you a certain amount of general (and tailored) advice, only a human can truly evaluate your situation and tell you what is probably (it's ultimately in a human's hands if disputed) alright to do or not do.
Contracts can contain large amounts of negotiable area, for example one that specifies a Fair Market return on an item. They can also have no grey area at all - for example "I will give you 85 US cents on 3/7/06."
True, but I would argue that most real contracts are very complex and thus have the potential for much grey area.
Based on the contract that the school signed in order to get their educational license deals.
So you're claiming that you have special knowledge of any license deals these schools have with Microsoft?
It comes down to what is better for MS. To include a catchall that will deliberately detail culpability in ALL situations, or to leave things vague and fuzzy.
Leaving a "catchall" and "detail[ing] culpability in ALL situations" are mutually incompatibile. A "catchall" must, by necessity, be grey, or else you must detail all possible situations.
What if it wasn't a student, but a friend of a student?
How did the friend log on? If he used the students account the student is liable, if the computers were unsecured the school is liable.
What if it was a program that was installed that malfunctioned?
The program would be liable. If it's a MS program, they would be liable to themselves. It is very unlikely that proof would be obtainable of this point, however. Without solid evidence the school would be liable regardless of who did the audit.
But all of these examples contradict your statement that "[e]very computer that physically belongs to the school ultimately the responsibility of the school."
Why would MS want any of these to be judgement calls? The strength of the EULA is companies can assign fault in any conceivable situation, no matter how unreasonable.
Well, aside from how they were illustrations of grey area, not specifically grey area that Microsoft wants, it's money for them if:
They can out-lawyer the other party in court (quite probable)
They can out-lwayer the other party into settling (quite probable and has arguably already occurred
They can make audits expensive
because the auditee likely be found liable if Microsoft's auditors audit (unless the auditee follows every detail to the letter and possible interpretations) of the letter).
because the audit itself will be expensive if the auditee hires their own auditor (that Microsoft also approves, natch).
There are quite possibly more reasons; this is (me not being Microsoft) purely speculation, and I'm honestly not that imaginitive.
The strength of the EULA is companies can assign fault in any conceivable situation, no matter how unreasonable.
Sure, but I would argue that grey area in a non-trivial contract is almost inevitible. The grey area is precisely why it can be applied in "any conceivable situation." If it did not, it would have to detail every possible situation, which is impossible.
Finally, an audit is an opinion. If someone doesn't agree with it (either the software company or the school), then it goes to court where a judge decides whether Microsoft's opinion or the school's opinion is correct.
Indeed, this fact underscores my position. If there were no grey area, it would never have to go to court, as it would be black and white.
>> The same is true for contracts. The wording and situations
>> leave grey area.
Not correct.
I see a position statement but no warrants.
Ok, I'll bite. What makes a contract more black-and-white than a law?
Every computer that physically belongs to the school is ultimately the responsibility of the school.
Based upon what law?
Why do you say that it's not a breach of license/copyright for the school if a student downloaded but did not install a piece of unlicensed software?
Obvious objections:
What if the computer was broken into?
What if it wasn't a student, but a friend of a student?
What if it was a program that was installed that malfunctioned?
What if the student meant to download something else, and hadn't realized the error?
There are a lot of what-if's, requiring an intricate knowledge of copyright and contract law (which, as you've pointed out, is does have grey area) and judgement calls, AKA grey area.
That sounds harsh, but the way most colleges handle this is by requiring students to sign a transfer of responsibility to themselves before they are given access.
None of the 5 colleges I've attended, nor the 5 schools I've attended have required this.
Have to go. I may continue this, but I really get the impression that your mind is already made up, so it seems a waste of time to continue.
Item 1Aii will either have been followed correctly and documented correctly by the school or it will not have been followed correctly.
By the same token, laws are black and white with no grey areas. Either the person has broken Act Making Something Criminal Section 27a paragraph 3, or they haven't.
However, you've conceded that a judge in a trial has to deal with grey area. We would likely agree that while in theory laws are cut and dry, in practice the wording and specific situations leave much room for interpretation and finding what actually happened (and who's responsible).
The same is true for contracts. The wording and situations leave grey area. I've pointed out some potential grey areas. For instance, is the school liable if a student downloads and installs software the school isn't licensed for? What if the student is? What if the student just downloaded it, but didn't install it? What about a teacher working in his spare time?
If there is a grey area it means that whoever wrote up the contract did a shoddy job.
While it's true that large (and maybe medium) corporations could well afford to hire a cadre of highly competent lawyers and draw up a custom license agreement with Microsoft, I don't believe that most schools are in this position. And again, the quality of the lawyering is generally highly correlated with the amount of money you can spend on laywers, which for Microsoft is much, and for your general school leaking money, it's zip.
Which segues nicely into....
With how much MS invests in its legal team I don't really see that happening.
Contracts are the art of negotiation. Microsoft's goal in contracts is to get as much as they can to go towards their side. This means that they leave grey area where they want grey area, and tighten up things where they want things tightened up.
Unfortunately, your average school doesn't specialize in lawyering, nor do they usually have the cash to hire many lawyers specializing in contract negotiation. This is even worse compared to Microsoft's vast resources and experience! Thus, any contract negotiation will generally be slanted toward Microsoft's favour, not the school's, simply because the average school cannot afford to have the same calibre nor number of lawyers to pore over a contract and analyze its minutiae.
As it is, however, auditors don't *decide* anything.
I have stated why this is incorrect.
My counter basic principle would be that if you have an interest in the outcome it makes sense that you would be enforcing the procedures.
Also quite true. However, it is not a counter basic principle; it is an additional principle.
If you can provide a convincing example of what a grey area may be in regards to a MS EULA, I would definitely reconsider the argument.
I believe I did, but you still reject them. I'm beginning to doubt that further discussion will be fruitful for either of us.
The rest of your post is side-tracking from this, my "chicken in the henhouse" comment upon which you wanted me to elaborate. I believe I have done so.
Fox in the henhouse. Sheesh. This is what I get for posting so late. I am now going to bed.:)
The difference between our positions is that I do not believe it is a bad thing for licenses to be enforced down to "all the exact minutiae". That is the perfect right of the corporation be it Microsoft or Mozilla.
Again with putting words in my mouth!
I never claimed that it was a bad thing, just an easy to be declared in violation of thing, i.e. one grey area in the interpretation of the license, on which rides at least USD300,000 plus fines and laywer costs.
The minutiae--and the interpretation is one grey area of which I spoke. There's more grey area than that, and the original point was that there was grey area and fudge factors--it's not simply tallying the licenses, as you implied.
But regardless, the basic principle stands--if you have an interest in the outcome, you shouldn't be the one deciding it..
The rest of your post is side-tracking from this, my "chicken in the henhouse" comment upon which you wanted me to elaborate. I believe I have done so.
Folks on slashdot are always talking about how it's possible to make money on free/open source software, and that F/OSS is the wave of the future. Well, if you *really* believe this, why are you shocked that large companies agree with you? Or that people who start open source projects agree with you?
You are apparently assuming that the set of "those who agree that companies buying up FOSS companies is worrisome" overlaps largely with the set of "those who think that FOSS can be profitibile." I think that this assumption is incorrect.
More to the point, just because BusinessWeek is worried that small FOSS companies being bought by large companies is worrisome does not imply that the FOSS community thinks so. This statement seems to be supported by postings to the article thus far.
The federal inspector would be inclined to overlook the violations and you can't provide evidence for something you didn't see.
Certainly. Similarly, Microsoft's auditor would be much more likely stick to all the exact minutiae of every license, in comparison to a third party or even one belonging to the school. It's the flip side, admittedly, of a general principle.
Your allusion that MS needs auditors to either falsify data or issue baseless bogus violation charges against schools is blatant due to lack of alternatives.
No. Again, you're misreading what I'm saying! I'm beginning to think that you desperately want me to be some wacky conspiracy nut.
While it's cut and dried in theory (as you pointed out), in practice it's not. There is grey area, e.g. if a student downloaded software from BitTorrent that's unlicensed, is the school liable? What if they installed it in their account? What if they hacked the system and installed it globally? Say the school internally benchmarked something and released the benchmarks on a limited scale. However, the software didn't allow benchmarking (but this was buried in the license and nobody knew). Would you bet 300,000 dollars that Microsoft's lawyer won't dig deeper than another, independent auditor? Would you bet 300,000 dollars that Microsoft won't be more familiar with the license than your auditor, and find some little detail that you missed? Even more, if it came to blows, would you expect Microsoft's auditor to charge you less or more?
It's a basic principle--those who have a stake in the issue shouldn't be the auditors. Going back to the meat plant inspector, if you were the meat plant owner, would you expect a soured ex-employee to be a fair auditor? It may theoretically be cut-and-dried, but the details will quite possibly trip you up, and the stakes are high!
Are you seriously suggesting that Microsoft auditors would install pirated versions of their OS on school computers so they could later fine the school for the violations?
Aaah. Heh. No.
Much simpler--why should you trust Microsoft's auditors with the audit, when it's in their interest to find you at fault?
Exactly the same as a federal inspector shouldn't also have had a job at the packing plant he's inspecting, or a judge shouldn't know someone they're judging.
Basically, Microsoft was well within their rights.
I never claimed Microsoft wasn't within their rights. Just that "their rights" seems awfully expensive.
The school district, on the other hand, was scared that they weren't up to spec, and so inflicted this cost upon themselves.
Could be. Is the school district responsible if some kid installs software (or even downloads it!) out-of-license? Prove it was a kid and not an Official Action of the School!
Additionally, there are other possible reasons why the school wouldn't want Microsoft to perform the audit. Fox watching the henouse and all, for one.
Finally, you have the disruption of someone in the busiest time of the year, as you point out, in addition to the productivity loss of having employees deal with the auditors.
Microsoft offered them auditors, at what is apaprently NO cost to that school district if nothing is found.
If
Exactly, where's the problem?
The problem is that it's an attempt to strongarm several schools into a new licensing scheme. But that's just icing.
The main point was that tracking licenses (and preventing license violations, and paying for audits and avoiding vendor strong-arm tactics) is a non-trivial cost.
Educators in both states received letters from the company in March giving them 60 days to perform extensive audits in search of unlicensed software, or risk facing potentially costly penalties. The letter came with a marketing brochure touting the company's latest volume-licensing agreements.
[...]
Microsoft's letter arrived in 24 school districts in Oregon and Washington, asking for audits to ensure compliance with software licensing agreements. It specified 261 Microsoft products that schools should inventory on each machine.
School administrators concede that Microsoft was well within its rights to ask for a software audit. However, the company's request that the schools complete the task in 60 days--and its seeming push toward a volume-licensing scheme that few schools could afford--left many with hard feelings toward the company.
[...]
The letter arrived at the busiest time of the year for the schools, as they were gearing up for the close of the spring semester. And because PPS has 25,000 computers spread across 100 buildings, completing the audit on time would have required hiring extra personnel, at a total cost of around $300,000, Robinson says. Microsoft's licensing agreements offer to send out auditors, but the audit cost would fall to the district if company auditors uncovered any undocumented software, he says.
[...]
"We're not in a wonderful financial situation as it is," says PPS's Robinson. "We took $36 million out of the budget for next year. The cost of licensing would run about $500,000, which for us is the cost of ten teaching positions." [emphesis mine]
I've heard reports (from friends of mine who would know) that a few universities I know of have also had lawsuit threatened--unless they signed up for License 6.0. Bleeding cash as they were/are, they of course caved.
There are certainly a few more articles of this sort around at the time, though (IMHO) it was extremely under-reported. Image-wise, the whole thing is remniscent of mafia than microsoft. On google, it's generally overshadowed by anti-trust settlments that included vouchers for schools for Microsoft software (we can discuss that further if you wish), but I found that "microsoft 'school districts' lawsuit" worked alright (it got me the PCWorld article; there are a few on/. around that time as well, this is all in case you wanted to find out more about it).
The bottom line is that Microsoft--or any proprietary software--requires you to keep your ducks in a very straight row, because the company can always come back to audit you (at your expense, natch), and these costs (the ducks-in-row'ing as well as lawyer's and auditing fees) must be taken into account, as they're real expenses.
Licensing costs for 14 copies of XP Pro Academic Upgrade would run just under a grand.
Looking through your figures, I see that you inadventently left out the lawyer fees and/or audit costs when Microsoft next decides to sue schools again to gently coax them into License 7.0 (or whatever they want to strongarm the school into). Those costs will likely add quite a bit to the margin.
I'd generally recommend Ubuntu or SuSE, with Ubuntu being the current favourite. IIRC, it has much more immediately available to it than SuSE does; installing some things (e.g. Java, Flash, madwifi (atheros wireless chip driver)) with SuSE can be somewhat of a pain, though much less so with the introduction of OpenSuSE (since they can link to repositories containing things that the Branded Distro cannot).
The documentation on OpenSuSE is pretty helpful, though, so it's about a wash.
If Microsoft were making SOOO much money as is generally assumed
This is not a hypothetical.
During the height of the dotcom crash, Microsoft was packing away between USD2 and 4 billion per quarter. The only profit-takers (except for a couple of million once from MSN, iirc) were the Windows and Office units, at 70-90% profit margins each. Coincidentally, these are for-sale products (i.e. not bundled like IE) in which they have a monopoly (and very good lockin). As ZDNet notes,
One telling statistic may shed light on how Microsoft fairs in markets where it does not control huge market share. Profit margins for desktop versions of Windows came in shy of 86 percent, according to the 10-Q. That's up from about 82 percent during the same period a year earlier. Office profit margins were 78 percent in the first quarter compared with 76 percent a year earlier. Licensing 6 likely contributed to the profit-margin gains, analysts say.
By contrast, Windows Server, which according to IDC held less than 50 percent server market share in 2001, had 34 percent profit margins. A year earlier, Windows Server profit margins topped 26 percent.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh. The wonders of TLA's. ;)
--A Linux User
And again, if you buy Windows software, you'll get Windows software.
This is also a good reason, though I'd argue that vmware is the better route, if you can afford it. Same as #4. Same as #4.I guess it didn't repeat that often. While I understand that, due to Microsoft's monopoly, there is a lot of Windows-only software, you really do have to vote with your wallet. That is what businesses listen to. Many will likely say that they need Windows-Only-Application-of-Rule; I understand this position. The industry has effectively put its eggs into one basket, and the gravitational pull of the amassed mass makes it potentially very hard to move any of your eggs to another basket. That doesn't mean you should not give it your all to try and change. If you want to try another OS, do so wherever you can, and let your suppliers know of your desire.
With games, my take on it is that it's entertainment and hence fully optional. IMHO, there's no excuse to play a game that doesn't support your platform of choice (unless it's on the discount rack ;).
D) Debian
It's interesting to note that the python script is much simpler: # HelloWorld python script for the scripting framework def HelloWorldPython( ): """Prints the string 'Hello World(in Python)' into the current document""" #get the doc from the scripting context which is made available to all scripts model = XSCRIPTCONTEXT.getDocument() #get the XText interface text = model.Text #create an XTextCursor cursor = text.createTextCursor() #and insert the string text.insertString( cursor, "Hello World (in Python)", 0 ) return None
The JavaScript is about the same as the BASIC one, tho: // Hello World in JavaScript
importClass(Packages.com.sun.star.uno.UnoRuntime);
importClass(Packages.com.sun.star.text.XTextDocume nt);
importClass(Packages.com.sun.star.text.XText);
importClass(Packages.com.sun.star.text.XTextRange) ; //get the document from the scripting context
oDoc = XSCRIPTCONTEXT.getDocument(); //get the XTextDocument interface
xTextDoc = UnoRuntime.queryInterface(XTextDocument,oDoc); //get the XText interface
xText = xTextDoc.getText(); //get an (empty) XTextRange interface at the end of the text
xTextRange = xText.getEnd(); //set the text in the XTextRange
xTextRange.setString( "Hello World (in JavaScript)" );
Of course, if you prefer, there are also Java and BeanShell demo scripts too. All are under share/Scripts.
I can see why they did it, but you shouldn't have to deal with the importing framework stuff--it should already be there. For example, with JavaScript, you should't have to importClass--it should already be an available object. These aren't standalone scripts---they're run by OpenOffice, for pete's sake.
Really, the only positive thing I can say is that at least you can choose the language that's most comfortable to you. Does MSOffice allow you different programming languages natively? How about as a plugin or something?
Here's to hoping they make the scripting suck less!
He discusses particularly the opposition raised in Mass. wrt the (in-)compatibility of OpenOffice on Windows with the current Windows accessibility technologies (interestingly, OOo is better accessibility-wise on Linux than Windows!) However, it outlines a lot of stuff and is definitely relevant to this discussion.
if you can run Windows on a Mac now, will game developers stop porting games to Mac, since Mac users can run Windows?
The one time Microsoft ports some of their software to Linux, and it's a rootkit. ;)
From what I can tell, it seems to just be the Pepper Pad, but with Microsoft Inside.
Software is not a replacement for a tax advisor! Thinking so is foolhardy at best! There is much grey area in taxes, such as what expenses you can take deductions on. While software can give you a certain amount of general (and tailored) advice, only a human can truly evaluate your situation and tell you what is probably (it's ultimately in a human's hands if disputed) alright to do or not do.
True, but I would argue that most real contracts are very complex and thus have the potential for much grey area. So you're claiming that you have special knowledge of any license deals these schools have with Microsoft? Leaving a "catchall" and "detail[ing] culpability in ALL situations" are mutually incompatibile. A "catchall" must, by necessity, be grey, or else you must detail all possible situations. But all of these examples contradict your statement that "[e]very computer that physically belongs to the school ultimately the responsibility of the school." Well, aside from how they were illustrations of grey area, not specifically grey area that Microsoft wants, it's money for them if:- They can out-lawyer the other party in court (quite probable)
- They can out-lwayer the other party into settling (quite probable and has arguably already occurred
- They can make audits expensive
- because the auditee likely be found liable if Microsoft's auditors audit (unless the auditee follows every detail to the letter and possible interpretations) of the letter).
- because the audit itself will be expensive if the auditee hires their own auditor (that Microsoft also approves, natch).
There are quite possibly more reasons; this is (me not being Microsoft) purely speculation, and I'm honestly not that imaginitive. Sure, but I would argue that grey area in a non-trivial contract is almost inevitible. The grey area is precisely why it can be applied in "any conceivable situation." If it did not, it would have to detail every possible situation, which is impossible.Finally, an audit is an opinion. If someone doesn't agree with it (either the software company or the school), then it goes to court where a judge decides whether Microsoft's opinion or the school's opinion is correct.
Indeed, this fact underscores my position. If there were no grey area, it would never have to go to court, as it would be black and white.
Ok, I'll bite. What makes a contract more black-and-white than a law?
Based upon what law?Why do you say that it's not a breach of license/copyright for the school if a student downloaded but did not install a piece of unlicensed software?
Obvious objections:
There are a lot of what-if's, requiring an intricate knowledge of copyright and contract law (which, as you've pointed out, is does have grey area) and judgement calls, AKA grey area.
None of the 5 colleges I've attended, nor the 5 schools I've attended have required this.Have to go. I may continue this, but I really get the impression that your mind is already made up, so it seems a waste of time to continue.
However, you've conceded that a judge in a trial has to deal with grey area. We would likely agree that while in theory laws are cut and dry, in practice the wording and specific situations leave much room for interpretation and finding what actually happened (and who's responsible).
The same is true for contracts. The wording and situations leave grey area . I've pointed out some potential grey areas. For instance, is the school liable if a student downloads and installs software the school isn't licensed for? What if the student is? What if the student just downloaded it, but didn't install it? What about a teacher working in his spare time?
While it's true that large (and maybe medium) corporations could well afford to hire a cadre of highly competent lawyers and draw up a custom license agreement with Microsoft, I don't believe that most schools are in this position. And again, the quality of the lawyering is generally highly correlated with the amount of money you can spend on laywers, which for Microsoft is much, and for your general school leaking money, it's zip.Which segues nicely into....
Contracts are the art of negotiation. Microsoft's goal in contracts is to get as much as they can to go towards their side. This means that they leave grey area where they want grey area, and tighten up things where they want things tightened up.
Unfortunately, your average school doesn't specialize in lawyering, nor do they usually have the cash to hire many lawyers specializing in contract negotiation. This is even worse compared to Microsoft's vast resources and experience! Thus, any contract negotiation will generally be slanted toward Microsoft's favour, not the school's, simply because the average school cannot afford to have the same calibre nor number of lawyers to pore over a contract and analyze its minutiae.
I have stated why this is incorrect.Fox in the henhouse. Sheesh. This is what I get for posting so late. I am now going to bed. :)
Again with putting words in my mouth!
I never claimed that it was a bad thing, just an easy to be declared in violation of thing, i.e. one grey area in the interpretation of the license, on which rides at least USD300,000 plus fines and laywer costs.
The minutiae--and the interpretation is one grey area of which I spoke. There's more grey area than that, and the original point was that there was grey area and fudge factors--it's not simply tallying the licenses, as you implied.
But regardless, the basic principle stands--if you have an interest in the outcome, you shouldn't be the one deciding it..
The rest of your post is side-tracking from this, my "chicken in the henhouse" comment upon which you wanted me to elaborate. I believe I have done so.
"a developer", as opposed to "the developer." In the minute difference between these two phrases lies a vast gulf of difference.
More to the point, just because BusinessWeek is worried that small FOSS companies being bought by large companies is worrisome does not imply that the FOSS community thinks so. This statement seems to be supported by postings to the article thus far.
While it's cut and dried in theory (as you pointed out), in practice it's not. There is grey area, e.g. if a student downloaded software from BitTorrent that's unlicensed, is the school liable? What if they installed it in their account? What if they hacked the system and installed it globally? Say the school internally benchmarked something and released the benchmarks on a limited scale. However, the software didn't allow benchmarking (but this was buried in the license and nobody knew). Would you bet 300,000 dollars that Microsoft's lawyer won't dig deeper than another, independent auditor? Would you bet 300,000 dollars that Microsoft won't be more familiar with the license than your auditor, and find some little detail that you missed? Even more, if it came to blows, would you expect Microsoft's auditor to charge you less or more?
It's a basic principle--those who have a stake in the issue shouldn't be the auditors. Going back to the meat plant inspector, if you were the meat plant owner, would you expect a soured ex-employee to be a fair auditor? It may theoretically be cut-and-dried, but the details will quite possibly trip you up, and the stakes are high!
Much simpler--why should you trust Microsoft's auditors with the audit, when it's in their interest to find you at fault?
Exactly the same as a federal inspector shouldn't also have had a job at the packing plant he's inspecting, or a judge shouldn't know someone they're judging.
Additionally, there are other possible reasons why the school wouldn't want Microsoft to perform the audit. Fox watching the henouse and all, for one.
Finally, you have the disruption of someone in the busiest time of the year, as you point out, in addition to the productivity loss of having employees deal with the auditors. Microsoft offered them auditors, at what is apaprently NO cost to that school district if nothing is found. If
The problem is that it's an attempt to strongarm several schools into a new licensing scheme. But that's just icing.The main point was that tracking licenses (and preventing license violations, and paying for audits and avoiding vendor strong-arm tactics) is a non-trivial cost.
A:A defendent who's not bleeding cash and a plaintiff who doesn't have billions of dollars in the bank.
The less tongue-in-cheek answer is "around 2002", when Microsoft threatened lawsuit against several school districts in the US if they didn't perform an expensive audit--or sign up for a volume licensing agreement:
I've heard reports (from friends of mine who would know) that a few universities I know of have also had lawsuit threatened--unless they signed up for License 6.0. Bleeding cash as they were/are, they of course caved.
There are certainly a few more articles of this sort around at the time, though (IMHO) it was extremely under-reported. Image-wise, the whole thing is remniscent of mafia than microsoft. On google, it's generally overshadowed by anti-trust settlments that included vouchers for schools for Microsoft software (we can discuss that further if you wish), but I found that "microsoft 'school districts' lawsuit" worked alright (it got me the PCWorld article; there are a few on /. around that time as well, this is all in case you wanted to find out more about it).
The bottom line is that Microsoft--or any proprietary software--requires you to keep your ducks in a very straight row, because the company can always come back to audit you (at your expense, natch), and these costs (the ducks-in-row'ing as well as lawyer's and auditing fees) must be taken into account, as they're real expenses.
The documentation on OpenSuSE is pretty helpful, though, so it's about a wash.
During the height of the dotcom crash, Microsoft was packing away between USD2 and 4 billion per quarter . The only profit-takers (except for a couple of million once from MSN, iirc) were the Windows and Office units, at 70-90% profit margins each. Coincidentally, these are for-sale products (i.e. not bundled like IE) in which they have a monopoly (and very good lockin). As ZDNet notes,