3 ms·

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 ch

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
  - dwild 11y ago
    "You can't use the software except on these computers" FTFY In that case, it is applied consistently.

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
- dwild 11y ago
  "You can't use the software except on these computers" FTFY In that case, it is applied consistently.