[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, Robert Hajime Lanning wrote: > >> On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 10:06 +0200, Alexios Zavras wrote: >> >>> Daniel Rich wrote [edited]: >>>> [...] If it is on a company asset then the >>>> company has to be the one who legally obtained it, not the user (your >>>> mileage may vary depending on who has the bigger lawyers). This is >>>> (may) be true of software, mp3s, or other copyrighted materials. >>> >>> As someone who is continents away from US corporate practices, >>> and constantly marvelling on such information from this list, >>> I have to ask: >>> Is it the same case with bringing your own O'Reilly book >>> to work and have it on a (company) bookshelf ? >>> >>> I'd assume no, but I am always surprised... >> >> >> I think the difference is that the software/data is a copy. >> >> A book, would be the original. Unless you copied it, then who ever >> has the "copy" is in the wrong. >> >> If you just brought the install media and placed it on your desk, that >> would be fine, but as soon as you install a copy onto the company >> machine, there are issues. > > I think it boils down to the fact that most companies are not willing > to do the tracking to show what software was purchased by who, and so > they get in trouble when a software audit hits and the auditors assume > (deliberatly) that if the company can't immediatly produce a license > for the software that the company pirated it. > > if proper documentation is kept to show that there is a legitimate > license for all software that's installed you will survive any audit, > but how much do you trust your users to keep such records? > > David Lang There's two sides: What does the licence say? and: What does the company policy allow?
The licence may allow you to install the software anywhere. It might not. The company might allow you to install any software that a licence permits, but it might not. A company can choose to set policy *more* restrictive than the licence, for whatever reason that it chooses. The common reason is the difficulty in proving that the user and/or company has a valid licence to run a given piece of software on a computer in the possession of an employee. By limiting software to that directly licenced and supplied by the company, said company can (and should) have mechanisms to ensure that the computer is in lawful compliance with all related licences. Allowing employees to install their own software on the machine - even if lawful - can make it impossible for the company to prove that all of the software running on their computers was lawfully obtained and installed. It's the old story of not only *doing* the right thing, but also to *appear* to be doing the right thing. Sometimes you have to prove these things to a court, and it can get expensive (or even impossible) to show that all of the company's computers are running only licenced software. Setting a policy that prohibits software not owned/licenced by the company is a business decision. - Richard _______________________________________________ Tech mailing list Tech@lopsa.org http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
