« What's So Smart About BI? | Main | Selling the Change »

January 24, 2006

The Creative Differences of Licensing

Ed Foster's Gripelog struck a loud sour note regarding the surprising and sometimes crippling difficulty of handling software licenses when the machines that run the software change. The gist of it is that licensees discover little to no "ownership" privileges, suddenly. Fair to say that the level of outrage against aggravating vendor pratices is a good working exhibit of "contempt".

But the issue is controversial because there is more than one way to look at it.

"License" means "permission". Unclear licenses are bad; deception is unethical; but that said, as for the presumed right to use software, the whole issue is about the fact that the owner of the software *grants* all the rights.

None of the following is about blaming the victim. BUT... the law says that the owner can charge more for granting more rights, and the law does not prohibit us from negotiating.

So at some point we have to come to grips with the fact that when we use a business to satisfy our needs, the satisfaction will take place on business terms. We have to avoid getting confused about what is unsafe as opposed to what is highly inconvenient. The level of support that we want is our responsibility to declare before we buy.

That still doesn't rescue us from predatory businesses, but we don't think skipping down dark alleys is very smart, and the standard is really the same when it comes to licenses.The best time to be aggressive versus a business is before we buy. Prevention costs 10% (or less) of the cost of a cure.

Flexible product configuration is not always convenient; sometimes it's a desirable opportunity but that doesn't prevent it from being an unacceptable risk

Posted by Malcolm Ryder at January 24, 2006 9:04 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.malcolmryder.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/196

Comments

Post a comment