[NCLUG] Re: Thoughts on Linux Users

[Brian Wood]

Sean Reifschneider wrote:

>>>   7. And you simply "hate" the idea that jack-booted software police
>>>      can enter your business and steal you machines off your desktops,
> 
> This is not 'Nam, we have rules.  Whether they're the Copyleft or your
> Windows licensing agreement doesn't matter.  If you don't pay the
> appropriate licensing fees, and get caught, you pay higher fees...  Doesn't
> really impact me, so I don't worry about it too much, but if you're going
> to use the software, pay the price.  Or pay the other price.

That sounds good, in theory, but often licenses are so confusing that
even sophisticated users can't tell if they are in violation.

For example: I purchase a laptop with XP pre-installed. I never even
boot XP but install Linux on it. Does this mean I now have an XP license
and can install it on another machine? (The Vista license makes clear
this is not allowed, but the XP license leaves the question open).

I purchase a "single CPU" license for a database product. I later
upgrade the original CPU chip to a dual or a quad core product. Do I
have to pay additional licensing fees? (Both Oracle and Solaris are, or
at least were, licensed on a per CPU basis, but that may have been
before multi-core CPUs were available).

I purchase "VirtualPC" from Microsoft to run on a G5 Mac. I want to
upgrade the included XP to Vista, but the Vista license says I have to
purchase the top-line product in order to run in an emulated
environment, but the whole purpose of the product is to run Windows in
an emulated environment. Where do I stand?

I obtain a "development" license for a software product. As part of my
testing of the product I have developed I have a client put my product
through its paces, in a commercial environment. Have I violated the
"development" license?

Often even industry lawyers can't agree on what a license means. I'm
sure millions are spent needlessly "just to be sure", which is of course
precisely what the vendors want.

Any enforcement of software licenses should take into account the
"intent" of the "violator". Did he intended to defraud the vendor to
save money, or was he simply totally confused by pages and pages of
lawyerese? Current enforcement does not seem to take this into account.

To me this is one of the great things about OSS, once I understand the
GPL I don't have to worry about such things, and I don't have to read
and understand (or pay someone to) perhaps dozens of different licenses.

beww