Do most of you realise that almost all copies of Windows, and
many of Windows Server, are contractually tied to the hardware? You can
replace the motherboard only if the original is unobtainable, you
cannot simply buy a new computer and move the OS to it. Not under your
EULA, anyway. And yet again, we're talking money. A portable copy of
Windows will cost twice the price of the tied OEM version, so few
people outside the IT business bother. And you wouldn't believe the
virtualisation licensing, some versions of Windows not being permitted
to run virtually under any conditions.
While I'm not contesting the principle behind all of this and everything
like that, but in my experience what happens in real life with this is
"nobody cares". Of all the software audits I've seen and heard of the
worst that happened was Adobe gave them a bill for the 200 licenses that
where missing (the company had well over 1000 I believe) to bring them
in line...and that was it. They had no interest in trying to fine them
or take them to court, they just said "your out by quite a lot, here is
your renewed contract" the only down side was it had to be paid in 30
days, but considering they where off by quite a way and where simply
paying what they *should* be paying, it was no real problem.
I've seen letters from lawyers stating a previous company had illegal
software, we got them in, they tested and saw we where out by one or two
and again just brought it in line as it was more a human over sight then
anything else. Going further then that to hardware restrictions
(replaced motherboards etc) and all that stuff, I've never heard or seen
anything of that being enforced, from my experience as long as you have
the correct license for what your running and you about 95% compliant,
nobody cares that much (though I'm not saying it doesn't happen)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
