8 ms·

He hadn't legally licensed the software. The student is entirely at fault.

by sbuk 11y ago

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
  No. CERN were covered by a site license. FTFA; But our student failed to download AllSIM from DFS onto his office PC, since that wasn’t where he wanted to use it. He wanted to install it on his laptop so that he could work on his simulation while travelling. However, the CERN AllSIM installation would not allow for this, as roaming usage is not covered by CERN's AllSIM licence. The student had a need and was not willing to compromise i.e. by using the Windows Terminal Service. Instead, he used Google and quickly found AllSIM for free on a dubious website. Three clicks later, he was ready to go. For convenience, the student essentially stole the license.
  - gutnor 11y ago
    The student didn't steal the license. He misused the license. The license for his usage existed in the pool - it is only a combination of CERN security policies and the company licensing check limitation of their product that prevented proper identification and therefore infringement. Sure there is violation, but the elephant in the room here is that a license was available and paid for so the company producing the software had been compensated. We are not in the grey area "but I would not have bought it anyway" where "stealing" could somewhat apply.
    - sbuk 11y ago
      No, he stole it. He went to a website, not under CERNs jurisdiction and downloaded a cracked copy of the software thereby circumventing the license and using the software unlawfully. No pachyderms present anywhere. It really is that simple.
      - gutnor 11y ago
        > It really is that simple. If you want to be pedantic - then no it is not that simple. The student is in license infringement, copyright violation, contract with CERN violation, ... but has not stolen anything. But yes, he need to pay for those "crimes". That's what the 30K fine is for ? Nope the 30K is just an agreed payment between the CERN and the Company for the discovery of his infringement. That money will charged back to the University thanks to another agreement and only then is going to be charged to him. The "theft" will go unpunished in the eye of the law. The student fucked up - that part is simple. Everything else that leads to him having to pay 30K is anything but simple. Considering the context described in the blog it involves a lot of bad faith from the company and the CERN.
tomp 11y ago
But not for 30k. I doubt a court would award this much in damages if he was sued. Even before that, I don't think CERN is justified in releasing his identity (edit: I mean, the identity of the student to the software vendor for them to sue).
- seszett 11y ago
  His identity has not been released.
- sbuk 11y ago
  They haven't released his identity. RFTA. EDIT; I agree entirely that CHF30000 is way over the top, but if that is a negotiated figure, then he owes it.
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    Nope. He/she did not negotiate it. The company is speculatively invoicing CERN. CERN are attempting (with dubious legality) to pass it to a University who are attempting (with extremely dubious legality) to pass it to a student. The student should call his/her lawyer asap and should certainly not pay this demand without forcing all the parties to actually undergo some due process.
    - sbuk 11y ago
      I think it is safe to assume that HE knowingly and wilfully breached his contract with CERN. again TFA states that, and I quote, "Understandably, the student was shocked when we investigated the case and he was forced to acknowledge the facts." The student has wilfully broken the law. Due process has clearly been undertaken. Again, RTFA.
      - JupiterMoon 11y ago
        She should never have acknowledged the 'facts'. She should have called her lawyer. She should also point out that she was under pressure to get stuff done and was under the impression that she had a licence to use the product. Due process implies a legal process not a random invoice and several large organisations charging an individual an arbitrary amount.
gutnor 11y ago
He used it only under the scope of his work and the company contracting the work had the necessary seat in pool to cover for the student license. So the student is only technically at fault in the same way as you are technically trespassing when you sneaked behind your colleague that day your forgot your badge. The reason the company was able to extort ( I think that's the only appropriate term here ) 30K is because of the enormous B2B corporate administration will process this issue routinely rather than using common sense. As a European tax payer that is not the behavior of a company I want my tax money to fund.
- _Simon 11y ago
  Nope. Read the opening paragraph again.

He hadn't legally licensed the software. The student is entirely at fault.

by 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
No. CERN were covered by a site license. FTFA; But our student failed to download AllSIM from DFS onto his office PC, since that wasn’t where he wanted to use it. He wanted to install it on his laptop so that he could work on his simulation while travelling. However, the CERN AllSIM installation would not allow for this, as roaming usage is not covered by CERN's AllSIM licence. The student had a need and was not willing to compromise i.e. by using the Windows Terminal Service. Instead, he used Google and quickly found AllSIM for free on a dubious website. Three clicks later, he was ready to go. For convenience, the student essentially stole the license.
- gutnor 11y ago
  The student didn't steal the license. He misused the license. The license for his usage existed in the pool - it is only a combination of CERN security policies and the company licensing check limitation of their product that prevented proper identification and therefore infringement. Sure there is violation, but the elephant in the room here is that a license was available and paid for so the company producing the software had been compensated. We are not in the grey area "but I would not have bought it anyway" where "stealing" could somewhat apply.
  - sbuk 11y ago
    No, he stole it. He went to a website, not under CERNs jurisdiction and downloaded a cracked copy of the software thereby circumventing the license and using the software unlawfully. No pachyderms present anywhere. It really is that simple.
    - gutnor 11y ago
      > It really is that simple. If you want to be pedantic - then no it is not that simple. The student is in license infringement, copyright violation, contract with CERN violation, ... but has not stolen anything. But yes, he need to pay for those "crimes". That's what the 30K fine is for ? Nope the 30K is just an agreed payment between the CERN and the Company for the discovery of his infringement. That money will charged back to the University thanks to another agreement and only then is going to be charged to him. The "theft" will go unpunished in the eye of the law. The student fucked up - that part is simple. Everything else that leads to him having to pay 30K is anything but simple. Considering the context described in the blog it involves a lot of bad faith from the company and the CERN.

tomp 11y ago

But not for 30k. I doubt a court would award this much in damages if he was sued. Even before that, I don't think CERN is justified in releasing his identity (edit: I mean, the identity of the student to the software vendor for them to sue).

seszett 11y ago
His identity has not been released.
sbuk 11y ago
They haven't released his identity. RFTA. EDIT; I agree entirely that CHF30000 is way over the top, but if that is a negotiated figure, then he owes it.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  Nope. He/she did not negotiate it. The company is speculatively invoicing CERN. CERN are attempting (with dubious legality) to pass it to a University who are attempting (with extremely dubious legality) to pass it to a student. The student should call his/her lawyer asap and should certainly not pay this demand without forcing all the parties to actually undergo some due process.
  - sbuk 11y ago
    I think it is safe to assume that HE knowingly and wilfully breached his contract with CERN. again TFA states that, and I quote, "Understandably, the student was shocked when we investigated the case and he was forced to acknowledge the facts." The student has wilfully broken the law. Due process has clearly been undertaken. Again, RTFA.
    - JupiterMoon 11y ago
      She should never have acknowledged the 'facts'. She should have called her lawyer. She should also point out that she was under pressure to get stuff done and was under the impression that she had a licence to use the product. Due process implies a legal process not a random invoice and several large organisations charging an individual an arbitrary amount.

gutnor 11y ago

He used it only under the scope of his work and the company contracting the work had the necessary seat in pool to cover for the student license. So the student is only technically at fault in the same way as you are technically trespassing when you sneaked behind your colleague that day your forgot your badge. The reason the company was able to extort ( I think that's the only appropriate term here ) 30K is because of the enormous B2B corporate administration will process this issue routinely rather than using common sense. As a European tax payer that is not the behavior of a company I want my tax money to fund.

_Simon 11y ago
Nope. Read the opening paragraph again.