Sorry Shmuel, I mind works on a different level than my fingers sometimes. I apologize for the mistake on your name.
I'm still not too sure that there is a way to conduct an audit that would satisfy the vendor, that the site would agree to. I don't think disrupting a site is what the vendor would be trying to do, but if you limit the audit, then it's not an audit. i.e. I have a dollar in my pocket, but if you can't see the dollar then I am broke and you can look at me to prove that I am broke, but you cannot look into my pocket, because that might be disruptive. :} The audit would have to allow a search of all load libraries at a minimum, and would entail loading each and every module to check internally, not doesn't that sound like a lot of fun, it would be cost prohibitive for both the vendor and the site. The cost (in manpower) to enter a new license key is trivial compared to the cost of preparing for the audit. Then you would have to multiply it by the total software vendor base. I think most would go for the key after that. Brian On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 17:47:17 -0500, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) <[email protected]> wrote: >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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
