Author: robweir
Date: Wed Dec 12 16:26:15 2012
New Revision: 1420810
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1420810&view=rev
Log:
correct spelling errors
Modified:
openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/content/why/other/compliance.mdtext
Modified: openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/content/why/other/compliance.mdtext
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/content/why/other/compliance.mdtext?rev=1420810&r1=1420809&r2=1420810&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/content/why/other/compliance.mdtext (original)
+++ openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/content/why/other/compliance.mdtext Wed Dec 12
16:26:15 2012
@@ -1,65 +1,67 @@
-Title: Compliance Costs and the Apache License
-Notice: Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
- or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file
- distributed with this work for additional information
- regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file
- to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the
- "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance
- with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
- .
- http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
- .
- Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing,
- software distributed under the License is distributed on an
- "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY
- KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the
- specific language governing permissions and limitations
- under the License.
-
-##Software Licence Compliance Costs
-
-The Business Software Alliance [offers cash rewards][1], up to $1 million, to
disgruntled employees who confidentially turn in their employer (or
ex-exployer) for software piracy.
-They call this campaign, "Bust your Boss!"
-
-As you probably already know, you don't own commercial software in the same
way you own a chair or a desk. You license the software from the vendor, and
this license gives you
-permission to use the software, under terms specified by the license. These
terms might include how many users or PC's may access the software. The terms
might even include
-a clause allowing the vendor to audit your usage of the software.
-
-In order to avoid the expense and penalties of a BSA audit, companies
institute Software Asset Management (SAM) practices to ensure that their use of
commercial software complies
-with the applicable licenses. These practices generally include employee
education along with the purchase of software to track licences and software
use within the organization.
-
-The combined costs of these practices is the "cost of compliance" for using
commercial software. It is an expense that does not make your organization
more productive, does not benefit
-your customers and adds nothing to the bottom line. It is purely risk
mitigation. Along with licence, maintanence and training costs, it is one of
the costs of working with commercial
-software.
-
-
-##Open Source Compliance Costs
-
-As opposed to commercial EULA-style software licenses, open source software
have licenses that explicitly permit free redistribution. This reduces the
cost of compliance for many
-organizations.
-
-However, organizations that use open source software and also develop and
distribute their own proprietary software, can find themselves in trouble due
to the viral nature (copyleft)
-of some open source licenses. If one of your programmers inadvertently
includes some copyleft code into your proprietary product, you could be
required to make the source code for
-your entire product freely available to the public.
-
-This is not a theoretical concern. As aggresively as the BSA, the Software
Freedom Law Center has [gone after large corporations][2] for GPL licence
violations, including
-Westinghouse, Samsung and Best Buy.
-
-So the cost of compliance with copyleft code is as bad or even greater than
the use of proprietary software, since an organization risks being forced to
make the source code
-for their proprietary product public and available for anyone to use, free of
charge. So more employee education, more approval cycles, more audits, more
worries and more risk. This
-is the increased cost of compliance when copyleft software is brought into an
organization.
-
-
-##Advantages of the Apache Licence
-
-Not all open source licenses are copyleft licence. Not all of them have that
viral quality that radically increases the risk for an organization. A subset
of open source licences,
-generally called "permissive" licences, are much friendly for corporate use.
These licences include the MIT and BSD licences, as well as the [Apache
Software Licence 2.0][3] that we use.
-
-Like other open source licences, the Apache Licence explicitly allows you to
copy and redistribute the covered product, without any licence fees or
royalties. But because it is a
-permissive licence, it also allows you to prepare and distribute derivitive
products, without any requirement to make your own source code public. So both
BSA and SFLC risks
-are eliminated. The cost of licence compliance is drastically reduced.
-
-
-[1]: https://reporting.bsa.org/r/report/add.aspx?src=us
-[2]: http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/
-[3]: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+Title: Compliance Costs and the Apache License
+Notice: Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
+ or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file
+ distributed with this work for additional information
+ regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file
+ to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the
+ "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance
+ with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
+ .
+ http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+ .
+ Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing,
+ software distributed under the License is distributed on an
+ "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY
+ KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the
+ specific language governing permissions and limitations
+ under the License.
+
+##Software License Compliance Costs
+
+The Business Software Alliance [offers cash rewards][1], up to $1 million, to
disgruntled employees who confidentially turn in their employer (or
ex-employer) for software piracy.
+They call this campaign, "Bust your Boss!"
+
+As you probably already know, you don't own commercial software in the same
way you own a chair or a desk. You license the software from the vendor, and
this license gives you
+permission to use the software, under terms specified by the license. These
terms might include how many users or PC's may access the software. The terms
might even include
+a clause allowing the vendor to audit your usage of the software.
+
+In order to avoid the expense and penalties of a BSA audit, companies
institute Software Asset Management (SAM) practices to ensure that their use of
commercial software complies
+with the applicable licenses. These practices generally include employee
education along with the purchase of software to track licenses and software
use within the organization.
+
+The combined costs of these practices is the "cost of compliance" for using
commercial software. It is an expense that does not make your organization
more productive, does not benefit
+your customers and adds nothing to the bottom line. It is purely risk
mitigation. Along with license, maintenance and training costs, it is one of
the costs of working with commercial
+software.
+
+
+##Open Source Compliance Costs
+
+As opposed to commercial EULA-style software licenses, open source software
have licenses that explicitly permit free redistribution. This reduces the
cost of compliance for many
+organizations.
+
+However, organizations that use open source software and also develop and
distribute their own proprietary software, can find themselves in trouble due
to the viral nature (copyleft)
+of some open source licenses. If one of your programmers inadvertently
includes some copyleft code into your proprietary product, you could be
required to make the source code for
+your entire product freely available to the public.
+
+This is not a theoretical concern. As aggressively as the BSA protects the
interests of its commercial members,
+the Software Freedom Law Center protects the GPL license in [high-profile
lawsuits against large corporations][2], including
+Westinghouse, Samsung and Best Buy.
+
+So the cost of compliance with copyleft code is as bad or even greater than
the use of proprietary software, since an organization risks being forced to
make the source code
+for their proprietary product public and available for anyone to use, free of
charge. To mitigate this risk requires
+more employee education, more approval cycles, more audits, more worries and
more risk. This is the increased
+cost of compliance when copyleft software is brought into an organization.
+
+
+##Advantages of the Apache License
+
+Not all open source licenses are copyleft license. Not all of them have that
viral quality that radically increases the risk for an organization. A subset
of open source licenses,
+generally called "permissive" licenses, are much friendly for corporate use.
These licenses include the MIT and BSD licenses, as well as the [Apache
Software License 2.0][3] that we use.
+
+Like other open source licenses, the Apache License explicitly allows you to
copy and redistribute the covered product, without any license fees or
royalties. But because it is a
+permissive license, it also allows you to prepare and distribute derivative
products, without any requirement to make your own source code public. So both
BSA and SFLC risks
+are eliminated. The cost of license compliance is drastically reduced.
+
+
+[1]: https://reporting.bsa.org/r/report/add.aspx?src=us
+[2]: http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/
+[3]: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
