> The key word is purchased, not leased. Can you explain to me how purchasing a piece of software does not legally entitle me to use it into eternity?
- I buy a copy of Windows 2000. I buy a copy of Windows XP Upgrade edition and install it over Windows 2000. I bought my copy of Windows 2000. However, I am not allowed to use my copy of Windows 2000 anymore (or install it on another machine, or transfer the license to somebody else), if I am currently running XP.
- My organization engages in an enterprise licensing agreement with a software vendor. The licensing agreement requires annual software maintenance payments of 18%. My organization owns the software, but failed to pay maintenance. By the terms of my enterprise licensing agreement, my organization is not entitled to use it into eternity.
The terms of enterprise licensing agreements usually always state that the vendor has the right to come in and audit you for license compliance purposes. The original purpose of the BSA and other anti-piracy orgs is to prevent piracy and ensure that software manufacturers get paid for their work, which I believe to be a noble cause. However, I prefer to view the way they approach this noble cause like a pack of hyenas instead of the mafia. Like hyenas, they scavenge for license violation fines. In response, you must treat them like hyenas and give them the impression that you aren't worth the trouble so they leave you alone.
This is an analog hole.
Lawmakers better get to work on finding a way to legislate this kind of piracy tool out of existance, before all of the pirates in the world exploit it and cost the hard-working and honest MPAA another $250 billion in lost revenue.
I think that is kind of taking it to the extreme. Every step that you mention costs money. Any auditor or auditing organization that sees that you have receipts, and proof that your install base does not exceed your allowable license base, will leave you alone. It simply isn't worth the cost to them to audit you further and try to "nail" you with some sort of license violation penalties when they realize that it is unlikely that you are out of compliance.
There is a very big difference between software licenses and software entitlements. Just becuase you purchased a piece of software in the past, does not mean that you are legally entitled to use it in the present. Buying upgrades may supercede your rights to use lower versions, failure to pay maintenance may invalidate your entitlements, etc. The way to determine what you are entitled to use today is to comb through your software purchase records with the goal of aggregating all of that data into a single report showing you what you are entitled to use. There is an entire industry niche, usually involving large teams of consultants or very specialized software, dedicated to doing just this.
The other side of the equation is to determine the inventory you have deployed in the field.
By providing an auditor with:
a) A single report showing all of your software entitlements and
b) A single report showing your inventory in the field, you get:
c) A single report showing where you are overlicensed / underlicensed.
If you show auditors that you are in such strong control of your licensing environment, then they will probably leave you alone and conclude that it isn't worth the cost to them to perform a full audit on you for the possibility of levying some license violation fees.
The other way around the problem with audits is to overpurchase by a safe margin to reduce your risk of being slammed with license violation penalties. "I have 10,000 employees in my company, I bought 12,000 licenses to be safe" is also another line that auditors will accept. In that case, the auditors will also probably leave you alone, concluding that it isn't worth the cost to them to perform a full audit (and the fact that they already made their money off you when you overpurhcased your licenses by 20%).
Slashdot Mirror
> The key word is purchased, not leased. Can you explain to me how purchasing a piece of software does not legally entitle me to use it into eternity? - I buy a copy of Windows 2000. I buy a copy of Windows XP Upgrade edition and install it over Windows 2000. I bought my copy of Windows 2000. However, I am not allowed to use my copy of Windows 2000 anymore (or install it on another machine, or transfer the license to somebody else), if I am currently running XP. - My organization engages in an enterprise licensing agreement with a software vendor. The licensing agreement requires annual software maintenance payments of 18%. My organization owns the software, but failed to pay maintenance. By the terms of my enterprise licensing agreement, my organization is not entitled to use it into eternity. The terms of enterprise licensing agreements usually always state that the vendor has the right to come in and audit you for license compliance purposes. The original purpose of the BSA and other anti-piracy orgs is to prevent piracy and ensure that software manufacturers get paid for their work, which I believe to be a noble cause. However, I prefer to view the way they approach this noble cause like a pack of hyenas instead of the mafia. Like hyenas, they scavenge for license violation fines. In response, you must treat them like hyenas and give them the impression that you aren't worth the trouble so they leave you alone.
This is an analog hole. Lawmakers better get to work on finding a way to legislate this kind of piracy tool out of existance, before all of the pirates in the world exploit it and cost the hard-working and honest MPAA another $250 billion in lost revenue.
I think that is kind of taking it to the extreme. Every step that you mention costs money. Any auditor or auditing organization that sees that you have receipts, and proof that your install base does not exceed your allowable license base, will leave you alone. It simply isn't worth the cost to them to audit you further and try to "nail" you with some sort of license violation penalties when they realize that it is unlikely that you are out of compliance.
There is a very big difference between software licenses and software entitlements. Just becuase you purchased a piece of software in the past, does not mean that you are legally entitled to use it in the present. Buying upgrades may supercede your rights to use lower versions, failure to pay maintenance may invalidate your entitlements, etc. The way to determine what you are entitled to use today is to comb through your software purchase records with the goal of aggregating all of that data into a single report showing you what you are entitled to use. There is an entire industry niche, usually involving large teams of consultants or very specialized software, dedicated to doing just this. The other side of the equation is to determine the inventory you have deployed in the field. By providing an auditor with: a) A single report showing all of your software entitlements and b) A single report showing your inventory in the field, you get: c) A single report showing where you are overlicensed / underlicensed. If you show auditors that you are in such strong control of your licensing environment, then they will probably leave you alone and conclude that it isn't worth the cost to them to perform a full audit on you for the possibility of levying some license violation fees. The other way around the problem with audits is to overpurchase by a safe margin to reduce your risk of being slammed with license violation penalties. "I have 10,000 employees in my company, I bought 12,000 licenses to be safe" is also another line that auditors will accept. In that case, the auditors will also probably leave you alone, concluding that it isn't worth the cost to them to perform a full audit (and the fact that they already made their money off you when you overpurhcased your licenses by 20%).