Closed-source compliance costs

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jun 9, 2007.

  1. 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...
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jun 9, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    peterwn Guest

    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.
     
    peterwn, Jun 9, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Gordon Guest

    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.
     
    Gordon, Jun 9, 2007
    #3
  4. In message <>, 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.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jun 9, 2007
    #4
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    peterwn Guest

    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.
     
    peterwn, Jun 9, 2007
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Au79
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    391
    Rectum Burn
    Feb 9, 2006
  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Open-Source Good, Closed-Source Bad

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 16, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    494
    Gordon
    Oct 16, 2005
  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Closed-Source vs Open-Source Drivers

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, May 4, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    535
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    May 5, 2009
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Compliance Costs And The Microsoft Tax

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 11, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    369
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Sep 16, 2009
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Open Source vs Closed Source Security

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Mar 3, 2010, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,012
    Gordon
    Mar 4, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page