In <[email protected]>, on
12/29/2011
at 08:03 PM, Brian Westerman <[email protected]> said:
>I'm sorry Schmuel,
That's Shmuel!
>giving a vendor access to their site
There's a difference between permitting an audit and allowing
unrestricted access. I've certainly been at sites that allowed audits,
but the auditors were limited to the relevant data.
>In this case I hardily agree with the view that the the vendor would
>be told to go pound salt.
Perhaps by the bean counters, although I haven't seen that happen.
What I have seen is shops where the presence of a licensing key is a
deal breaker[1].
>Imagine the security issues
BTDTGTTS. The Devil is in the details, and it's not rocket science.
There is a type of "audit" that I'd consider unacceptable: when trade
organizations threaten to get a court order and conduct a deliberately
disruptive search in order to extort payment of money that is not due.
But that's not what is under discussion here.
[1] In the sense that they would only license the product if there
were contract terms that no vendor would ever agree to.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
