6 ms·

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 withi

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).
      - danielweber 11y ago
        Let me tell you an anecdote, too. I worked at a startup where we were selling software and that money was what I was using to pay my rent so I wouldn't be homeless and buy food to put in my food hole so my body would not die. Various people tried to steal our stuff. Every once in a while someone would call us up and tell us what we should give them a free copy because, in a lot more words, "it would generate goodwill." I'm sure they might have even believed what they were saying. But it wasn't their rent money on the line. It was ours. (Other people would call us and tell us, literally, that they had mailed us a check, so please ship out the software now. The most obvious "we are lying to your face and fuck you if you need money to live" was a military branch that said they couldn't buy a license until we removed our copy protection. After a bunch of negotiation, we finally said "sorry, take it or leave it" and they bought three licenses. Huh.) I'm not saying that the company is right. But I am saying that that software company is the one with their butts on the line. If you are wrong, absolutely nothing goes wrong for you. But if they listen to your advice and it turns out to be wrong, they lose money, or maybe go out of business. They can't use "goodwill of 'giarc" to pay their lease. People who have been in the business of selling software learn quickly that people who complain online about proprietary software are not their customers and will never under any circumstances end up as their customers.
        giarc 11y ago
        You are inappropriately extending my argument to new customers and non existent customers. My argument was that if they saw someone at CERN was using their unlicensed software, the best path might not be to impose a hefty fine on CERN (an existing customer). I never said anything about how to treat a one off person that has stolen your software.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- toyg 11y ago
  > then they have no right to enforce their terms with anyone. As long as the infraction is corrected, enforcement has happened, so there is no loss of rights anywhere. Despite what some people say, being a dick is not a legal requirement.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- danielweber 11y ago
  They don't need to charge the student (and I would recommend the student just walk away) for future people to learn not to do this. The post by itself is clearly a warning not to be the one who thinks it's cool to download and run random software. They aren't going to give him any kind of recommendation. They didn't name him, but people within CERN certainly know his identity. People care about reputation.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- petercooper 11y ago
  Photoshop didn't become #1 by fining pirates. A heat model simulator is such a niche tool that the market for licenses outside of the institutions and companies who pay mega $$$ for it is surely miniscule(?) It'd make more sense for Microsoft and Adobe to chase millions of license violators over Office and Photoshop. Maybe they do, but I've not heard of it happening in personal cases, just businesses. It sounds like this vendor is chasing CERN though, despite it being the fault of an individual not employed by them.
  - masklinn 11y ago
    > It sounds like this vendor is chasing CERN though, despite it being the fault of an individual not employed by them. The student was working on a CERN project from "within" CERN (how would the software vendor have known to contact CERN otherwise?)
andyjohnson0 11y ago
Catalog of licenced software products used at CERN: http://information-technology.web.cern.ch/services/software http://information-technology.web.cern.ch/services/software For what its worth, as a developer, I agree that the vendor should be able to enforce their product licencing. They have to make a living. But their actions here are heavy-handed, and those of CERN and the university are cowardly. Given what CERN does, and that the person in question was a student, its not like anyone profited from the licence infringement. A more mature response would be to arrange for the student to do a modest amount of unpaid work for the software vendor to symbolically make amends and understand each others point of view.
- sbuk 11y ago
  Why are the actions of CERN and the University cowardly? Neither institution decided to use unlicensed software, the student did. He, as an adult, should be held accountable for his choices and his actions. I do agree that "AllSIM" are being heavy handed...
  - gozo 11y ago
    Not only did they not fight the claim the actively helped them enforce it, arrogantly declaring that "[...] he was forced to acknowledge the facts" and "[...] CERN passed all costs to them who, in turn, passed them on to the student". This was supposedly because the student had "placed the Organization's reputation at risk", but they apparently it was fine to blog about it, and "created a financial liability for CERN", which would have been true if they hadn't just passed the cost onto the student. Bottom-line, if you're active in an organization like CERN you come in contact with a lot of expensive equipment. The student made a mistake, but did so as a result of the involvement with CERN. If you can't even protect your students from virtual claims what happens if you mistakenly do some actual damage at CERN, do they send you a bill for millions? It seem like they are more interested in enforcing their own rules than anything else. Mindlessly writing things like "CERN offers a variety of commercial software and has all the corresponding licences you'll need for your professional use", when they've just concluded that "However, the CERN AllSIM installation would not allow for this, as roaming usage is not covered by CERN's AllSIM licence". The student should of course refuse to pay, forcing the license holder to either sue or settle. Probably for far less of an amount. At least if CERN hadn't published the whole thing, increasing the risk of the student being made an example of.
tremon 11y ago
The student knowingly used a pirate version to circumvent the licensing restrictions communicated to him by CERN. So no, the student did /not/ have a valid license and knew he didn't have one. Why shouldn't the student be liable for that? Also, the software company didn't go after the student themselves. They billed CERN, which billed the Uni, which billed the student.

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).
    - danielweber 11y ago
      Let me tell you an anecdote, too. I worked at a startup where we were selling software and that money was what I was using to pay my rent so I wouldn't be homeless and buy food to put in my food hole so my body would not die. Various people tried to steal our stuff. Every once in a while someone would call us up and tell us what we should give them a free copy because, in a lot more words, "it would generate goodwill." I'm sure they might have even believed what they were saying. But it wasn't their rent money on the line. It was ours. (Other people would call us and tell us, literally, that they had mailed us a check, so please ship out the software now. The most obvious "we are lying to your face and fuck you if you need money to live" was a military branch that said they couldn't buy a license until we removed our copy protection. After a bunch of negotiation, we finally said "sorry, take it or leave it" and they bought three licenses. Huh.) I'm not saying that the company is right. But I am saying that that software company is the one with their butts on the line. If you are wrong, absolutely nothing goes wrong for you. But if they listen to your advice and it turns out to be wrong, they lose money, or maybe go out of business. They can't use "goodwill of 'giarc" to pay their lease. People who have been in the business of selling software learn quickly that people who complain online about proprietary software are not their customers and will never under any circumstances end up as their customers.
      - giarc 11y ago
        You are inappropriately extending my argument to new customers and non existent customers. My argument was that if they saw someone at CERN was using their unlicensed software, the best path might not be to impose a hefty fine on CERN (an existing customer). I never said anything about how to treat a one off person that has stolen your software.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

toyg 11y ago
> then they have no right to enforce their terms with anyone. As long as the infraction is corrected, enforcement has happened, so there is no loss of rights anywhere. Despite what some people say, being a dick is not a legal requirement.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
danielweber 11y ago
They don't need to charge the student (and I would recommend the student just walk away) for future people to learn not to do this. The post by itself is clearly a warning not to be the one who thinks it's cool to download and run random software. They aren't going to give him any kind of recommendation. They didn't name him, but people within CERN certainly know his identity. People care about reputation.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
petercooper 11y ago
Photoshop didn't become #1 by fining pirates. A heat model simulator is such a niche tool that the market for licenses outside of the institutions and companies who pay mega $$$ for it is surely miniscule(?) It'd make more sense for Microsoft and Adobe to chase millions of license violators over Office and Photoshop. Maybe they do, but I've not heard of it happening in personal cases, just businesses. It sounds like this vendor is chasing CERN though, despite it being the fault of an individual not employed by them.
- masklinn 11y ago
  > It sounds like this vendor is chasing CERN though, despite it being the fault of an individual not employed by them. The student was working on a CERN project from "within" CERN (how would the software vendor have known to contact CERN otherwise?)

andyjohnson0 11y ago

Catalog of licenced software products used at CERN: http://information-technology.web.cern.ch/services/software http://information-technology.web.cern.ch/services/software For what its worth, as a developer, I agree that the vendor should be able to enforce their product licencing. They have to make a living. But their actions here are heavy-handed, and those of CERN and the university are cowardly. Given what CERN does, and that the person in question was a student, its not like anyone profited from the licence infringement. A more mature response would be to arrange for the student to do a modest amount of unpaid work for the software vendor to symbolically make amends and understand each others point of view.

sbuk 11y ago
Why are the actions of CERN and the University cowardly? Neither institution decided to use unlicensed software, the student did. He, as an adult, should be held accountable for his choices and his actions. I do agree that "AllSIM" are being heavy handed...
- gozo 11y ago
  Not only did they not fight the claim the actively helped them enforce it, arrogantly declaring that "[...] he was forced to acknowledge the facts" and "[...] CERN passed all costs to them who, in turn, passed them on to the student". This was supposedly because the student had "placed the Organization's reputation at risk", but they apparently it was fine to blog about it, and "created a financial liability for CERN", which would have been true if they hadn't just passed the cost onto the student. Bottom-line, if you're active in an organization like CERN you come in contact with a lot of expensive equipment. The student made a mistake, but did so as a result of the involvement with CERN. If you can't even protect your students from virtual claims what happens if you mistakenly do some actual damage at CERN, do they send you a bill for millions? It seem like they are more interested in enforcing their own rules than anything else. Mindlessly writing things like "CERN offers a variety of commercial software and has all the corresponding licences you'll need for your professional use", when they've just concluded that "However, the CERN AllSIM installation would not allow for this, as roaming usage is not covered by CERN's AllSIM licence". The student should of course refuse to pay, forcing the license holder to either sue or settle. Probably for far less of an amount. At least if CERN hadn't published the whole thing, increasing the risk of the student being made an example of.

tremon 11y ago

The student knowingly used a pirate version to circumvent the licensing restrictions communicated to him by CERN. So no, the student did /not/ have a valid license and knew he didn't have one. Why shouldn't the student be liable for that? Also, the software company didn't go after the student themselves. They billed CERN, which billed the Uni, which billed the student.