I guess then according to/. there is absolutely no way to determine theft, piracy, etc excpet when proven in court.
According to the author there must only be about five or so cases of software piracy each year.
Seriously, the way they figure it is pretty sound. They can estimate a certain demand, they can estimate total sales, and then can do math. How else should it be figured?
The thing is though, if MS was telling the truth (and thats a big if), and if it worked as it appears (sealed memory, hard encryption and encapsulation, strong identification) it was intended, I'd really like the whole thing.
The fundamental idea is to apply good crypto techniques to the concept of general purpose comptuing. The idea of having a hardened piece of hardware verify binaries as untampered with is a smashing idea in the end.
The problem is both perception and a bit of reality. As long as it's the MS name attached to it, its going to be troublesome. On top of that, it seems likely that the main force (again, probably MS) will want to use the technology to foster more lock in.
In the end though, I'd like to see the hardware developed against a strongly laid out spec. Then Open Source OS's could implement the features. I'd love to run FreeBSD on a box designed with this hardware - trust only binariess signed by the FreeBSD team, run forward facing services in sealed, protected memory. Store web-data (personal info, credit info, etc) on highly strong-crypto protected sealed disk space, etc.
In this way, the NGSCB would solve a lot of really nasty issues that PC's in general have. Other platforms have done an okay job fixing certain problems. Now its time for PC's to jump ahead.
No, I do know how Microsoft, et al, claim NGSCB will work. I just don't believe them. --vs
Well thats a fair stand to take. TIme will tell if MS is telling the truth or not.
You clearly do not understand how the idea of Palladium works. MS is not the central signing authority. It is a signing authority.
It is similiar to how SSL works. You (the end user) choose to trust certain signing authorities (your browser does this by default, but you can add/remove in all modern browsers). Then your browser trusts certs. signed by those authorities.
Palladium is the same way. Anyone could be a signing authority assuming open crypto is used (which MS has plegded to use, as well as provide the source for this portion of the system; of course, time will tell if that is true or not).
These authorities would be then trusted by the hardware in Palladium. Binaries/Content/sites would then be signed by these authorities, and access checks could be implemented by binaries that are signed (and therefore theoretically tamper proof).
The bottom line is that anyone - you, your company, Sourceforge, Microsoft, VeriSign, whoever would be able to sign content, binaries, and sites. The end-user, or the admin who manages tohse users, would setup the trusts for which authorities to believe (probably in some type of low-level BIOS-ish interface, but maybe high-level construct like the OS as well).
In this type of worl, it could easily go both ways. MS/RIAA/MPAA could exert high control over protectable content. But then, if a single unprotected copy got out (which it will), someone else could setup a signing authority, get others to trust it (ala a P2P network), and then distribute that file as protected under their authority. This means that the RIAA/MPAA/etc would have a hardtime tracking it down, eliminating it, and duping people into thinking something else is it.
In short, I'm asserting that it's economic suicide for an upstart company to wire up an already wired area.
Thats a blanket statement that has no basis in fact. It will come down to economics of a particular situation. The costs for wiring are largely linear. A small company could literally start small, working a single neighborhood of a larger city. A "neighborhood hopping" campaign could build up a serious alternative to the larger corporation with huge resource.
Without compulsory licensing, both small service providers and small infrastructure companies are locked out of the marketplace. How exactly does that situation foster competition?
No. That's false. A small infrastructure company can build a small network. The costs are high, but not unapprochable. There is no reason a regional company couldn't lay, for example, wiring to 1,000 houses to start.
The correct answer to this problem however is for a government delivery system. The problem is creating an atmosphere within the government that would make this possible and still non-suspectible to the typical governmental bull.
Forcing licensing is stupid, and wrong on principle. It's theft, and punishes risk-taking. Building infrastructure is risky, even for big corporations. Building anything nationwide is expensive. But the good thing is that you dont need a nationwide network to get started. There are a big pile of local ISPs. In my home state the #2 ISP is a local company. Things can continue down this road.
Except that some random employee could just as easily post it there as somewhere else, assuming he had access to the source and the website farm. Right? The point being AOL can claim that Nullsoft division had no right to distribute that, and bingo, thats it.
Every time a new player wants to enter the market, they have to build yet another entirely different network, compounding stupidity upon stupidity and creating an unnecessarily high barrier to entry.
Nope. They could license it under terms that they work out with Verizon. But that is not the same as compulsory licensing.
Second, you are talking about a monopoly. There will be no monopoly. Verizon will not be the only one who can lay fiber. That's the point. Anyone can (who has the money). And that's why we shouldn't force whoever expends the cash to lay the fiber to license it.
Yes, I know, the government does that, and its outrageous in general. Its especially bad when he wants one company to do it to another company, "to be fair".
This is silly true. Its such a sad teastament. The Feds have used 'voluntary' funding and matching funds to states as a sort of highly addictive crack to control them.
A perfect example is state drinking laws. The Feds have presurred states again and again to raise the drinking age to 21, the blood-alcholol legal limit to.08, and to enforce a strict speed limit. The 'carrot' has always been highway funding. The Feds know damn well that there is no way a state could simply absorb that cost into their budget without major regressive taxes or drastic cut in services. Therefore the states without fail have to cowtow to the Federal governments unconstitutional desire to regulate State's private matters.
The executive and the US Congress WILL resort to this type of thing again given the chance. They'd love to be able to exert pressure on a nationwide communication system. Imagine how they'd force states/ISPs/whoever to monitor all traffic (or do it themselves, which is tragic). In an effort to crack down on anti-social behaviour the entire purpose of the Internet would be lost. For example they might institute strict anti-child porn controls. But then a few Senators might decide that local obscenity rules must be obeyed by technological means. And then terrorism will be used. Before long the US Government will be monitoring for industrial espionage to help US businesses.
Frankly, its not worth it. I'll stick with paying $50/mo for my broadband. And I'll stick with strong encryption and open source software to protect my private data.
How does what you say have any basis in fairness or common sense.
Company #1 spends BIG MONEY to physically lay tons of wire. You then force that company to give away their hardwork - for sometime for a fee and then eventually for FREE - as soon as its done?
That is stupid. STUPID. I'd like to find out where you work, force you to give me 50% of what you make for free. That's what you are suggesting.
Verizon is proposing a big fiber network. Lots of expense. Lots of money. This time around with this telecom network there isn't the government granting them automatic monopolies. If Company Y wants to create a competing network, LET THEM INVEST THEIR OWN MONEY.
Forcing companies to materially help and support the competition is wrong, immoral, and bad for commerce AND the consumer. It forces higher costs, discourages innovation and risk taking, and stigmatizes the development of new technology. Who wants to create something new and exciting if the government is just going to force you to give it away before you recoup your investment?
So unless I'm actually performing an already illegal act (Like sharpening the edge of the CD/DVD and stabbing people with it, or making copies and selling them) then there's nothing that can stop me from doing what I want with the DVD.
Thats not necessarily true! Contracts are a legal question, which the courts are deciding. There are *terms* displayed when you watch a DVD. And they are more restrictive than copyright law itself.
You can claim till you are blue in the face that no contract is present, but that doesn't make it so. Contracts come in a whole wide variety of formats, so don't be surprised if this case comes back to an issue of contract law, copyright law, or a combination of both.
Finally, lets say it does come back and say their is no implicit contract and that they can't control access how they want. Next time you buy a DVD you can be damn sure there will be a EULA included with it.
The only possible legal problem isn't just the DMCA issue. That's a pretty typical opinion though for a non-lawyer. I am also a non-laywer. The thing to remember is that law is much more intricate than our understanding of the law or the facts of this case.
I never agreed to abide by terms set by the MPAA when I purchased a DVD
Yeah, basically thats a legal question. In fact, you may be agreeing to the terms they flash on the screen before the movie starts. Contracts are established when you buy things, and they are regulated by a fairly large body of law.
If it is ruled that there is no contract, then be sure there will be a EULA in the DVD case. If those are hard to enforce to, they will make you pay with a credit card and sign both the receipt and a contract at the same time.
No matter how you look at this issue, its NOT your content. You are asking for permission to use it, and they are granting it. Contract law and copyright law are setup such that you can contract away some of your rights under standard copyright/fair use. This means that in the end, if a valid contract is present (whether they decide that implicit is good enough, or whether the MPAA resorts to explicit contracts at some point in the future) you will be legally bound to its provisions. And that means no reverse engineering, access control by them, and limited use rights to you.
. I paid for the right to view this media and dammit I will in whatever form I choose.
Except you don't have that right, and thats the way the law is written.
You have the right to what you agree to do. The argument made by the MPAA/RIAA (and not me, btw) is that when you purchase this content you are agreeing to abide by the zoning and content restrictions mechanisims they put in place.
Now, before you get all riled up, think about this. Two people can enter an agreement. I can write a book, and say that I will only sell it to people who will read it only while standing up, facing due north. We can codify that, put it into a contract, and if we both sign it under the right circumstances its binding. You and I have both agreed to exchange money for an object and a right.
This is essentially what the the DVD people will claim is going on. The difference being the level of implicitity to the contract.
The end result will be that:
1. They will win straightup, and it will be over. There is an implicit contract limiting fair-use rights.
OR
2. They will lose, and it will not be over. There is no implicit contract, and reverse engineering is legal in this case. The inevitable conclusion though is that they are NOT willing to give up CSS; therefore (a) they lobby congress for a new change to except them and undue the court ruling or (b) they eliminate "implicit" contracts and require instead a EULA to purchase a DVD.
Either way, in the end, the only way to win this game is to not play in the first place. I'd suggest that you go out and watch Wargames, but then that'd be a contradiction of irrecoverable conditions.
which doesn't have a prayer of running on the eBay'd hardware you already have
Not a prayer? I doubt thats an accurate statement. Really, its more like "its possible it won't", though judging by how little progress MS has made on the Palladium initiative, it doesn't look like things will make it for that version of Windows.
Hence the Licensing 6.0.
Licensing 6.0 is a gigantic flop, which virtually no one "upgraded" too.
Here's the deal with Windows Xp/Office XP:
All MS core software comes in multiple versions. The most expensive but most flexibly licensed (relatively speaking) is called "Full Packaged Product". This is what you buy at Staples. It comes in a box, you get a manual, you get phone-based tech support. The license explicitly recognizes the legal right for you to resell the software at a later date. This is the software that is also most often pirated, and therefore, MS decided (stupidly, in my opinion) to require it to be activated. Activation is a literally two second process (with an Internet connection; more like 5 minutes on the phone). It takes no personal information. It takes a hash of your PC's hardware. That's all that does. One copy of software cannot be activated on two PCs with a different hardware hash. The end-result is that you can re-install the software without problem, but to transfer it or give it away you need to make a call to MS, explain the situation, and have them reset the activation flag in their database.
There are other types of licensing besides FPP; for example, there is MSDN - which is subscription based software for developers. Then there is "Open Licensing". This is common in small businesses. You get a fairly respectable discount for forgoing most of the packaing. Instead you buy licenses in packs of "5 points" (which is usually 1 license per point, but not always). You can order - for essentially cost - software media (aka CDs/DVDs) for all the licensed software you own. So in a typical 5-user small office, you could go out and order 5 copies of Windows XP Pro and save maybe $500 over the FPP version. These have to be activated just like the FPP version, except the organization gets one key that is good for X number of uses. This software also comes with phone-based support.
Next tier up is the "Select" licensing, and then the "Enterprise" or "Corporate" licensing tiers. These have big-time dollar values usually, something like 30-50% discounts off FPP; you get no media (except for cost-priced media packs), and no phone support. This is what many companies with in-house IT staff use.
On "Open", "Select" and "Enterprise" licensing terms you can get "Sotware Assurance" which is trading some upfront costs for continual software upgrades. This means you get the latest copy of Windows, Office, etc without rebuying it. The problem is that the cost structure for this tright now makes for more attractive positioning as a standalone application.
This is all irrelevant though. Let's look at things for a second. In my example, lets say MS came back in two years and said "fine, screw you, lets see some audits". We up to that point have spent nothing at all on MS software (except time and effort, which cancels out with the Linux shop mostly). There is nothing at that point preventing the organization moving to RH or Debian or FreeBSD all of the sudden. That's the good thing.
If you need CYMK support, then what about the GIMP?
Dont need to be rude, but basically:
Those last 10% of features attract a big portion of the user base.. its not hard to make a word-processor to do basic stuff.. but it is hard to create a well-rounded feature complete app (aka, full-formatting, image manip, revision control, font-embedding, rich-linking, integration with live data-sources, accurate printing, useful help, seperation of content/style). This may seem trivial, but for lots of users - like myself - ANYONE of those features being missing is a deal stopper. It doesn't matter how well it does those other things, if it doesn't do each of those items, well then, its no good to me.
The exact same thing goes for GIMP. It doesn't matter how free, great, fast, etc etc it is. If it doesn't do CYMK, that's a deal breaker!
A few points:
1. Linux distributions, like RH or SuSe, or Debian, or anything are Free, they cost nothing to obtain/modify/distribute.
2. Installing and maintaining Linux, as well as designing a network, requires time and skill.
3. Time and skill are assets to be acquired.
4. Even if skill is present in the organization, time is still an asset. Expending time incurs an opportunity cost.
5. If the skill is not present, it must be obtained.
6. I've worked on a volunteer basis for organizations that had donated software from MS. The software was: Windows 2000 Server, Windows 2000 Professional and Office 2000. The license provided had absolutely no strings, it was "FPP" software (aka, full packaged product, aka retail boxed stuff).
7. Before the donation from MS and my donation of time, they had no network, and no software, and no computers. With some thrifty ebaying, they obtained the required hardware for a few thousand bucks.
8. If the MS donation wasnt going to come through, the alternative was going to be RedHat Linux on all the machines.
9. In the end, the costs for MS software over a period of time is $0. For Linux, the cost would be $0 as well.
So the bottom line is that the costs for the organization here was $0 (minus hardware). If not for my time, they'd have to hire IT help to install it all, and that IT person probably would have recommended brand new hardware. That would have been additional cost. At the end of the day, it comes down to who has the time to donate.
As far as your claims about the "BSA", "hooks", and "outrageous license fees". Well that's just plain silly, and I can't find *any* basis for it in fact. In the cases I am aware of it simply is not the case.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess then according to /. there is absolutely no way to determine theft, piracy, etc excpet when proven in court.
According to the author there must only be about five or so cases of software piracy each year.
Seriously, the way they figure it is pretty sound. They can estimate a certain demand, they can estimate total sales, and then can do math. How else should it be figured?
The thing is though, if MS was telling the truth (and thats a big if), and if it worked as it appears (sealed memory, hard encryption and encapsulation, strong identification) it was intended, I'd really like the whole thing.
The fundamental idea is to apply good crypto techniques to the concept of general purpose comptuing. The idea of having a hardened piece of hardware verify binaries as untampered with is a smashing idea in the end.
The problem is both perception and a bit of reality. As long as it's the MS name attached to it, its going to be troublesome. On top of that, it seems likely that the main force (again, probably MS) will want to use the technology to foster more lock in.
In the end though, I'd like to see the hardware developed against a strongly laid out spec. Then Open Source OS's could implement the features. I'd love to run FreeBSD on a box designed with this hardware - trust only binariess signed by the FreeBSD team, run forward facing services in sealed, protected memory. Store web-data (personal info, credit info, etc) on highly strong-crypto protected sealed disk space, etc.
In this way, the NGSCB would solve a lot of really nasty issues that PC's in general have. Other platforms have done an okay job fixing certain problems. Now its time for PC's to jump ahead.
Your post is really weird!
You first claim that MS is this all-powerful company that is going to touch every part of your life.
But then you go ahead and note that they in fact DO NOT touch any part of your life.
Microsoft is just one more company. They do pretty well in some markets, and not so much in others.
No, I do know how Microsoft, et al, claim NGSCB will work. I just don't believe them. --vs Well thats a fair stand to take. TIme will tell if MS is telling the truth or not.
You clearly do not understand how the idea of Palladium works. MS is not the central signing authority. It is a signing authority.
It is similiar to how SSL works. You (the end user) choose to trust certain signing authorities (your browser does this by default, but you can add/remove in all modern browsers). Then your browser trusts certs. signed by those authorities.
Palladium is the same way. Anyone could be a signing authority assuming open crypto is used (which MS has plegded to use, as well as provide the source for this portion of the system; of course, time will tell if that is true or not).
These authorities would be then trusted by the hardware in Palladium. Binaries/Content/sites would then be signed by these authorities, and access checks could be implemented by binaries that are signed (and therefore theoretically tamper proof).
The bottom line is that anyone - you, your company, Sourceforge, Microsoft, VeriSign, whoever would be able to sign content, binaries, and sites. The end-user, or the admin who manages tohse users, would setup the trusts for which authorities to believe (probably in some type of low-level BIOS-ish interface, but maybe high-level construct like the OS as well).
In this type of worl, it could easily go both ways. MS/RIAA/MPAA could exert high control over protectable content. But then, if a single unprotected copy got out (which it will), someone else could setup a signing authority, get others to trust it (ala a P2P network), and then distribute that file as protected under their authority. This means that the RIAA/MPAA/etc would have a hardtime tracking it down, eliminating it, and duping people into thinking something else is it.
In short, I'm asserting that it's economic suicide for an upstart company to wire up an already wired area.
Thats a blanket statement that has no basis in fact. It will come down to economics of a particular situation. The costs for wiring are largely linear. A small company could literally start small, working a single neighborhood of a larger city. A "neighborhood hopping" campaign could build up a serious alternative to the larger corporation with huge resource.
Without compulsory licensing, both small service providers and small infrastructure companies are locked out of the marketplace. How exactly does that situation foster competition?
No. That's false. A small infrastructure company can build a small network. The costs are high, but not unapprochable. There is no reason a regional company couldn't lay, for example, wiring to 1,000 houses to start.
The correct answer to this problem however is for a government delivery system. The problem is creating an atmosphere within the government that would make this possible and still non-suspectible to the typical governmental bull.
Forcing licensing is stupid, and wrong on principle. It's theft, and punishes risk-taking. Building infrastructure is risky, even for big corporations. Building anything nationwide is expensive. But the good thing is that you dont need a nationwide network to get started. There are a big pile of local ISPs. In my home state the #2 ISP is a local company. Things can continue down this road.
Except that some random employee could just as easily post it there as somewhere else, assuming he had access to the source and the website farm. Right? The point being AOL can claim that Nullsoft division had no right to distribute that, and bingo, thats it.
Every time a new player wants to enter the market, they have to build yet another entirely different network, compounding stupidity upon stupidity and creating an unnecessarily high barrier to entry.
Nope. They could license it under terms that they work out with Verizon. But that is not the same as compulsory licensing.
Second, you are talking about a monopoly. There will be no monopoly. Verizon will not be the only one who can lay fiber. That's the point. Anyone can (who has the money). And that's why we shouldn't force whoever expends the cash to lay the fiber to license it.
Yes, I know, the government does that, and its outrageous in general. Its especially bad when he wants one company to do it to another company, "to be fair".
This is silly true. Its such a sad teastament. The Feds have used 'voluntary' funding and matching funds to states as a sort of highly addictive crack to control them.
.08, and to enforce a strict speed limit. The 'carrot' has always been highway funding. The Feds know damn well that there is no way a state could simply absorb that cost into their budget without major regressive taxes or drastic cut in services. Therefore the states without fail have to cowtow to the Federal governments unconstitutional desire to regulate State's private matters.
A perfect example is state drinking laws. The Feds have presurred states again and again to raise the drinking age to 21, the blood-alcholol legal limit to
The executive and the US Congress WILL resort to this type of thing again given the chance. They'd love to be able to exert pressure on a nationwide communication system. Imagine how they'd force states/ISPs/whoever to monitor all traffic (or do it themselves, which is tragic). In an effort to crack down on anti-social behaviour the entire purpose of the Internet would be lost. For example they might institute strict anti-child porn controls. But then a few Senators might decide that local obscenity rules must be obeyed by technological means. And then terrorism will be used. Before long the US Government will be monitoring for industrial espionage to help US businesses.
Frankly, its not worth it. I'll stick with paying $50/mo for my broadband. And I'll stick with strong encryption and open source software to protect my private data.
How does what you say have any basis in fairness or common sense.
Company #1 spends BIG MONEY to physically lay tons of wire. You then force that company to give away their hardwork - for sometime for a fee and then eventually for FREE - as soon as its done?
That is stupid. STUPID. I'd like to find out where you work, force you to give me 50% of what you make for free. That's what you are suggesting.
Verizon is proposing a big fiber network. Lots of expense. Lots of money. This time around with this telecom network there isn't the government granting them automatic monopolies. If Company Y wants to create a competing network, LET THEM INVEST THEIR OWN MONEY.
Forcing companies to materially help and support the competition is wrong, immoral, and bad for commerce AND the consumer. It forces higher costs, discourages innovation and risk taking, and stigmatizes the development of new technology. Who wants to create something new and exciting if the government is just going to force you to give it away before you recoup your investment?
So unless I'm actually performing an already illegal act (Like sharpening the edge of the CD/DVD and stabbing people with it, or making copies and selling them) then there's nothing that can stop me from doing what I want with the DVD.
Thats not necessarily true! Contracts are a legal question, which the courts are deciding. There are *terms* displayed when you watch a DVD. And they are more restrictive than copyright law itself.
You can claim till you are blue in the face that no contract is present, but that doesn't make it so. Contracts come in a whole wide variety of formats, so don't be surprised if this case comes back to an issue of contract law, copyright law, or a combination of both.
Finally, lets say it does come back and say their is no implicit contract and that they can't control access how they want. Next time you buy a DVD you can be damn sure there will be a EULA included with it.
The only possible legal problem isn't just the DMCA issue. That's a pretty typical opinion though for a non-lawyer. I am also a non-laywer. The thing to remember is that law is much more intricate than our understanding of the law or the facts of this case.
I never agreed to abide by terms set by the MPAA when I purchased a DVD
Yeah, basically thats a legal question. In fact, you may be agreeing to the terms they flash on the screen before the movie starts. Contracts are established when you buy things, and they are regulated by a fairly large body of law.
If it is ruled that there is no contract, then be sure there will be a EULA in the DVD case. If those are hard to enforce to, they will make you pay with a credit card and sign both the receipt and a contract at the same time.
No matter how you look at this issue, its NOT your content. You are asking for permission to use it, and they are granting it. Contract law and copyright law are setup such that you can contract away some of your rights under standard copyright/fair use. This means that in the end, if a valid contract is present (whether they decide that implicit is good enough, or whether the MPAA resorts to explicit contracts at some point in the future) you will be legally bound to its provisions. And that means no reverse engineering, access control by them, and limited use rights to you.
. I paid for the right to view this media and dammit I will in whatever form I choose.
Except you don't have that right, and thats the way the law is written.
You have the right to what you agree to do. The argument made by the MPAA/RIAA (and not me, btw) is that when you purchase this content you are agreeing to abide by the zoning and content restrictions mechanisims they put in place.
Now, before you get all riled up, think about this. Two people can enter an agreement. I can write a book, and say that I will only sell it to people who will read it only while standing up, facing due north. We can codify that, put it into a contract, and if we both sign it under the right circumstances its binding. You and I have both agreed to exchange money for an object and a right.
This is essentially what the the DVD people will claim is going on. The difference being the level of implicitity to the contract.
The end result will be that:
1. They will win straightup, and it will be over. There is an implicit contract limiting fair-use rights.
OR
2. They will lose, and it will not be over. There is no implicit contract, and reverse engineering is legal in this case. The inevitable conclusion though is that they are NOT willing to give up CSS; therefore (a) they lobby congress for a new change to except them and undue the court ruling or (b) they eliminate "implicit" contracts and require instead a EULA to purchase a DVD.
Either way, in the end, the only way to win this game is to not play in the first place. I'd suggest that you go out and watch Wargames, but then that'd be a contradiction of irrecoverable conditions.
Haha.. that ad was always the funniest thing to me. "Your computer is 'broadcasting' an IP address".
Sounds scary! "Broadcasting", "address", "IP" - sounds terrifying for a newbie.
Funny how essential things like "routing information" can be turned into a scary thing to uninformed users. Funny meaning "sad".
Aren't users now required to register
Nope.
the software online
Nope.
and accept an ongoing upgrade schedule as
Nope.
which doesn't have a prayer of running on the eBay'd hardware you already have
Not a prayer? I doubt thats an accurate statement. Really, its more like "its possible it won't", though judging by how little progress MS has made on the Palladium initiative, it doesn't look like things will make it for that version of Windows.
Hence the Licensing 6.0.
Licensing 6.0 is a gigantic flop, which virtually no one "upgraded" too.
Here's the deal with Windows Xp/Office XP:
All MS core software comes in multiple versions. The most expensive but most flexibly licensed (relatively speaking) is called "Full Packaged Product". This is what you buy at Staples. It comes in a box, you get a manual, you get phone-based tech support. The license explicitly recognizes the legal right for you to resell the software at a later date. This is the software that is also most often pirated, and therefore, MS decided (stupidly, in my opinion) to require it to be activated. Activation is a literally two second process (with an Internet connection; more like 5 minutes on the phone). It takes no personal information. It takes a hash of your PC's hardware. That's all that does. One copy of software cannot be activated on two PCs with a different hardware hash. The end-result is that you can re-install the software without problem, but to transfer it or give it away you need to make a call to MS, explain the situation, and have them reset the activation flag in their database.
There are other types of licensing besides FPP; for example, there is MSDN - which is subscription based software for developers. Then there is "Open Licensing". This is common in small businesses. You get a fairly respectable discount for forgoing most of the packaing. Instead you buy licenses in packs of "5 points" (which is usually 1 license per point, but not always). You can order - for essentially cost - software media (aka CDs/DVDs) for all the licensed software you own. So in a typical 5-user small office, you could go out and order 5 copies of Windows XP Pro and save maybe $500 over the FPP version. These have to be activated just like the FPP version, except the organization gets one key that is good for X number of uses. This software also comes with phone-based support.
Next tier up is the "Select" licensing, and then the "Enterprise" or "Corporate" licensing tiers. These have big-time dollar values usually, something like 30-50% discounts off FPP; you get no media (except for cost-priced media packs), and no phone support. This is what many companies with in-house IT staff use.
On "Open", "Select" and "Enterprise" licensing terms you can get "Sotware Assurance" which is trading some upfront costs for continual software upgrades. This means you get the latest copy of Windows, Office, etc without rebuying it. The problem is that the cost structure for this tright now makes for more attractive positioning as a standalone application.
This is all irrelevant though. Let's look at things for a second. In my example, lets say MS came back in two years and said "fine, screw you, lets see some audits". We up to that point have spent nothing at all on MS software (except time and effort, which cancels out with the Linux shop mostly). There is nothing at that point preventing the organization moving to RH or Debian or FreeBSD all of the sudden. That's the good thing.
If you need CYMK support, then what about the GIMP?
Dont need to be rude, but basically:
Those last 10% of features attract a big portion of the user base.. its not hard to make a word-processor to do basic stuff.. but it is hard to create a well-rounded feature complete app (aka, full-formatting, image manip, revision control, font-embedding, rich-linking, integration with live data-sources, accurate printing, useful help, seperation of content/style). This may seem trivial, but for lots of users - like myself - ANYONE of those features being missing is a deal stopper. It doesn't matter how well it does those other things, if it doesn't do each of those items, well then, its no good to me.
The exact same thing goes for GIMP. It doesn't matter how free, great, fast, etc etc it is. If it doesn't do CYMK, that's a deal breaker!
"Free" means "Free"; period
A few points:
1. Linux distributions, like RH or SuSe, or Debian, or anything are Free, they cost nothing to obtain/modify/distribute.
2. Installing and maintaining Linux, as well as designing a network, requires time and skill.
3. Time and skill are assets to be acquired.
4. Even if skill is present in the organization, time is still an asset. Expending time incurs an opportunity cost.
5. If the skill is not present, it must be obtained.
6. I've worked on a volunteer basis for organizations that had donated software from MS. The software was: Windows 2000 Server, Windows 2000 Professional and Office 2000. The license provided had absolutely no strings, it was "FPP" software (aka, full packaged product, aka retail boxed stuff).
7. Before the donation from MS and my donation of time, they had no network, and no software, and no computers. With some thrifty ebaying, they obtained the required hardware for a few thousand bucks.
8. If the MS donation wasnt going to come through, the alternative was going to be RedHat Linux on all the machines.
9. In the end, the costs for MS software over a period of time is $0. For Linux, the cost would be $0 as well.
So the bottom line is that the costs for the organization here was $0 (minus hardware). If not for my time, they'd have to hire IT help to install it all, and that IT person probably would have recommended brand new hardware. That would have been additional cost. At the end of the day, it comes down to who has the time to donate.
As far as your claims about the "BSA", "hooks", and "outrageous license fees". Well that's just plain silly, and I can't find *any* basis for it in fact. In the cases I am aware of it simply is not the case.