SOP is buy the chassis and routing engine new from Cisco, buy the line cards used. Best of both worlds, and legal
-Matt On Apr 8, 2008, at 10:47 AM, Tony Varriale wrote: > I would disagree with what's mostly here. But, I'm guessing both of > us > aren't lawyers. > > I do know what IS SOP these days. Buy the gear 3rd party then > either the > seller or buyer downloads and loads up some later software and/or > different > feature set. > > That, I know for sure, is illegal unless Cisco offers the code fix > for a > security issue. And, the people that are practicing this as SOP > can't spell > security. > > tv > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Daniel Hooper'" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Jon Lewis'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 3:58 AM > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] IOS pirating requests > > >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Asbjorn >>> Hojmark - >>> Lists >>> Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 1:23 PM >>> To: 'Daniel Hooper'; 'Jon Lewis' >>> Cc: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] IOS pirating requests >>> >>> >>>> But if you send me the chassis as well as the IOS and no money >>>> changes hand's it's technically not pirating. >>> >>> Well, that depends on who you ask... It's pretty clear from the >>> license that the software does *not* follow the hardware to a 3rd >>> party. If you sell the box, you have to buy a 'transfer license'. >>> >>> (Wether that'll be legal in other countries is another matter). >>> >> >> That has never been tested in a court and a Cisco buyer is not >> required to sign a contract that would obligate them to such an >> act. In fact, if anything, the courts >> have ruled in the few cases that have come up regarding used >> software being sold, that it is illegal for a software vendor to >> place a purchaser under such a restriction. In short, if you >> go buy a copy of Windows and use it for a few years then sell it, >> (assuming that you have not of course used the license as the >> basis for an upgrade, and that it's not an OEM license) that >> you and the buyer are perfectly legal. As for OEM software, >> this travels with the device. As much as Microsoft and other >> vendors would like to have the software license of Windows >> 'untied' from the hardware post-purchase, if you sell a PC you >> bought with Windows preloaded, the license for the preload goes >> with the PC. >> >> This also works for cell phones, DVD players, automobiles, >> microwave ovens, hybrid key phone systems, etc. all of which >> have embedded computers with software running. The manufacturer >> can only deny you new updates or cut you out of support if >> you get the item from the secondary market - they cannot win >> a suit against you for merely buying and owning the item that >> has the software on it that was loaded on it when it came from >> the factory. >> >> Cisco I am sure is perfectly aware of all of this. It is undoubtedly >> why they put the oldest and archaic IOS on their products possible. >> For example we just sold a recent 2800 to a customer - running an >> OLDER version of IOS (12.4.1 I believe) than what was in it's ROM - >> this was a brand-new, never-opened, direct from Ingram Micro router - >> it was an IOS image that has been deferred years ago and long since >> covered under Cisco's free "security upgrade replacement" >> >> Clearly, pulling such a stunt gives Cisco much leeway to argue in >> a court that someone isn't entitled to a more current IOS version >> because the "official OEM IOS version" that was shipped with the >> router is going to be older than -anything- that was ever available >> for download from the Cisco website. Thus Cisco could make the >> argument >> in a court that while a buyer of a used 2800 might have a legal right >> to posses the 2800 with IOS 12.4.1 loaded, (because that was what >> was on it when the router shipped from the factory) that is as new >> an IOS as they can have, simply by merely purchasing the box. >> >> You really need to be careful here. Keep in mind >> that for the last decade software vendors have been scruplously >> avoiding having shrinkwrap licenses tested in court, there's not been >> a single court case of a software vendor (like Microsoft or Cisco) >> suing anyone for violating a shrinkwrap license that they did not >> explicitly sign and agree to abide by. Yet there's millions of >> devices sold every year that have shrinkwrap licenses on them. >> Most of what you read from the software vendors is FUD and >> speculation in this area. And, I will also remind you, there is >> no law that states that Cisco or any other software vendor MUST >> tell the truth with regards to contracts or their interpretation. >> >> It is SOP for most companies to put illegal, rediculous, and >> unenforceable terms in their contracts, then have their sales >> guys claim those terms are legally binding. In writing even. >> Naturally, contract law being what it is, if there is ever a >> legal dispute, this will be held against them by the judge - >> but they do this because they know the vast majority of people >> automatically assume that just because it's written down in >> the contract that it must be legal. >> >> Ted >> _______________________________________________ >> cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp >> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
