On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, Isabelle Boulet wrote:
by saying that OpenOffice.org licences are free and that businesses that have
installed OOo enjoy perfect peace of mind in the eventuality of a BSA audit.
Nor do they need to overestimate their requirements to ensure that they stay
legal (ie buy more licences than they actually need to be on the safe side)
That works perfectly in shops running 100% F/OSS. How can that same peace
of mind be achieved in a mixed environment, either mixed by design or
during a transition from a vendor to F/OSS ?
they go after businesses that run any version of MS but without enough
licences for the number of PCs that they use
The BSA only has to find a handful of seats out of compliance and they can
force a re-purchase for each seat plus a few servers which are tied into
the desktop software. IIRC sites with certain versions of Windows that
have files with the .doc and .xls extensions but no MS Office, triggers a
letter from BSA and a response to the letter triggers a visit.
A site in transition from MSO to OOo is in most cases going to have
machines without MSO, but still have some files with .doc extensions.
I guess one of the things I'm wondering is with all the rush in the media
to talk about license compliance, is how to get the media or users to key
into the idea that OOo is one way of achieving license compliance.
-Lars
Lars Noodén ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Patents are wrong for software but right for inventions. Write:
http://consultation.ffii.org/Commission_extends_the_consultation_by_12_days
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
