15 ms·

Do you have 30k CHF pocket money?

87 points by bkolobara 11y ago

rasz_pl 11y ago
Lessons to learn from this: 1 CERN will fuck you over, do not count on them, and definitely do not go above and beyond to finish a job assigned by them 2 Use outbound firewall when using pirated software. Download said pirated software only from connections that cant be traced back to you. Learn about output files watermarking (for example IDA Pro watermarks everything). Good job CERN, prime blog post there, people skills so stronk!
StavrosK 11y ago
Wow, this post makes me angry and I don't know at whom. Is it the student's fault, who wanted to use the software he had legally licensed, but couldn't because of stupid licensing terms, or the company's fault for wanting to get paid for their software? I'm inclined to side with the student, I think. When I pay for stuff, I want to be free to use it in a reasonable manner, and restricting usage of the software on the specific computers the company likes is not reasonable.
- seivan 11y ago
  I might be wrong here, but from what I understood, he wanted to keep working with the simulation on his vacation? Ended up getting punished for it because of shitty license agreements. Again, I might have misunderstood.
  - StavrosK 11y ago
    That's my understanding as well. He had a license for the desktop but not the laptop.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      He had a license for use while at CERN, not while off the premise.
- sbuk 11y ago
  He hadn't legally licensed the software. The student is entirely at fault.
  - StavrosK 11y ago
    The University had given him a license, no?
    - svisser 11y ago
      Which the student didn't use - he used an invalid key and obtained the software using unofficial means.
      - at-fates-hands 11y ago
        Because the software license was restricted to use only in the lab. The student wanted to use it while he was travelling - not an unheard of use of software, and a reasonable expectation. This was OP's point. If I'm paying for a boatload of expensive licenses, why should I be limited to how and where I use the software? Makes no sense to me.
        danielweber 11y ago
        CERN licensed the software exactly that way. They aren't Joe Random User. They have a purchasing department that can negotiate back with the vendor.[1] Then the student wanted to override CERN's negotiation with the vendor. [1] http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRubberDuckies.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRubberDuckie...
    - masklinn 11y ago
      Not the university, CERN. As the article notes CERN's license pool is only for fixed computers (not roaming), the student wanted the software on their laptop so they went and downloaded a cracked version.
    - sbuk 11y ago
- dpcan 11y ago
  I think the only reason CERN was involved at all is because the student used an illegal version of the software to access their system. By going to CERN, they were able to track down the culprit, and that was the student, who essentially was the one who got hit with the bill.
chipgap98 11y ago
Yes the student fucked up, but CERN does have the 30k to spare, where as this student probably does not. Sure this is a good lesson to share, but also this is someone's life. They could have let the student go but still paid for it. Its the human thing to do
- nhstanley 11y ago
  Perhaps making the student share a portion of the cost would be smarter. Maybe make the student pay 5 or 10k or the 30. Alternatively, everyone could be adults and settle for a smaller, much more reasonable amount proportional to harm. Especially considering the company wasn't really harmed substantially by this since he did have access, just not on that machine.
- trymas 11y ago
  Even though CERN's budget is probably humongous, it does not mean it can spend 30k CHF (27.5k €, 30.5k $) left and right. As it is huge amount of cash. The best way to do is explain and negotiate with AllSIM. As I understood the student used pirated software for a very short period of time. If AllSIM are human, they will not charge CERN, or charge low fine (<1k €). Rules are rules, without obeying them, student compromised reputation of whole CERN, then his/hers university and finally himself. Probably CERN will not hire him and will not recommend to anybody else.
  - rfrey 11y ago
    "Rules are rules, without obeying them, student compromised reputation of whole CERN" An uncompromising "rules are rules" attitude for non life-threatening policy violations in an organization comprised of human beings is asinine. It is not the student who is damaging the reputation of CERN in this situation, it is CERN.
    - sbuk 11y ago
      No, it's the student. He is an adult and he has made a conscious decision. It was knowingly dishonest.
neo2001 11y ago
I am the only one who thinks CERN should ask AllSIM to fuck off?
- andkon 11y ago
  For real. This is something a single call to their AllSIM account manager should be able to fix.
- Maarten88 11y ago
  no
neo2001 11y ago
1. CERN is not doing the right thing. 2. Bragging about this in their blog should make CERN be fucking ashamed.
- vortico 11y ago
  It's not bragging, but warning others, I would guess.
  - neo2001 11y ago
    Warning about not to work when they are on holidays?
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - neo2001 11y ago
      Why you need facts, when you have a great imagination like me?
  - nosage 11y ago
    It does read a little too passive aggressive.
  - logicallee 11y ago
    It's literally bragging. The story's provocative lead ends with the words "Here is my story." as though told by the student, about an organization from hell. But it's not his story! The author is actually the bad guy! The thing that makes the experience hell is...him. He's just being a jerk, for numerous reasons. I hope he has $1 million lying around to contribute to cern's recruitment budget, because that's what his behavior costs as words of stories like this get around. Just read the comments here at HN. In what possible universe is a public blog post like this an appropriate reaction? The only one damaging CERN's reputation is this guy.
- masklinn 11y ago
  > CERN is not doing the right thing. What would "the right thing" be exactly? Nor enforcing their own rules, eating the costs of a student fucking up (when they didn't have to) and gaining the enmity of a software vendor?
ak2196 11y ago
This might in fact turn out to be one of the biggest, most expensive blunders by the company in question. Years later the tale is recalled - aggressive misguided legal department sends a C&D to one of the greatest projects in human civilization. Internet responds by hackers pooling in time and resources to build an alternative, superior, free solution that becomes the benchmark effectively putting the aforementioned vendor out of business. Poetic justice.
- nhstanley 11y ago
  Stuff like this often makes me consider writing an open source version of whatever the software is. If I really had to base my long-term livelihood off a piece of proprietary software, I wouldn't want to perpetually have such a sword hanging over my head. I work with many pieces of software where the core functionality is actually quite simple (more complex if you want nice features), and I'm actually doing this for one of them.
  - danielweber 11y ago
    Someone's making money selling software! Let's put them out of business!
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      Someone's using arguably overly aggressive copyright laws to squeeze someone for cash they couldn't possibly come up with! Let's debate the ethics of selling software! EDIT: The proper way to handle this would've been to say "Hey! Your site license doesn't cover this. Please don't do it again, as we depend on that license revenue to pay our bills to write great software."
      - masklinn 11y ago
        > The proper way to handle this would've been to say "Hey! Your site license doesn't cover this. Please don't do it again, as we depend on that license revenue to pay our bills to write great software." That's mostly the proper way to get people to not care and end up killing your business anyway.
meapix 11y ago
this is somebody's life, screw licensing.
cmenge 11y ago
I find the behavior of the software manufacturer rude and unacceptable. CERN is certainly not the type of company that screws you over or produces counterfeit copies for their own profit; 30kCHF is an outrageous claim. Sure, people using your software without a valid license is not cool. On the other hand, AllSIM didn't suffer any damages. Also, there are probably not that many potential customers in the world for AllSIM(TM). Maybe CERN should have used their power to make clear that this was the act of a naive student, and that a ridiculous fine could seriously impede the future business relation with CERN...
- masklinn 11y ago
  > I find the behavior of the software manufacturer rude and unacceptable. I've seen many photographers who ended up with the exact same behaviour because any other is a good way to get steamrolled. Infringement = infringement invoice, period, end of the story. > 30kCHF is an outrageous claim. Depending how the original license cost (for a roaming license too) is, not necessarily. An infringement invoice must be significantly higher than a regular license or there's no point to getting a license, you can just wait to be caught. Considering the kind of products we're talking about, licenses are probably in the 5k~10k range. A 3~5x infringement surcharge isn't outrageous. > On the other hand, AllSIM didn't suffer any damages. Somebody used their product unlicensed in a way not allowed by the licenses they had access to, that sounds like damages. > Also, there are probably not that many potential customers in the world for AllSIM(TM). On the other hand, there probably aren't that many potential replacements in the world for AllSIM. > Maybe CERN should have used their power to make clear that this was the act of a naive student, and that a ridiculous fine could seriously impede the future business relation with CERN… Why? CERN suffered no damages, they forwarded the invoice to the student.
  - toyg 11y ago
    > I've seen many photographers who ended up with the exact same behaviour Total different scale. One photographer vs thousands of infringers is different from team of lawyers vs one casual infringer which is also a good customer. > A 3~5x infringement surcharge isn't outrageous. We'll have to disagree there. The copyright industry is the only industry on earth using multiplicators as liberally as this, for "damages" that are very hard to prove in the first place. > CERN suffered no damages, they forwarded the invoice to the student. Yeah, and that's a dick move as well. The student clearly did wrong, but CERN might have had a responsibility by not monitoring what this student was doing (why did he have to install the software himself? Where was the sysadmin? Why is he allowed to use his own laptop? etc etc). They acted like Pilate, and that's not good in my book.
svdree 11y ago
This bulletin is obviously aimed at scaring others who were thinking of doing something similar. Still, it's a bit heavy handed, isn't it? No one was hurt, no damage was done, CERN responded immediately when notified, and it turned out to be a dumb student who fucked up. Give the dude a slap on the wrist, and let it go.
powertower 11y ago
In case anyone was also wondering, that's the Swiss Franc, and not a Chinese currency, and converts to about 30,800 US dollars. > As he was affiliated with a university, CERN passed all costs to them who, in turn, passed them on to the student. At first I thought that the software vendor was being unjustifiable. But if you think about it, the student was not just part of CERN, he was also (using the s/w) to work on a CERN project - so it does kind of all fall back into CERN's lap. Yet CERN passed the cost to the university, which passed the fine to the student?
- masklinn 11y ago
  > Yet they passed the cost to the university, which passed the fine to the student? CERN had a license pool available which the student didn't use, and the student most likely broke CERN's rules wrt licensed software. Why would CERN pay for a student's breach of their rules?
  - powertower 11y ago
    The way I look at it is that the licensing agreement, and penalty clauses, is totally between CERN and the software vendor, and not the particular student. Did the student sign some type of a indemnification agreement with CERN?
    - danielweber 11y ago
      +1. I don't support or defend the student's actions one bit, but the 30K was negotiated between CERN and the vendor. Fire him with a "not eligible for rehire note" in his HR file: fine. Make him the subject of orientation studies: great. Trying to get him to pay CERN's fine: sketchy.
- sbuk 11y ago
  The student chose to use unlicensed software. Not CERN.
  - brador 11y ago
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
stestagg 11y ago
The thing that angers me about this, is that the user could legally access this software from his Laptop, albeit over an inferior third-party interface. His choice was between accessing the software over a display proxy, and accessing the software locally. The provided functionality was essentially the same either way. I don't understand how this minor technical distinction should be worth 30 kCHF.
- danielweber 11y ago
  CERN had the option to negotiate for a traveling license and declined to do so. The fact that there was a technically inferior workaround means jack shit. Yes, it's technically inferior, that's why you should pay for the real thing. "A workaround to your licensing deal existed so I wasn't violating your licensing deal!" is nonsense.
  - stestagg 11y ago
    In which case, the remote desktop approach should not be allowed either. If you're going to have arbitrary "You can't use the software except at this location" clauses, then they should be applied consistently
    - danielweber 11y ago
      It's not "arbitrary." The contract didn't allow it. CERN didn't buy it. And even if it were "abritrary," the time to discuss that is when you are negotiating the software license with your vendor. This isn't shrinkwrap software being sold at ElBo under a clickwrap license. It's a sophisticated buyer who has a staff member dedicated to the job. You can tell "roaming license" was valuable because this student went to a warez site to get around it. The vendor likely charges more for it, and CERN didn't want to pay it, so CERN voluntarily left that functionality off the table. Then the student decided to overrule CERN's negotiating and the rules CERN had explicitly set out[1]. Oops. I don't get to decide the GPL is stupid and release modified software without source. [1] https://cern.ch//security/rules/en/index.shtml https://cern.ch//security/rules/en/index.shtml
    - 11y ago
yc1010 11y ago
My opinion of CERN has gone done a few notches after reading this bitchy blog post, this is some poor sap's life they have ruined for taking initiative around silly restrictions to get shit done. They should have contacted the software company in question and settled this, now both CERN and Allsim have a bad reputation and a student is deep in debt
- danielweber 11y ago
  "Hey, I was just trying to get work done, that's why I downloaded warez to bring into the secure computing facility." There's a lot of businesses where someone downloading and running shitware they find on the Internet can be a lot more expensive than 30K.
  - yc1010 11y ago
    The keyword here is CAN, no harm was done to CERN in this case that we know of. It makes for a toxic workplace once employees/students in a facility feel like they can be thrown under a bus by management, or worse purposefully made an example of. The whole approach here is destructive and makes me think that someone at CERN went on a power trip and is a real arsehole to work for.
    - danielweber 11y ago
      > no harm was done to CERN Yes it was. CERN's negotiated contracts were broken, triggering a 30K damage award. Just because it's "on paper" doesn't mean the damage isn't real. He could have done the same kind of damage if he had sexually harassed an underling.[1] I can say with very high confidence that "don't pirate software" is a key part of orientation at CERN, the same way as at most large companies. The student might not have known about the specifics of the contract (and he shouldn't pay the 30K), but it's not the company's responsibility to tell each and every idiot "here is why you obey our policies." It's the company's responsibility to tell each idiot "these rules are important to obey." [1] of course the student likely didn't have any reports
- NDizzle 11y ago
eitally 11y ago
This happens frequently at large corporations, where a design engineer uses either an educational or personal license on a corporate machine (or vice versa), either out of ignorance or simply because they want to work more flexibly than they'd otherwise be allowed. IT departments don't adequately educate about it, imho, and software companies are too heavy-handed in enforcement, but regardless of all this, the student was in the wrong here and absolutely knew better than to use a pirated license.
eitally 11y ago
This happens frequently at large corporations, where a design engineer uses either an educational or personal license on a corporate machine (or vice versa), either out of ignorance or simply because they want to work more flexibly than they'd otherwise be allowed. IT departments don't adequately educate about it, imho, and software companies are too heavy-handed in enforcement, but regardless of all this, the student was in the wrong here and absolutely knew better than to use a pirated license.
shanemhansen 11y ago
So much fail here. If someone is aware of the vendor's name please publish it here so that I can avoid doing business with them. The software company was within it's rights, but there's a big difference between what you're legally allowed to do when you detect a licence violation by a big customer and what you should do. You should attempt to preserve your company's good name at CERN and get the licensing situation fixed (by removing the extra copy or relicensing it). You should not try to go after a poor CERN student for 30k because he/she installed your software on the wrong computer despite having a valid license.
- charriu 11y ago
  I agree with most of your post. I don't think the license was valid for the laptop/roaming, however ("roaming usage is not covered by CERN's AllSIM licence").
  - giarc 11y ago
    The vendor should have looked at it another way. They should have thought to themselves "Looks like someone at CERN needs the roaming license, send over some sales people to convince CERN to upgrade their license to include roaming." They might have more than made up for the 30K fine they will collect.
    - danielweber 11y ago
      This is just a guess, but maybe -- just maybe -- the people who have been living and breathing this business for years understand it better than someone who learned about it 5 minutes ago on a web board.
      - giarc 11y ago
        I never claimed to know that anonymous business, but it doesn't take a genius to understand that good customer service doesn't include handing out a fine for 30K CHF, especially to world renowned, well respected research facility. Part of running a good business is looking for opportunity wherever it exists. The company can see the opportunity to squeeze 30K from a client, but when that license expires, the chance the customer goes a different direction is higher. Instead if you accept that it was a mistake, use it as an opportunity to expand the license, not only have you increased the revenue from that company, but you've also shown you are easy to work with, forgiving and therefore the customer is more likely to renew. I'll provide a very anecdotal story that happened to me. I once worked in a bar/kitchen and was paid under the table in cash each week. The owner would give me the cash in an envelope with the number of hours I worked. On a few occasions he would overpay me by $20 or so. Some may this as an opportunity to get an extra $20. Instead, I would go to my boss and say "Hey, you accidentally over paid me by $20" and hand him a $20. I can tell you that the respect and admiration I received for being honest, was worth way more than the $60 or so extra I would have received if I had just shut up and took the money. Moral of the story - look for the real opportunity, not the immediate payout (as the software vendor did with CERN).
petercooper 11y ago
Sure, Switzerland isn't in the EU but can companies really issue huge fines to other people there? Here in the UK I believe fines/penalties in civil situations can be restricted to the actual damage caused (?). I hope this ends up in court if Switzerland has similar rules. It seems like one of those situations where a company might legally be able to do something, but the ethics are uneasy.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  This type of thing is called speculative invoicing in the UK. CERN is throwing the student directly to the company. The student will probably be unable (financially) to fight the speculative invoice in court.
- roel_v 11y ago
  This is not a 'fine' in the legal sense, it's a (most likely) contractually agreed penalty for non-compliance with the licence terms, or otherwise a settlement proposal. This is most likely a no brainer, from a legal point of view (it's how pretty much all specialty licence deals are constructed) - as I'm sure CERN's in-house councel has advised. There is a reason this sort of thing is covered during orientation training. Sure, many people (especially those new to the real world like students) roll their eyes at it and think it's all just a bunch of mumbo jumbo; and OK, usually in practice it's not as strict as it seems at first, but that doesn't mean it's any less real.
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    In many European countries many software licenses are worthless. Similarly such penalty clauses have no legal weight. This is likely to be far from a legal "no brainer".
    - roel_v 11y ago
      Pray tell in what country whatsoftware licenses are 'worthless'. Because they're contracts like any other, and parties are free to contract anything they want (bar illegal things, which a penalty clause certainly isn't) anywhere in Europe. And yes I do have a law degree.
teddyh 11y ago
The so-called freedom that software authors have to choose a software license is in reality not a freedom, but a controlling power over other people – the users of said software. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.en.html
peterclary 11y ago
"the student has not only placed the Organization's reputation at risk" Not nearly as much as posting about it on a publicly-accessible blog.
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
I don't mean to be zealous, but I'll be honest. Why don't research organizations and international conventions have strict policies of using only free (as in freedom) software? I think this is a cautionary tale right here of why it's important. The licensing pitfalls of violating proprietary terms are so much higher stake.
- masklinn 11y ago
  > Why don't research organizations and international conventions have strict policies of using only free (as in freedom) software? What are they to do when no such "free software" package exists? Stop research? Spend years trying to build one when there's a known industrial package available off the shelf?
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    Isn't that already the reality for plenty of commercial enterprises, where certain licenses are avoided like the plague? Licensing is an unfortunate form of yak shaving that everyone must get around. Considering the alternative is conducting research on top of intrinsically obscurantist proprietary software, the trade-off might well be worth it.
    - danielweber 11y ago
      There are adults who want to get their job done and don't care about your feelings about free software. 30K is chump change as far as CERN's software budget is concerned and is not going to make them give up on commercial software. Also, because I can anticipate the response: just because 30K is not worth giving up on commercial software, it doesn't mean they shouldn't try to fix the user fuckup that cost them 30K.
      - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
        The only one invoking "feelings" here is you alone, and it implies to me you're the one who is most susceptible to them here. If you have some vendetta against free software, then leave it out for now. The question of how one reconciles obscurantist practices with the scientific method remains open.
toyg 11y ago
CERN should have told AllSIM to go pound sand on "indemnity"; just pay the difference between the license they have and the one they need, even just in kind (losing a couple of users). This under threat of losing CERN forever as a customer. I bet AllSIM would have relented: 30k CHF won't pay three weeks of lawyer fees, nor will they make up for years of CERN business. That was the right thing to do, not washing their hands of it and crucifixing a kid. Unfortunate things happen all the time in business, real men deal with it with fairness. This is despicable behaviour.
goodcanadian 11y ago
WTF? The student was wrong. He had access to a legal copy through CERN, but instead, he used a pirated copy. Not only is that legally wrong, it is bizarre. The company was wrong. They are not a law enforcement agency. They have no right to demand a fine of CHF30000 be paid. At best, they can send a cease and desist. If they believe significant damages have occurred, they can sue. CERN was wrong to pay the fine and pass it on to the student. For one, they had a site license. For another, after investigating, they found it to be the stupid act of a naive student who, I am sure, has learned his lesson by now. However, it was no skin off their back to pay up and pass it on. They should have refused to pay the fine and participated in coming to an amicable settlement between all parties involved.
- masklinn 11y ago
  > The company was wrong. […] They have no right to demand a fine of CHF30000 be paid. The company has every right to send a speculative or infringement invoice, the infringing party also has every right to ignore said invoice and try their chance in court. > For one, they had a site license. Which didn't cover the student's usage. > For another, after investigating, they found it to be the stupid act of a naive student who had likely breached CERN policy and was possibly a hazard to CERN's computer systems.
  - goodcanadian 11y ago
    The company has every right to send an infringement invoice, the infringing party also has every right to ignore said invoice and try their chance in court. They have every right to send a notice as I said, myself. It is the fine that I believe is unreasonable regardless of whether it is explicitly part of CERN's contract with the company. Which didn't cover the student's usage. No, but then, it wasn't CERN who downloaded and used a pirated copy, was it? had likely breached CERN policy and was possibly a hazard to CERN's computer systems. They said flat out that he violated their computing policy, so they can take away his computing privileges, but paying a CHF30K "fine" and sending him the bill?
leni536 11y ago
Was the company in question legally right? Probably (I'm not a lawyer). Was this a dick move? Totally. Did this move makes them any long term benefit? I don't think so. I think they lose this short term 30k CHF in long term by harmed reputation. So in the end everybody loses.
ifdefdebug 11y ago
You don't take a binary blob from a dubious website and install it onto a company machine, and if it was his own laptop, then you don't use such a blob to produce another blob and install that on your company's machine. That's such a damn stupid thing to to in so many ways. The IT security department has all the reasons to be angry, much worse could have happened than triggering some company's license monitoring system. Having said that, I hope they are going to let go on the student with that 30k.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
cx201 11y ago
CERN should try to mediate between the software company and the student. The high fine of 30k was probably set because the company thought CERN was violating their licensing. For an institution or large company the size of CERN, 30k might be a justifiable fine. If the company knew the infringement was done by a single student, they probably would not have set such a high fine. Also, I doubt 30k would hold up in court as a reasonable fine, given that the student had access to the software anyway. Although him downloading the software illegaly shows some criminal energy. But maybe I'm wrong and the company knowingly fined 30k for the single person's license infringement and CERN tried to avert that. Would be nice to know some more details.
honest_joe 11y ago
Can't believe so many communist,hippie OSS terrorists are out there. According to these zealots no software can be monetized you either have to give away everything for free or stick a few Ads here and there and it does not matter you earn only 10$ a year because the software is highly specialized and there is not zillions of people clicking on these ADs (also the 90% have Ad blocking SW).
t0mbstone 11y ago
I'm confused. If CERN has the licenses, and the student is covered under that usage case, why wouldn't their license rights apply to the software that the student was using (regardless of where they got the the binary installation or whether it had a crack). The software has still been paid for, so why wouldn't the software company allow it? It sounds like the software company is exploiting a technicality in their licensing terms, for no real reason other than greed?
- danielweber 11y ago
  So my neighbor has a book in his house I want to read. He didn't want the book out of his house. So we both got legal counsel and negotiated a contract that I paid him an amount of money and I could read the book inside his house. He also put a damages clause in the contract because for some reason people have violated his stupid rule. Well, pretty soon I wanted to read the book outside. Oh, but the rule. But wait, I had him outsmarted! I put the book on table in the house next to a window, and then I could read the book while outside. Wait, this is stupid. Why am I reading a book through the window? I'll just pull the book out through the window and read it there. WTF, my neighbor now says I violated the contract? I've triggered the damages clause of the contract I vountarily agreed to? All I did was move a book three feet through a window! I had a contract that I could read it!! I THOUGHT THIS WAS AMERICA!!!

87 points by bkolobara 11y ago

Lessons to learn from this: 1 CERN will fuck you over, do not count on them, and definitely do not go above and beyond to finish a job assigned by them 2 Use outbound firewall when using pirated software. Download said pirated software only from connections that cant be traced back to you. Learn about output files watermarking (for example IDA Pro watermarks everything). Good job CERN, prime blog post there, people skills so stronk!

StavrosK 11y ago

Wow, this post makes me angry and I don't know at whom. Is it the student's fault, who wanted to use the software he had legally licensed, but couldn't because of stupid licensing terms, or the company's fault for wanting to get paid for their software? I'm inclined to side with the student, I think. When I pay for stuff, I want to be free to use it in a reasonable manner, and restricting usage of the software on the specific computers the company likes is not reasonable.

seivan 11y ago
I might be wrong here, but from what I understood, he wanted to keep working with the simulation on his vacation? Ended up getting punished for it because of shitty license agreements. Again, I might have misunderstood.
- StavrosK 11y ago
  That's my understanding as well. He had a license for the desktop but not the laptop.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    He had a license for use while at CERN, not while off the premise.
sbuk 11y ago
He hadn't legally licensed the software. The student is entirely at fault.
- StavrosK 11y ago
  The University had given him a license, no?
  - svisser 11y ago
    Which the student didn't use - he used an invalid key and obtained the software using unofficial means.
    - at-fates-hands 11y ago
      Because the software license was restricted to use only in the lab. The student wanted to use it while he was travelling - not an unheard of use of software, and a reasonable expectation. This was OP's point. If I'm paying for a boatload of expensive licenses, why should I be limited to how and where I use the software? Makes no sense to me.
      - danielweber 11y ago
        CERN licensed the software exactly that way. They aren't Joe Random User. They have a purchasing department that can negotiate back with the vendor.[1] Then the student wanted to override CERN's negotiation with the vendor. [1] http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRubberDuckies.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRubberDuckie...
  - masklinn 11y ago
    Not the university, CERN. As the article notes CERN's license pool is only for fixed computers (not roaming), the student wanted the software on their laptop so they went and downloaded a cracked version.
  - sbuk 11y ago
dpcan 11y ago
I think the only reason CERN was involved at all is because the student used an illegal version of the software to access their system. By going to CERN, they were able to track down the culprit, and that was the student, who essentially was the one who got hit with the bill.

chipgap98 11y ago

Yes the student fucked up, but CERN does have the 30k to spare, where as this student probably does not. Sure this is a good lesson to share, but also this is someone's life. They could have let the student go but still paid for it. Its the human thing to do

nhstanley 11y ago
Perhaps making the student share a portion of the cost would be smarter. Maybe make the student pay 5 or 10k or the 30. Alternatively, everyone could be adults and settle for a smaller, much more reasonable amount proportional to harm. Especially considering the company wasn't really harmed substantially by this since he did have access, just not on that machine.
trymas 11y ago
Even though CERN's budget is probably humongous, it does not mean it can spend 30k CHF (27.5k €, 30.5k $) left and right. As it is huge amount of cash. The best way to do is explain and negotiate with AllSIM. As I understood the student used pirated software for a very short period of time. If AllSIM are human, they will not charge CERN, or charge low fine (<1k €). Rules are rules, without obeying them, student compromised reputation of whole CERN, then his/hers university and finally himself. Probably CERN will not hire him and will not recommend to anybody else.
- rfrey 11y ago
  "Rules are rules, without obeying them, student compromised reputation of whole CERN" An uncompromising "rules are rules" attitude for non life-threatening policy violations in an organization comprised of human beings is asinine. It is not the student who is damaging the reputation of CERN in this situation, it is CERN.
  - sbuk 11y ago
    No, it's the student. He is an adult and he has made a conscious decision. It was knowingly dishonest.

neo2001 11y ago

I am the only one who thinks CERN should ask AllSIM to fuck off?

andkon 11y ago
For real. This is something a single call to their AllSIM account manager should be able to fix.
Maarten88 11y ago
no

neo2001 11y ago

1. CERN is not doing the right thing. 2. Bragging about this in their blog should make CERN be fucking ashamed.

vortico 11y ago
It's not bragging, but warning others, I would guess.
- neo2001 11y ago
  Warning about not to work when they are on holidays?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - neo2001 11y ago
    Why you need facts, when you have a great imagination like me?
- nosage 11y ago
  It does read a little too passive aggressive.
- logicallee 11y ago
  It's literally bragging. The story's provocative lead ends with the words "Here is my story." as though told by the student, about an organization from hell. But it's not his story! The author is actually the bad guy! The thing that makes the experience hell is...him. He's just being a jerk, for numerous reasons. I hope he has $1 million lying around to contribute to cern's recruitment budget, because that's what his behavior costs as words of stories like this get around. Just read the comments here at HN. In what possible universe is a public blog post like this an appropriate reaction? The only one damaging CERN's reputation is this guy.
masklinn 11y ago
> CERN is not doing the right thing. What would "the right thing" be exactly? Nor enforcing their own rules, eating the costs of a student fucking up (when they didn't have to) and gaining the enmity of a software vendor?

ak2196 11y ago

This might in fact turn out to be one of the biggest, most expensive blunders by the company in question. Years later the tale is recalled - aggressive misguided legal department sends a C&D to one of the greatest projects in human civilization. Internet responds by hackers pooling in time and resources to build an alternative, superior, free solution that becomes the benchmark effectively putting the aforementioned vendor out of business. Poetic justice.

nhstanley 11y ago
Stuff like this often makes me consider writing an open source version of whatever the software is. If I really had to base my long-term livelihood off a piece of proprietary software, I wouldn't want to perpetually have such a sword hanging over my head. I work with many pieces of software where the core functionality is actually quite simple (more complex if you want nice features), and I'm actually doing this for one of them.
- danielweber 11y ago
  Someone's making money selling software! Let's put them out of business!
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    Someone's using arguably overly aggressive copyright laws to squeeze someone for cash they couldn't possibly come up with! Let's debate the ethics of selling software! EDIT: The proper way to handle this would've been to say "Hey! Your site license doesn't cover this. Please don't do it again, as we depend on that license revenue to pay our bills to write great software."
    - masklinn 11y ago
      > The proper way to handle this would've been to say "Hey! Your site license doesn't cover this. Please don't do it again, as we depend on that license revenue to pay our bills to write great software." That's mostly the proper way to get people to not care and end up killing your business anyway.

meapix 11y ago

this is somebody's life, screw licensing.

cmenge 11y ago

I find the behavior of the software manufacturer rude and unacceptable. CERN is certainly not the type of company that screws you over or produces counterfeit copies for their own profit; 30kCHF is an outrageous claim. Sure, people using your software without a valid license is not cool. On the other hand, AllSIM didn't suffer any damages. Also, there are probably not that many potential customers in the world for AllSIM(TM). Maybe CERN should have used their power to make clear that this was the act of a naive student, and that a ridiculous fine could seriously impede the future business relation with CERN...

masklinn 11y ago
> I find the behavior of the software manufacturer rude and unacceptable. I've seen many photographers who ended up with the exact same behaviour because any other is a good way to get steamrolled. Infringement = infringement invoice, period, end of the story. > 30kCHF is an outrageous claim. Depending how the original license cost (for a roaming license too) is, not necessarily. An infringement invoice must be significantly higher than a regular license or there's no point to getting a license, you can just wait to be caught. Considering the kind of products we're talking about, licenses are probably in the 5k~10k range. A 3~5x infringement surcharge isn't outrageous. > On the other hand, AllSIM didn't suffer any damages. Somebody used their product unlicensed in a way not allowed by the licenses they had access to, that sounds like damages. > Also, there are probably not that many potential customers in the world for AllSIM(TM). On the other hand, there probably aren't that many potential replacements in the world for AllSIM. > Maybe CERN should have used their power to make clear that this was the act of a naive student, and that a ridiculous fine could seriously impede the future business relation with CERN… Why? CERN suffered no damages, they forwarded the invoice to the student.
- toyg 11y ago
  > I've seen many photographers who ended up with the exact same behaviour Total different scale. One photographer vs thousands of infringers is different from team of lawyers vs one casual infringer which is also a good customer. > A 3~5x infringement surcharge isn't outrageous. We'll have to disagree there. The copyright industry is the only industry on earth using multiplicators as liberally as this, for "damages" that are very hard to prove in the first place. > CERN suffered no damages, they forwarded the invoice to the student. Yeah, and that's a dick move as well. The student clearly did wrong, but CERN might have had a responsibility by not monitoring what this student was doing (why did he have to install the software himself? Where was the sysadmin? Why is he allowed to use his own laptop? etc etc). They acted like Pilate, and that's not good in my book.

svdree 11y ago

This bulletin is obviously aimed at scaring others who were thinking of doing something similar. Still, it's a bit heavy handed, isn't it? No one was hurt, no damage was done, CERN responded immediately when notified, and it turned out to be a dumb student who fucked up. Give the dude a slap on the wrist, and let it go.

powertower 11y ago

In case anyone was also wondering, that's the Swiss Franc, and not a Chinese currency, and converts to about 30,800 US dollars. > As he was affiliated with a university, CERN passed all costs to them who, in turn, passed them on to the student. At first I thought that the software vendor was being unjustifiable. But if you think about it, the student was not just part of CERN, he was also (using the s/w) to work on a CERN project - so it does kind of all fall back into CERN's lap. Yet CERN passed the cost to the university, which passed the fine to the student?

masklinn 11y ago
> Yet they passed the cost to the university, which passed the fine to the student? CERN had a license pool available which the student didn't use, and the student most likely broke CERN's rules wrt licensed software. Why would CERN pay for a student's breach of their rules?
- powertower 11y ago
  The way I look at it is that the licensing agreement, and penalty clauses, is totally between CERN and the software vendor, and not the particular student. Did the student sign some type of a indemnification agreement with CERN?
  - danielweber 11y ago
    +1. I don't support or defend the student's actions one bit, but the 30K was negotiated between CERN and the vendor. Fire him with a "not eligible for rehire note" in his HR file: fine. Make him the subject of orientation studies: great. Trying to get him to pay CERN's fine: sketchy.
sbuk 11y ago
The student chose to use unlicensed software. Not CERN.
- brador 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

stestagg 11y ago

The thing that angers me about this, is that the user could legally access this software from his Laptop, albeit over an inferior third-party interface. His choice was between accessing the software over a display proxy, and accessing the software locally. The provided functionality was essentially the same either way. I don't understand how this minor technical distinction should be worth 30 kCHF.

danielweber 11y ago
CERN had the option to negotiate for a traveling license and declined to do so. The fact that there was a technically inferior workaround means jack shit. Yes, it's technically inferior, that's why you should pay for the real thing. "A workaround to your licensing deal existed so I wasn't violating your licensing deal!" is nonsense.
- stestagg 11y ago
  In which case, the remote desktop approach should not be allowed either. If you're going to have arbitrary "You can't use the software except at this location" clauses, then they should be applied consistently
  - danielweber 11y ago
    It's not "arbitrary." The contract didn't allow it. CERN didn't buy it. And even if it were "abritrary," the time to discuss that is when you are negotiating the software license with your vendor. This isn't shrinkwrap software being sold at ElBo under a clickwrap license. It's a sophisticated buyer who has a staff member dedicated to the job. You can tell "roaming license" was valuable because this student went to a warez site to get around it. The vendor likely charges more for it, and CERN didn't want to pay it, so CERN voluntarily left that functionality off the table. Then the student decided to overrule CERN's negotiating and the rules CERN had explicitly set out[1]. Oops. I don't get to decide the GPL is stupid and release modified software without source. [1] https://cern.ch//security/rules/en/index.shtml https://cern.ch//security/rules/en/index.shtml
  - 11y ago

yc1010 11y ago

My opinion of CERN has gone done a few notches after reading this bitchy blog post, this is some poor sap's life they have ruined for taking initiative around silly restrictions to get shit done. They should have contacted the software company in question and settled this, now both CERN and Allsim have a bad reputation and a student is deep in debt

danielweber 11y ago
"Hey, I was just trying to get work done, that's why I downloaded warez to bring into the secure computing facility." There's a lot of businesses where someone downloading and running shitware they find on the Internet can be a lot more expensive than 30K.
- yc1010 11y ago
  The keyword here is CAN, no harm was done to CERN in this case that we know of. It makes for a toxic workplace once employees/students in a facility feel like they can be thrown under a bus by management, or worse purposefully made an example of. The whole approach here is destructive and makes me think that someone at CERN went on a power trip and is a real arsehole to work for.
  - danielweber 11y ago
    > no harm was done to CERN Yes it was. CERN's negotiated contracts were broken, triggering a 30K damage award. Just because it's "on paper" doesn't mean the damage isn't real. He could have done the same kind of damage if he had sexually harassed an underling.[1] I can say with very high confidence that "don't pirate software" is a key part of orientation at CERN, the same way as at most large companies. The student might not have known about the specifics of the contract (and he shouldn't pay the 30K), but it's not the company's responsibility to tell each and every idiot "here is why you obey our policies." It's the company's responsibility to tell each idiot "these rules are important to obey." [1] of course the student likely didn't have any reports
NDizzle 11y ago

eitally 11y ago

This happens frequently at large corporations, where a design engineer uses either an educational or personal license on a corporate machine (or vice versa), either out of ignorance or simply because they want to work more flexibly than they'd otherwise be allowed. IT departments don't adequately educate about it, imho, and software companies are too heavy-handed in enforcement, but regardless of all this, the student was in the wrong here and absolutely knew better than to use a pirated license.

eitally 11y ago

shanemhansen 11y ago

So much fail here. If someone is aware of the vendor's name please publish it here so that I can avoid doing business with them. The software company was within it's rights, but there's a big difference between what you're legally allowed to do when you detect a licence violation by a big customer and what you should do. You should attempt to preserve your company's good name at CERN and get the licensing situation fixed (by removing the extra copy or relicensing it). You should not try to go after a poor CERN student for 30k because he/she installed your software on the wrong computer despite having a valid license.

charriu 11y ago
I agree with most of your post. I don't think the license was valid for the laptop/roaming, however ("roaming usage is not covered by CERN's AllSIM licence").
- giarc 11y ago
  The vendor should have looked at it another way. They should have thought to themselves "Looks like someone at CERN needs the roaming license, send over some sales people to convince CERN to upgrade their license to include roaming." They might have more than made up for the 30K fine they will collect.
  - danielweber 11y ago
    This is just a guess, but maybe -- just maybe -- the people who have been living and breathing this business for years understand it better than someone who learned about it 5 minutes ago on a web board.
    - giarc 11y ago
      I never claimed to know that anonymous business, but it doesn't take a genius to understand that good customer service doesn't include handing out a fine for 30K CHF, especially to world renowned, well respected research facility. Part of running a good business is looking for opportunity wherever it exists. The company can see the opportunity to squeeze 30K from a client, but when that license expires, the chance the customer goes a different direction is higher. Instead if you accept that it was a mistake, use it as an opportunity to expand the license, not only have you increased the revenue from that company, but you've also shown you are easy to work with, forgiving and therefore the customer is more likely to renew. I'll provide a very anecdotal story that happened to me. I once worked in a bar/kitchen and was paid under the table in cash each week. The owner would give me the cash in an envelope with the number of hours I worked. On a few occasions he would overpay me by $20 or so. Some may this as an opportunity to get an extra $20. Instead, I would go to my boss and say "Hey, you accidentally over paid me by $20" and hand him a $20. I can tell you that the respect and admiration I received for being honest, was worth way more than the $60 or so extra I would have received if I had just shut up and took the money. Moral of the story - look for the real opportunity, not the immediate payout (as the software vendor did with CERN).

petercooper 11y ago

Sure, Switzerland isn't in the EU but can companies really issue huge fines to other people there? Here in the UK I believe fines/penalties in civil situations can be restricted to the actual damage caused (?). I hope this ends up in court if Switzerland has similar rules. It seems like one of those situations where a company might legally be able to do something, but the ethics are uneasy.

JupiterMoon 11y ago
This type of thing is called speculative invoicing in the UK. CERN is throwing the student directly to the company. The student will probably be unable (financially) to fight the speculative invoice in court.
roel_v 11y ago
This is not a 'fine' in the legal sense, it's a (most likely) contractually agreed penalty for non-compliance with the licence terms, or otherwise a settlement proposal. This is most likely a no brainer, from a legal point of view (it's how pretty much all specialty licence deals are constructed) - as I'm sure CERN's in-house councel has advised. There is a reason this sort of thing is covered during orientation training. Sure, many people (especially those new to the real world like students) roll their eyes at it and think it's all just a bunch of mumbo jumbo; and OK, usually in practice it's not as strict as it seems at first, but that doesn't mean it's any less real.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  In many European countries many software licenses are worthless. Similarly such penalty clauses have no legal weight. This is likely to be far from a legal "no brainer".
  - roel_v 11y ago
    Pray tell in what country whatsoftware licenses are 'worthless'. Because they're contracts like any other, and parties are free to contract anything they want (bar illegal things, which a penalty clause certainly isn't) anywhere in Europe. And yes I do have a law degree.

teddyh 11y ago

The so-called freedom that software authors have to choose a software license is in reality not a freedom, but a controlling power over other people – the users of said software. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.en.html

peterclary 11y ago

"the student has not only placed the Organization's reputation at risk" Not nearly as much as posting about it on a publicly-accessible blog.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

I don't mean to be zealous, but I'll be honest. Why don't research organizations and international conventions have strict policies of using only free (as in freedom) software? I think this is a cautionary tale right here of why it's important. The licensing pitfalls of violating proprietary terms are so much higher stake.

masklinn 11y ago
> Why don't research organizations and international conventions have strict policies of using only free (as in freedom) software? What are they to do when no such "free software" package exists? Stop research? Spend years trying to build one when there's a known industrial package available off the shelf?
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  Isn't that already the reality for plenty of commercial enterprises, where certain licenses are avoided like the plague? Licensing is an unfortunate form of yak shaving that everyone must get around. Considering the alternative is conducting research on top of intrinsically obscurantist proprietary software, the trade-off might well be worth it.
  - danielweber 11y ago
    There are adults who want to get their job done and don't care about your feelings about free software. 30K is chump change as far as CERN's software budget is concerned and is not going to make them give up on commercial software. Also, because I can anticipate the response: just because 30K is not worth giving up on commercial software, it doesn't mean they shouldn't try to fix the user fuckup that cost them 30K.
    - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
      The only one invoking "feelings" here is you alone, and it implies to me you're the one who is most susceptible to them here. If you have some vendetta against free software, then leave it out for now. The question of how one reconciles obscurantist practices with the scientific method remains open.

toyg 11y ago

CERN should have told AllSIM to go pound sand on "indemnity"; just pay the difference between the license they have and the one they need, even just in kind (losing a couple of users). This under threat of losing CERN forever as a customer. I bet AllSIM would have relented: 30k CHF won't pay three weeks of lawyer fees, nor will they make up for years of CERN business. That was the right thing to do, not washing their hands of it and crucifixing a kid. Unfortunate things happen all the time in business, real men deal with it with fairness. This is despicable behaviour.

goodcanadian 11y ago

WTF? The student was wrong. He had access to a legal copy through CERN, but instead, he used a pirated copy. Not only is that legally wrong, it is bizarre. The company was wrong. They are not a law enforcement agency. They have no right to demand a fine of CHF30000 be paid. At best, they can send a cease and desist. If they believe significant damages have occurred, they can sue. CERN was wrong to pay the fine and pass it on to the student. For one, they had a site license. For another, after investigating, they found it to be the stupid act of a naive student who, I am sure, has learned his lesson by now. However, it was no skin off their back to pay up and pass it on. They should have refused to pay the fine and participated in coming to an amicable settlement between all parties involved.

masklinn 11y ago
> The company was wrong. […] They have no right to demand a fine of CHF30000 be paid. The company has every right to send a speculative or infringement invoice, the infringing party also has every right to ignore said invoice and try their chance in court. > For one, they had a site license. Which didn't cover the student's usage. > For another, after investigating, they found it to be the stupid act of a naive student who had likely breached CERN policy and was possibly a hazard to CERN's computer systems.
- goodcanadian 11y ago
  The company has every right to send an infringement invoice, the infringing party also has every right to ignore said invoice and try their chance in court. They have every right to send a notice as I said, myself. It is the fine that I believe is unreasonable regardless of whether it is explicitly part of CERN's contract with the company. Which didn't cover the student's usage. No, but then, it wasn't CERN who downloaded and used a pirated copy, was it? had likely breached CERN policy and was possibly a hazard to CERN's computer systems. They said flat out that he violated their computing policy, so they can take away his computing privileges, but paying a CHF30K "fine" and sending him the bill?

leni536 11y ago

Was the company in question legally right? Probably (I'm not a lawyer). Was this a dick move? Totally. Did this move makes them any long term benefit? I don't think so. I think they lose this short term 30k CHF in long term by harmed reputation. So in the end everybody loses.

ifdefdebug 11y ago

You don't take a binary blob from a dubious website and install it onto a company machine, and if it was his own laptop, then you don't use such a blob to produce another blob and install that on your company's machine. That's such a damn stupid thing to to in so many ways. The IT security department has all the reasons to be angry, much worse could have happened than triggering some company's license monitoring system. Having said that, I hope they are going to let go on the student with that 30k.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

cx201 11y ago

CERN should try to mediate between the software company and the student. The high fine of 30k was probably set because the company thought CERN was violating their licensing. For an institution or large company the size of CERN, 30k might be a justifiable fine. If the company knew the infringement was done by a single student, they probably would not have set such a high fine. Also, I doubt 30k would hold up in court as a reasonable fine, given that the student had access to the software anyway. Although him downloading the software illegaly shows some criminal energy. But maybe I'm wrong and the company knowingly fined 30k for the single person's license infringement and CERN tried to avert that. Would be nice to know some more details.

honest_joe 11y ago

Can't believe so many communist,hippie OSS terrorists are out there. According to these zealots no software can be monetized you either have to give away everything for free or stick a few Ads here and there and it does not matter you earn only 10$ a year because the software is highly specialized and there is not zillions of people clicking on these ADs (also the 90% have Ad blocking SW).

t0mbstone 11y ago

I'm confused. If CERN has the licenses, and the student is covered under that usage case, why wouldn't their license rights apply to the software that the student was using (regardless of where they got the the binary installation or whether it had a crack). The software has still been paid for, so why wouldn't the software company allow it? It sounds like the software company is exploiting a technicality in their licensing terms, for no real reason other than greed?

danielweber 11y ago
So my neighbor has a book in his house I want to read. He didn't want the book out of his house. So we both got legal counsel and negotiated a contract that I paid him an amount of money and I could read the book inside his house. He also put a damages clause in the contract because for some reason people have violated his stupid rule. Well, pretty soon I wanted to read the book outside. Oh, but the rule. But wait, I had him outsmarted! I put the book on table in the house next to a window, and then I could read the book while outside. Wait, this is stupid. Why am I reading a book through the window? I'll just pull the book out through the window and read it there. WTF, my neighbor now says I violated the contract? I've triggered the damages clause of the contract I vountarily agreed to? All I did was move a book three feet through a window! I had a contract that I could read it!! I THOUGHT THIS WAS AMERICA!!!