Closed-source compliance costs
 

From <http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=250>:

When 44% of your customers believe that they’ve legitimately bought and
paid for something and you think they still owe you more money, you have
a big problem.

Having to keep licensing records for closed-source software is just like
having to keep records for the tax man: it's not for the benefit of your
business, but you get the full force of the law thrown at you if you don't
do it.

And here's another item <http://blogs.zdnet.com/Berlind/?p=517> about the
subtle interactions between virtual machines and the WGA licensing checks.
Just another headache for closed-source software users to worry about...

Re: Closed-source compliance costs
 

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

>
> And here's another item <http://blogs.zdnet.com/Berlind/?p=517> about the
> subtle interactions between virtual machines and the WGA licensing checks.
> Just another headache for closed-source software users to worry about...

And licence record keeping, compliance systems, and problems caused when
precise recovery or installation media cannot be located when needed is
a major cost burden that M$-centric 'consultants' do not take into
account when they produce their 'impartial' (ha ha) Total Cost of
Ownership studies.

Even the term 'ownership' is a misnomer since you never 'own' the
software, but you are merely granted a bundle of rights to use it and
the bundle shrinks with each new draconian term inserted in the EULA.

Re: Closed-source compliance costs
 

On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 12:58:33 +1200, peterwn wrote:

> Even the term 'ownership' is a misnomer since you never 'own' the
> software, but you are merely granted a bundle of rights to use it and
> the bundle shrinks with each new draconian term inserted in the EULA.

Yes gentle reader, even Open source software is copyrighted.

It is the *conditions* of this copyright which *are* different. By all
accounts the GPL has stood up to a few court cases and walked away with
the code the other side went to court to keep.

Re: Closed-source compliance costs
 

In message <4669fb53@clear.net.nz>, peterwn wrote:

> Even the term 'ownership' is a misnomer since you never 'own' the
> software, but you are merely granted a bundle of rights to use it and
> the bundle shrinks with each new draconian term inserted in the EULA.

It's worth noting that those closed-source EULAs that require you to agree
to them in some way are contracts, not licences. For example, "opening this
package means you agree", or putting the conditions up on screen with an "I
Agree" button that you have to click on to get past.

You'll notice that software released under the GPL, just for example,
doesn't bother you with such stuff. The GPL is a licence, not a contract.
You use the software under its conditions, or you don't use the software at
all.

Re: Closed-source compliance costs
 

Gordon wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 12:58:33 +1200, peterwn wrote:
>
>> Even the term 'ownership' is a misnomer since you never 'own' the
>> software, but you are merely granted a bundle of rights to use it and
>> the bundle shrinks with each new draconian term inserted in the EULA.
>
> Yes gentle reader, even Open source software is copyrighted.
>
> It is the *conditions* of this copyright which *are* different. By all
> accounts the GPL has stood up to a few court cases and walked away with
> the code the other side went to court to keep.

It mainly because the abusers thought the GPL was a joke, until some
gentlemanly Ivy League law professor banged on the door. He has won all
his cases out of court, the only court case AFAIK where the GPL was
squarely involved was a German case and the GPL copyright holder won
easily. As the professor quite rightly says, it is the defendant in a
copyright case who neds o wave the licence around as a defence, not for
the copyright holder to to prove that the GPL applies in NZ, does not
contravene the USA Constitution, is not fattening etc.

The one thing that must really brass Bill Gates off is that the GPL puts
a big bundle of code beyond Microsoft's reach.