Keysight is upping their game with software license agreements

[TheSteve]

I went to update some Windows based Keysight FieldFox remote control software and thought I'd do a quick scan of the license agreement. I see it has changed quite a bit from the previous version. This specific software is free to use so I'd guess this is a new generic license agreement they are using for everything. It certainly is aggressive - especially the "Audit" section. Also lots of stuff regarding piracy has been added.

Here is the older agreement:

KEYSIGHT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT

ATTENTION:  DOWNLOADING, COPYING, PUBLICLY DISTRIBUTING, OR USING THIS SOFTWARE IS SUBJECT TO THE AGREEMENT SET FORTH BELOW.

TO DOWNLOAD, STORE, INSTALL, OR RUN THE SOFTWARE, YOU MUST FIRST AGREE TO KEYSIGHT’S SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT BELOW.  IF YOU HAVE READ, UNDERSTAND AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT BELOW, YOU SHOULD CLICK ON THE “AGREE” BOX AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE.  THE SOFTWARE WILL THEN BE DOWNLOADED TO OR INSTALLED ON YOUR COMPUTER.

IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT BELOW, YOU SHOULD CLICK ON THE “DO NOT AGREE” BOX AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE AND CANCEL THE DOWNLOAD OR INSTALLATION OF THE SOFTWARE.   IF YOU HAVE PURCHASED THE SOFTWARE FROM KEYSIGHT, YOU MAY RETURN THE SOFTWARE FOR A FULL REFUND, OR, IF THE SOFTWARE IS SUPPLIED AS PART OF ANOTHER PRODUCT, YOU MAY RETURN THE ENTIRE PRODUCT FOR A FULL REFUND. 

Software.  “Software” means one or more computer programs in object code format, whether stand-alone or bundled with other products, and related documentation.  It does NOT include programs in source code format.

License Grant.  Keysight grants you a non-exclusive license to download one copy of the Software, and to store or run that copy of the Software for internal use and purposes in accordance with this Agreement and the documentation provided with the Software.  Such documentation may include license terms provided by Keysight’s third party suppliers, which will apply to the use of the Software and take precedence over these license terms.  In the absence of documentation specifying the applicable license, you may store or run one copy of the Software on one machine or instrument.  If the Software is otherwise licensed for concurrent or network use, you may not allow more than the maximum number of authorized users to access and use the Software concurrently.   

License Restrictions.  You may make copies or adaptations of the Software for archival purposes or when copying or adaptation is an essential step in the authorized use of the Software, but for no other purpose. You must reproduce all copyright notices in the original Software on all permitted copies or adaptations.  You may not copy the Software onto any public or distributed network.

Upgrades.  This license does not entitle you to receive upgrades, updates or technical support.  Such services may be purchased separately. 

Ownership.  The Software and all copies thereof are owned and copyrighted by Keysight or its third party suppliers.  Keysight and its third party suppliers retain all right, title and interest in the Software.  Keysight and its third party suppliers may protect their respective rights in the Software in the event of any violation of this Agreement. 

No Disassembly.  You may not disassemble or otherwise modify the Software without written authorization from Keysight, except as permitted by law.  Upon request, you will provide Keysight with reasonably detailed information regarding any permitted disassembly or modification.

High Risk Activities.  The Software is not specifically written, designed, manufactured or intended for use in the planning, construction, maintenance or direct operation of a nuclear facility, nor for use in on line control or fail safe operation of aircraft navigation, control or communication systems, weapon systems or direct life support systems.

Transfer. You may transfer the license granted to you here provided that you deliver all copies of the Software to the transferee along with this Agreement and pay any applicable fees to the extent permissible under local laws.  The transferee must accept this Agreement as a condition to any transfer. Your license to use the Software will terminate upon transfer. 

Termination.  Keysight may terminate this license upon notice for breach of this Agreement.  Upon termination, you must immediately destroy all copies of the Software.

Export Requirements.  If you export, re-export or import Software, technology or technical data licensed hereunder, you assume responsibility for complying with applicable laws and regulations and for obtaining required export and import authorizations.  Keysight may terminate this license immediately if you are in violation of any applicable laws or regulations.

U.S. Government Restricted Rights.  Software and technical data rights granted to the federal government include only those rights customarily provided to end user customers.  Keysight provides this customary commercial license in Software and technical data pursuant to FAR 12.211 (Technical Data) and 12.212 (Computer Software) and, for the Department of Defense, DFARS 252.227-7015 (Technical Data - Commercial Items) and DFARS 227.7202-3 (Rights in Commercial  Computer Software or Computer Software Documentation).

NO WARRANTY.    TO THE EXTENT ALLOWED BY LOCAL LAW, AND EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT KEYSIGHT HAS PROVIDED A SPECIFIC WRITTEN WARRANTY APPLICABLE TO THIS PRODUCT, THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED TO YOU "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, WHETHER ORAL OR WRITTEN, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. KEYSIGHT SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF MERCHANTABILITY, SATISFACTORY QUALITY, NON-INFRINGEMENT AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.   SHOULD THE SOFTWARE PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE ENTIRE RISK AND COST RESULTING FROM OR RELATING TO THE DEFECT.  SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW EXCLUSIONS OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS, SO THE ABOVE EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.  YOU MAY HAVE OTHER RIGHTS THAT VARY ACCORDING TO LOCAL LAW. 

LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.  TO THE EXTENT ALLOWED BY LOCAL LAW, IN NO EVENT WILL KEYSIGHT OR ITS SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES OR SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR DIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR OTHER DAMAGES (INCLUDING LOST PROFIT, LOST DATA, OR DOWNTIME COSTS), ARISING OUT OF THE USE, INABILITY TO USE, OR THE RESULTS OF USE OF THE SOFTWARE, WHETHER BASED IN WARRANTY, CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHER LEGAL THEORY, AND WHETHER OR NOT ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.  YOUR USE OF THE SOFTWARE IS ENTIRELY AT YOUR OWN RISK.   SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES, SO THE ABOVE LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. 

Applicable Law.  Disputes arising in connection with this Agreement will be governed by the laws of the United States and of the State of New York, without regard to choice of law provisions.  The United Nations Convention for Contracts for the International Sale of Goods will not apply to this Agreement.

Unenforceability.  To the extent that any provision of this Agreement is determined to be illegal or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement will remain in full force and effect.

Entire Agreement.  This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between you and Keysight, and supersedes any previous communications, representations or agreements between the parties, whether oral or written, regarding transactions hereunder except for a specific warranty issued by Keysight with regard to this product.  Your additional or different terms and conditions will not apply.  This Agreement may not be changed except by an amendment signed by an authorized representative of each party.



Here is the updated agreement:

KEYSIGHT SOFTWARE END-USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
ATTENTION: THE SOFTWARE IS SUBJECT TO THE END-USER LICENSE AGREEMENT (“EULA”) SET FORTH BELOW.
TO INSTALL OR USE THE SOFTWARE, YOU MUST FIRST AGREE TO THIS EULA. IF THIS EULA IS PRESENTED TO YOU ELECTRONICALLY AND IF YOU HAVE READ, UNDERSTAND, AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS, CLICK “AGREE”. IF THIS EULA IS PRESENTED TO YOU IN A HARD COPY FORMAT, BY POWERING ON AND USING THE COMPUTER, INSTRUMENT, OR MACHINE, YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE READ, UNDERSTAND, AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS.
Translations. Translations of this EULA are found at: www.keysight.com/find/sweula. <http://www.keysight.com/find/sweula>
Software. “Software” means a single copy of one or more computer programs, whether stand-alone or bundled with other products or solutions, and related documentation, including any online or electronic documentation, data, and license files.
License Grant. Keysight Technologies, Inc. or Keysight Technologies Singapore Sales (collectively, “Keysight”) grants you a limited, non-exclusive license to use, in accordance with one of the license types listed below, the Software for the Term (as defined below), subject to the terms and conditions of this EULA and full payment of any applicable fees:
Node Locked (“fixed”) license. If you have obtained a Node Locked license, you may install one copy of the Software on one computer, instrument, or machine and use the Software only on that computer, instrument, or machine for your internal business use. You may not display or access the Software on a separate computer.
Transportable license. If you have obtained a Transportable license, you may use one copy of the Software on any single computer, instrument, or machine at one time for your internal business use. You may move the right to use the Software to a different computer, instrument, or machine using methods made available by Keysight, for your internal business use, provided only one copy is in use at any one time.
Floating license. If you have obtained a Floating license, you may install one or more copies of the Software on any computer, instrument, or machine within your internal computer network or on dedicated server resources provided by a third party for your internal business use, provided the total number of users who are accessing or using any of the Software at the same time does not exceed the maximum number of licenses.
You may find the type of license you obtained, the Term of your license, and the number of licenses, if applicable, in documentation associated with the Software. “Term” means either a set amount of time (an expiring license) or a Perpetual license. For Node Locked licenses, “Perpetual” means the lifetime of the computer, instrument, or machine. For Transportable and Floating licenses, “Perpetual” means the right to use the license indefinitely. In the absence of documentation specifying the applicable license, you have a Node Locked license with a Perpetual Term.
License Restrictions.
No Copies. You may not make copies or adaptations of the Software except for backup and archival purposes or when copying or adaptation is an essential step in the licensed use of the Software, including correction of errors. You must reproduce all copyright and other legal notices in the original Software on all permitted copies or adaptations.

No Reverse Engineering. You may not decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, attempt to derive the source code of, decrypt, modify, create derivative works, or disable security features of the Software, except to the extent any foregoing restriction is prohibited by applicable mandatory law or by licensing terms governing the use of open source components that may be included with the Software.

No Circumvention. The Software may include technological measures, whether in the Software or in bundled hardware or both, that are designed to prevent or detect unlicensed use of the Software. Circumvention of these technological measures is prohibited, except as expressly permitted by applicable mandatory law. Any attempt to circumvent technological measures may render the Software or certain features unusable or unstable and may prevent you from upgrading or updating the Software.

Limited Use. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, you may not use the Software to develop products or distribute your own or a third-party’s application, a principal purpose of which, as reasonably determined by Keysight, is to compete with the Software, perform the same or similar functions as the Software, or which replaces any component of the Software. You may not disclose the results of any competitive analysis performed on the Software to any third party.

Network. Unless otherwise authorized by Keysight in writing, you may not use the Software on any network that permits remote access to licensed users located outside a one-mile radius of a single fixed geographic site and you may not permit third parties to use the Software in an on-demand computing environment.

No Public Network/Time Share. You may not copy the Software onto any public or distributed network, service bureau, or similar service, and you may not provide access (directly or indirectly) to the Software in any other manner via a web or network application. In addition, you may not sell, license, lease, rent, loan, or time share the Software. You also may not redistribute the Software or any part of the Software, other than as permitted under Section 9 below.

Licensed Users. Except as expressly provided herein, you may not permit any third party to have access to or otherwise use the Software. Licensed users are your employees, authorized agents, representatives, subcontractors, and consultants acting on your behalf and for your internal business use. You are responsible and fully liable for compliance with and breach of this EULA by your licensed users.
Third-Party Software.

General. The Software may contain third-party software subject to third-party notices, additional terms and conditions, or both. Such required third-party software notices and additional terms and conditions can be found in the documentation associated with the Software. You have all rights necessary to use the Software as permitted in Sections 3 and 4. To the extent your use exceeds the grants and restrictions in Sections 3 and 4, third-party license terms will apply and take precedence.

Separation of Components. Except as required by included open source software licenses or expressly licensed by Keysight, the Software is licensed as a single product and its component parts may not be separated for any other use.
Upgrades. This EULA does not entitle you to receive upgrades, updates, or technical support. Such services may be included or purchased separately. The terms of this EULA govern any upgrades or updates provided by Keysight unless such upgrades or updates are accompanied by a separate license agreement in which case the terms of that license agreement will govern. Upgrades and updates may be provided if and when available.

Ownership. The Software and all copies thereof are licensed and not sold to you. The Software and all copies thereof are owned and copyrighted by Keysight or its third- party suppliers and are protected by copyright laws and other intellectual property laws and treaties. Keysight and its third-party suppliers retain all right, title, and interest in the Software. Keysight and its third-party suppliers may protect their respective rights in the Software in the event of any violation of this EULA. Any comments, suggestions, improvements, or other communications from you to Keysight regarding the Software (“Feedback”) will become the sole property of Keysight. Keysight may use the Feedback and practice the intellectual property relating thereto without compensation or attribution.

High Risk Activities. The Software is not specifically written, designed, manufactured, or intended for use in the planning, construction, maintenance, or direct operation of a nuclear facility, nor for use in online control or fail-safe operation of aircraft navigation, control or communication systems, weapon systems, or direct life support systems.

Transfer. You may not transfer the Software unless you obtain Keysight’s prior written authorization, deliver all copies of the Software to the transferee along with this EULA, and pay any applicable fees. For all transfers, the transferee must accept this EULA as a condition to any transfer and your license to use the Software will terminate upon transfer. Entitlement to receive technical support services for the Software may be transferred provided you obtain Keysight’s prior written authorization and pay any applicable fees. This section applies only to the extent permissible under applicable mandatory laws.

Term and Termination. This EULA shall continue for the Term unless terminated by Keysight as provided herein. Keysight may terminate this license upon notice for breach of this EULA. Upon expiration or termination, you must immediately destroy all copies of the Software.
Export Requirements. If you export, re-export, or import the Software, technology, or technical data licensed hereunder, you assume responsibility for complying with applicable laws and regulations and for obtaining required export and import authorizations. Keysight may terminate this license immediately if you are in violation of any applicable laws or regulations.

Unlicensed Use. You agree that Keysight may use security servers, security keys or modules, a hardware lock device, license administration software, a license authorization key to control access to the Software, or other security mechanisms to ensure compliance and you consent to such use. You may not take any steps to avoid or defeat the purpose of any such measures. If the Software is provided with a lock device or authorization key, use of the Software without the lock device or authorization key is prohibited. Keysight may take all legal steps to eliminate and prevent unlicensed use and piracy of the Software. In this context, the Software may include a security mechanism to detect installation or use of unlicensed copies of the Software and collect and transmit data about suspected unlicensed copies. Data collected does not include any customer data created with the Software. By using the Software, you consent to such detection and collection of data, as well as its transmission and use if suspected unlicensed copies are detected.

Encryption Notice. The Software may utilize encryption technology. You agree that encryption is not a guarantee of confidentiality and that Keysight is not liable for any breach of confidentiality that may occur as a result of decryption by a third party.

Audit. Upon reasonable notice, Keysight or its agents may, at Keysight’s expense, inspect your facilities (including computers, instruments, and machines) and records to verify your proper use and payment for the Software. You will keep records regarding your use in sufficient detail to permit this verification. If your payment is determined by usage of the Software, you also will provide Keysight with remote and on-site access to your network and on-site access to your records, as is reasonably necessary to conduct a proper audit. If, after an audit, it is determined that you have underpaid any amounts due, Keysight will invoice you for and you agree to pay the amount of the underpayment, plus interest, from the date payment was due. If the underpayment is more than five percent (5%) of the amount properly due, you also will pay Keysight’s audit expenses, and Keysight may, in its discretion, terminate your license. If you are a U.S. government customer, only Keysight employees authorized to access U.S. government facilities and computer systems may conduct such audit and any amount due under this Section 14 is subject to the U.S. Anti-Deficiency Act.

U.S. Government Rights. The Software is “commercial computer software,” as defined by Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) 2.101. Pursuant to FAR 12.212 and 27.405-3 and Department of Defense FAR Supplement (“DFARS”) 227.7202, the U.S. government acquires commercial computer software under the same terms by which the software is customarily provided to the public. Accordingly, Keysight provides the Software to U.S. government customers under its standard commercial license, which is embodied in this EULA. The license set forth in this EULA represents the exclusive authority by which the U.S. government may use, modify, distribute, or disclose the Software. This EULA and the license set forth herein, does not require or permit, among other things, that Keysight: (1) furnish technical information related to commercial computer software or commercial computer software documentation that is not customarily provided to the public; or (2) relinquish to, or otherwise provide, the U.S. government rights in excess of these rights customarily provided to the public to use, modify, reproduce, release, perform, display, or disclose commercial computer software or commercial computer software documentation. If you are a U.S. government customer, you acknowledge that you have reviewed the Software and this EULA and agree that the license provided for herein is consistent with federal law and otherwise satisfies U.S. government needs. If you are a U.S. government customer, you agree that this EULA reflects the entirety of the terms of Keysight’s customary commercial license applicable to U.S. government customers. No additional government requirements beyond those set forth in this EULA shall apply, except to the extent that those terms, rights, or licenses are explicitly required from all providers of commercial computer software pursuant to the FAR and the DFARS and are set forth specifically in writing elsewhere in this EULA. Keysight shall be under no obligation to update, revise, or otherwise modify the Software.

WARRANTY. TO THE EXTENT ALLOWED BY APPLICABLE MANDATORY LAW, AND EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT KEYSIGHT HAS PROVIDED A SPECIFIC WRITTEN WARRANTY APPLICABLE TO THE SOFTWARE, THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED TO YOU “AS IS” WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, WHETHER ORAL OR WRITTEN, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. KEYSIGHT, ON BEHALF OF ITSELF, ITS SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES, AND SUPPLIERS, SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF MERCHANTABILITY, SATISFACTORY QUALITY, NON-INFRINGEMENT, AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. SHOULD THE SOFTWARE PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE ENTIRE RISK AND COST RESULTING FROM OR RELATING TO THE DEFECT.
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. TO THE EXTENT ALLOWED BY APPLICABLE MANDATORY LAW, IN NO EVENT WILL KEYSIGHT, ITS SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES, OR SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR OTHER DAMAGES (INCLUDING DOWNTIME COSTS, LOSS OF DATA, RESTORATION COSTS, OR LOST PROFITS) REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SUCH CLAIMS ARE BASED ON CONTRACT, TORT, WARRANTY, OR ANY OTHER LEGAL THEORY, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. YOUR USE OF THE SOFTWARE IS ENTIRELY AT YOUR OWN RISK. NOTWITHSTANDING THE FOREGOING, IF THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED TO YOU AT NO CHARGE, KEYSIGHT, ITS SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES, AND SUPPLIERS WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR DIRECT DAMAGES.
Applicable Law; Jurisdiction and Venue. Disputes arising in connection with this EULA will be governed by, construed, and interpreted according to the laws of the United States and the State of California, without regard to conflict of laws principles. The United Nations Convention for Contracts for the International Sale of Goods will not apply to this EULA. You consent to personal jurisdiction and venue for all claims arising out of or related in any way to this EULA in a court of competent jurisdiction in San Francisco county in the Northern District of California, United States. You agree that the state and federal courts located in the Northern District of California have exclusive jurisdiction and venue over all claims arising out of or related in any way to this EULA and your use of the Software. If you are a U.S. government customer, disputes arising in connection with this EULA will be governed by, construed, and interpreted according to U.S. federal common law.
Data Privacy. Information about Keysight’s privacy practices is available in Keysight’s Customer Privacy Statement, available at www.keysight.com/go/privacy. <http://www.keysight.com/go/privacy>
Unenforceability. To the extent that any provision of this EULA is determined to be illegal or unenforceable, the remainder of this EULA will remain in full force and effect.
Entire Agreement. Certain program, data, and license files in the Software may be subject to supplemental license terms found in the documentation associated with the Software or directly in the files to which the supplemental terms apply. This EULA constitutes the entire agreement between you and Keysight with respect to the Software, and supersedes any previous communications, representations, or agreements, whether oral or written, except if you have a separate written, executed agreement with Keysight and the terms of such agreement conflict with the terms contained herein, in which case the terms of such agreement apply and take precedence. This EULA may not be changed except by an amendment signed by you and Keysight’s authorized representative.

[Zero999]

Yes, I've heard about auditing before, which I imagine adds a significant amount to the cost of ownership an presents a security risk. I wonder if anyone's challenged this legally?

I try to avoid software like this, whenever possible. I suppose they don't bother going after just one person, but larger organisations need to beware.

[mikeselectricstuff]

There's something similar on a sheet of paper in the DSOX1204 box, but seems to me pretty pointless, as
a) It's a scope, not a software product
b) Just putting the paper in the box doesn't mean the user has agreed to the terms, or even seen the paper at all.

[Zero999]

I wonder what defence contractors such as Lockheed Martin and Marshall's aerospace do?

Keysight: Can we audit your software and test equipment.

Defence contractor: No way. We can't allow a third party access to our restricted network, unless they're working on one of the projects and have signed the official secrets act.

Keysight: Then we'll revoke all your licences and take you to court.

Defence contractor: Good luck with that one!

[Mr. Scram]

I think Microsoft once almost pulled one of those.

[fsr]

Microsoft has put stuff like this in at least one of their contracts.
However, if you simply don't answer them, what are they going to do? Get an order from justice to search your business? Good look with that!
Are they going to consider your contract invalid? But you buy their stuff, so they only would lose money by doing that.
Why would you waste your time with an audit from them, anyways? You have other stuff to do. Time is just too valuable. To be working for them for free.

[Zero999]

Fortunately we don't have any Keysight equipment where I work and I don't own any. We do quite a bit of defence work and it isn't any of the contractors I mentioned in my previous post.

If I got a contract like that with anything I bought, I'd return it, together with a nasty letter, ranting about how bad it is, demanding a refund and telling them I'll never buy any of their products again.

[2N3055]

In EU that license agreement is simply a piece of paper with Keysight wishful thinking.
You didn't sign it or seen it before payment, and it is in violation of more than few EU regulations.

[Mr. Scram]

Microsoft has put stuff like this in at least one of their contracts.
However, if you simply don't answer them, what are they going to do? Get an order from justice to search your business? Good look with that!
Are they going to consider your contract invalid? But you buy their stuff, so they only would lose money by doing that.
Why would you waste your time with an audit from them, anyways? You have other stuff to do. Time is just too valuable. To be working for them for free.

They've been known to revoke licenses. Microsoft won't notice a thing, while your company is literally shut down. Guess who wins that one?

[filssavi]

There's something similar on a sheet of paper in the DSOX1204 box, but seems to me pretty pointless, as
a) It's a scope, not a software product
b) Just putting the paper in the box doesn't mean the user has agreed to the terms, or even seen the paper at all.

At least in Italy (but I think more or less in the whole of Europe) EULA are legally worth more or less like the paper they are printed on, even for software, as it is quite difficult to waive away your rights, it can be done but the client needs to be informed about it and sign the contract physically multiple times and even then there there are few things that can’t be signed away (like warranty)

Also the vexatious claims (as they are called) are automatically considered void no need to go to court

But to be safe I’m not a lawyer

[vtwin@cox.net]

Buddy of mine had Microsoft (might have been the BSA, I forget) contact them about an audit several years ago (small company w/ ~200 million annual sales). Microsoft demanded a bunch of documentation from them on their use of microsoft products and documentation of licenses.

They only buy Dell systems, so each computer was appropriately licensed. Where nobody thought to add additional licenses as the company grew over the years were the server CALs. They ended up needing to purchase a hundred or so CALs.

The whole microsoft CAL thing is confusing as hell. Per user, per device, concurrent, non-concurrent. Who the hell can keep track of it or what is actually required.

No CALs for samba or mysql, i always tell him.

Not sure why M$ targeted him, or, what they would have done had he told them to pound sand. I'm not aware of any code in M$ products to disable their usage remotely, so its not like they can remotely turn off your system and put you out of business (getting a legal injunction is a different story, and I'm not familiar enough w/ the case law in the US to know how a court would react to such a request.)

[2N3055]

They can only sue you, and then only if they have proof, which you don't have to give them. They are nothing to you.
Even if they could disable your systems remotely, that is a sabotage,  akin to act of terrorism. They have no right to retaliate.
Also that would mean they have remote tools in your network. Meaning malware, a trojan horse remote execution engine.
In EU that would be serious offence. Not to mention that would make them very popular with government, police, intelligence services.
Huawei scenario comes to mind...

[Mr. Scram]

They can only sue you, and then only if they have proof, which you don't have to give them. They are nothing to you.
Even if they could disable your systems remotely, that is a sabotage,  akin to act of terrorism. They have no right to retaliate.
Also that would mean they have remote tools in your network. Meaning malware, a trojan horse remote execution engine.
In EU that would be serious offence. Not to mention that would make them very popular with government, police, intelligence services.
Huawei scenario comes to mind...

What's with people getting these crazy ideas nowadays? Terrorism? It's ridiculous how eroded that term has become, considering we're now using it for license enforcement.

The worst they can do is probably to revoke your licenses. It will take a while for it to have any real effects, but not being able to deploy new systems or redeploy old ones would quickly become a pain. Anything tied to Azure can obviously be shut down instantly. Note that they are part of the BSA, so any and all other partners could also revoke their licenses. If those are packages which have more regular license checks with external servers, thinks could get painful rather quickly.

[MrMobodies]

So you agree for them to monitor and control your device remotely for 'unlicensed use'.

Encryption notice: If connected up they or their third party companies can spy on you and your usage through the equipment/software and can do what they like and won't take responsibility with whatever happens on their end.

Audit: They come onto your property and charge you for the visit if they think you underpaid or something is up with the way you use it according to the license.

Transfer. You may not transfer the Software unless you obtain Keysight’s prior written authorization, deliver all copies of the Software to the transferee along with this EULA, and pay any applicable fees. For all transfers, the transferee must accept this EULA as a condition to any transfer and your license to use the Software will terminate upon transfer. Entitlement to receive technical support services for the Software may be transferred provided you obtain Keysight’s prior written authorization and pay any applicable fees. This section applies only to the extent permissible under applicable mandatory laws.

Sounds like they want to own the functionality of the equipment.

[Mr. Scram]

So you agree for them to monitor and control your device remotely for 'unlicensed use'.

Encryption notice: If connected up they or their third party companies can spy on you and your usage through the equipment/software and can do what they like and won't take responsibility with whatever happens on their end.

Audit: They come onto your property and charge you for the visit if they think you underpaid or something is up with the way you use it according to the license.

Transfer. You may not transfer the Software unless you obtain Keysight’s prior written authorization, deliver all copies of the Software to the transferee along with this EULA, and pay any applicable fees. For all transfers, the transferee must accept this EULA as a condition to any transfer and your license to use the Software will terminate upon transfer. Entitlement to receive technical support services for the Software may be transferred provided you obtain Keysight’s prior written authorization and pay any applicable fees. This section applies only to the extent permissible under applicable mandatory laws.

Sounds like they want to own the functionality of the equipment.

It sounds like the same game almost all larger companies are trying to play nowadays. You buy and own nothing, but rent everything. Unfortunately, that's a much too tentative base to build your own company on. Giving dozen or so other companies the ability to pull the plug on vital parts of yours isn't good business practice.

[2N3055]

They can only sue you, and then only if they have proof, which you don't have to give them. They are nothing to you.
Even if they could disable your systems remotely, that is a sabotage,  akin to act of terrorism. They have no right to retaliate.
Also that would mean they have remote tools in your network. Meaning malware, a trojan horse remote execution engine.
In EU that would be serious offence. Not to mention that would make them very popular with government, police, intelligence services.
Huawei scenario comes to mind...

What's with people getting these crazy ideas nowadays? Terrorism? It's ridiculous how eroded that term has become, considering we're now using it for license enforcement.

The worst they can do is probably to revoke your licenses. It will take a while for it to have any real effects, but not being able to deploy new systems or redeploy old ones would quickly become a pain. Anything tied to Azure can obviously be shut down instantly. Note that they are part of the BSA, so any and all other partners could also revoke their licenses. If those are packages which have more regular license checks with external servers, thinks could get painful rather quickly.

I said "akin to terrorism".
There is no "license enforcement" by private commercial company.  Enforcement is a job of government "law enforcement" agencies. That is the law. If Microsoft or Keysight don't like what I do or they are in doubt that I might be in breach of contract they can go to court and sue me. They have no other LEGAL approach available.

They cannot even revoke my licenses one sided, without court order allowing them to do so because it was found in court that I was, in fact in breach of contract.
It's not Wild West. They don't get to enforce their own version of law by themselves.

If they disable my business, and cause me loses, they are guilty of act of commercial sabotage and liable for that. And if they are unlucky that I have government contract, they will be in fact in big problems.My government might actually declare it "act of terrorism by foreign agents", because of cross border activity. And act of espionage, because  of remote tools in my network.
It's not me who invents this.

To make it clear, I'm talking of them reaching in my network and disabling my scope.
If I use software as a service, they can disable their service on their side, in which they are not doing anything on my side.

Big problem is that USA law is very liberal what you can write in contract. Not so much in other countries, especially in EU.
I assure you that contracts in EU look very differently that those in USA. I've seen both versions for same equipment.
And if contract has stipulations that are in violation of consumer rights, human rights,etc etc. they are simply ignored (redacted) like they don't exist.

[Mr. Scram]

I said "akin to terrorism".
There is no "license enforcement" by private commercial company.  Enforcement is a job of government "law enforcement" agencies. That is the law. If Microsoft or Keysight don't like what I do or they are in doubt that I might be in breach of contract they can go to court and sue me. They have no other LEGAL approach available.

They cannot even revoke my licenses one sided, without court order allowing them to do so because it was found in court that I was, in fact in breach of contract.
It's not Wild West. They don't get to enforce their own version of law by themselves.

If they disable my business, and cause me loses, they are guilty of act of commercial sabotage and liable for that. And if they are unlucky that I have government contract, they will be in fact in big problems.My government might actually declare it "act of terrorism by foreign agents", because of cross border activity. And act of espionage, because  of remote tools in my network.
It's not me who invents this.

To make it clear, I'm talking of them reaching in my network and disabling my scope.
If I use software as a service, they can disable their service on their side, in which they are not doing anything on my side.

Big problem is that USA law is very liberal what you can write in contract. Not so much in other countries, especially in EU.
I assure you that contracts in EU look very differently that those in USA. I've seen both versions for same equipment.
And if contract has stipulations that are in violation of consumer rights, human rights,etc etc. they are simply ignored (redacted) like they don't exist.

"Akin to terrorism" is still comparing it to terrorism. That's preposterous. Terrorism has to do with violence, death and causing terror for ideological purposes. None of those elements are present. It's a company enforcing the agreement you made with them for profit. Using the term terrorism is a just cheap escalation to claim some sort of moral high ground. After all, who doesn't hate terrorists?

If your software calls home every week, they can obviously just stop providing that service until all the requirements of the agreement have been met. Yes, companies can enforce the agreement you have with them just fine. They don't have to go to court for that. This could mean certain parts of your business stop functioning as expected. It's like how the phone company can disconnect you if you stop paying your bills, or turn out to abuse the service in some way.

[2N3055]

"Akin to terrorism" is still comparing it to terrorism. That's preposterous. Terrorism has to do with violence, death and causing terror for ideological purposes. None of those elements are present. It's a company enforcing the agreement you made with them for profit. Using the term terrorism is a just cheap escalation to claim some sort of moral high ground. After all, who doesn't hate terrorists?

If your software calls home every week, they can obviously just stop providing that service until all the requirements of the agreement have been met. Yes, companies can enforce the agreement you have with them just fine. They don't have to go to court for that. This could mean certain parts of your business stop functioning as expected. It's like how the phone company can disconnect you if you stop paying your bills, or turn out to abuse the service in some way.

If they disrupt any service connected to government, law enforcement , health services, public, electric services by connecting to their network and disabling something they would do exactly terrorism..
It is not me inventing this, I'm telling you how it is seen by those mentioned. It is paranoid crap if you ask me but they would treat it like "foreign agent action". 

If somebody disables something in power grid in USA it is terrorism. If USA company does it in Croatia it's justified and no problem at all. Double standards much?

As I said, if you use something as a service, it's a different story. That would be different.

But if Keysight remotely disables my oscilloscope, inside my network, because they suspect something they would be in the world of trouble.
They can disable my updates on their sites, they can claim I voided warranty (good luck with that too), but they cannot come to my office and hit my scope with a hammer. Both in real and in virtual sense.

They can sue me, and police can come with a warrant, and collect equipment in question for forensic examination. If it is proven that I'm in violation, then, they (by their own license agreement) will have to give me back my money, take scope back, and then sue me for any damages they think I incurred upon them. In which  case a court will decide what my liabilities  towards them would be, and I would have to pay that and court expenses.

[Mr. Scram]

If they disrupt any service connected to government, law enforcement , health services, public, electric services by connecting to their network and disabling something they would do exactly terrorism..
It is not me inventing this, I'm telling you how it is seen by those mentioned. It is paranoid crap if you ask me but they would treat it like "foreign agent action". 

If somebody disables something in power grid in USA it is terrorism. If USA company does it in Croatia it's justified and no problem at all. Double standards much?

As I said, if you use something as a service, it's a different story. That would be different.

But if Keysight remotely disables my oscilloscope, inside my network, because they suspect something they would be in the world of trouble.
They can disable my updates on their sites, they can claim I voided warranty (good luck with that too), but they cannot come to my office and hit my scope with a hammer. Both in real and in virtual sense.

They can sue me, and police can come with a warrant, and collect equipment in question for forensic examination. If it is proven that I'm in violation, then, they (by their own license agreement) will have to give me back my money, take scope back, and then sue me for any damages they think I incurred upon them. In which  case a court will decide what my liabilities  towards them would be, and I would have to pay that and court expenses.

This has nothing to do with terrorism. Terrorism is causing death and destruction for ideological purposes. This is a company enforcing a commercial agreement for profit. They have nothing in common.

You seem to be misunderstanding the argument here. It's not about actively knocking out your software. It's about not providing the infrastructure it requires to operate any more. Windows will continue to work just fine without a license server once activated, but activating new installs or computers becomes impossible. In most organisations systems are continually being replaced or reinstalled, which means you start running out of activated systems quite quickly.  It seems Solidworks needs to regularly communicate with a server to stay activated. If Dassault pulls your access to that server, your software will cease operating after the activation period.

That being said, parties like the BSA seem to opt for litigation rather than revoking licenses. They're a rather deep pocketed alliance and their motive is to get you to pay, not to bankrupt you. Even though they easily could. It's worth mentioning that licenses do seem to get revoked, but that these are licenses shared publicly on the internet and not those of organisations refusing an audit.

[MrMobodies]

Here's a joke:

Key Sight.

They have license keys in their sight.

It's in the name and they're now going  by it.

They want every in sight to how their keys are being used.

[HighVoltage]

It seems Solidworks needs to regularly communicate with a server to stay activated. If Dassault pulls your access to that server, your software will cease operating after the activation period.

Indeed, Solidworks not only requires access to one of their servers for activation, it wants to communicate every time Solidworks is started and if it can not find the Solidworks server, it will start complaining in about a month or so until it will no longer start. Even worst, if you are in a different country to your original activation country, Solidworks will contact you and ask why you use a license outside of your activation country! Unreal! So, a good VPN service is my friend, when I travel with Solidwoks on my laptop.

Try to activate an older Adobe package that you have paid for.
Its ridicules, Adobe has turned off the old activation servers and requires the user to buy a newer product.

It really seems like all larger companies play this game these days.
I really don't like it that Keysight is going down this rabbit hole.

 

[Zero999]

I don't have a problem with paying for software, but it has become crazy. What's disappointing is how little the most expensive software is developed and improved and how much they charge for maintenance. The problem is vendor lock-in as the software company effectively owns all the data created with their program, as no other programs can fully read and manipulate it.

If you're an individual or small organisation, it's often better to pirate the software, rather than pay for it: no audits, no licences and no phoning home, just don't get caught!

I think very large organisations could probably save themselves money by employing developers to either develop their own software in house, or modifying an existing open source package to suit the business, rather than purchasing an off the shelf product. Once your software licencing, deployment and auditing costs reach 7 digits it starts to make more sense. Look at what Google do.

I just steer clear of all this nonsense by using free software, whenever possible.

[tooki]

<offtopic>

Terrorism? It's ridiculous how eroded that term has become, considering we're now using it for license enforcement.

I couldn’t agree more. Terrorism (as the word implies) originally meant forcing an issue by terrorizing: making people feel unsafe. (And in this, IMHO the terrorists won, since they successfully made people believe the world is FAR less safe than it actually is.) And while many horrific acts are committed by various actors, few of them are actually terrorism by this definition. Terrorism is intended to instill fear, and causing harm is merely the means to that end. But not every act of harm is intended to instill fear.

</offtopic>

[cdev]

People should take it more seriously than they do when a manufacturer uses the word "terrorism".

Don't pirate software, its a dumb mistake.

[Mr. Scram]

I don't have a problem with paying for software, but it has become crazy. What's disappointing is how little the most expensive software is developed and improved and how much they charge for maintenance. The problem is vendor lock-in as the software company effectively owns all the data created with their program, as no other programs can fully read and manipulate it.

If you're an individual or small organisation, it's often better to pirate the software, rather than pay for it: no audits, no licences and no phoning home, just don't get caught!

I think very large organisations could probably save themselves money by employing developers to either develop their own software in house, or modifying an existing open source package to suit the business, rather than purchasing an off the shelf product. Once your software licencing, deployment and auditing costs reach 7 digits it starts to make more sense. Look at what Google do.

I just steer clear of all this nonsense by using free software, whenever possible.

Agreed. Burdening the paying user with ever more invasive measures and models isn't productive. Poking holes through your firewall, running all kinds of deep burying software on your hardware and network and running the risk of measures kicking you out of your software causing risks to production all add up to a very unsatisfying experience. At some point running pirated software simply becomes less of an operational risk, which is a rather painful conclusion. I vehemently disagree with pirating software and especially software used to make money with, but I can see how people get fed up with it at some point. To add injury to insult, it's doubtful it's very effective.

Adobe would be a good example of this. They already made it a huge headache to license software without their cloud solution and now they eliminated that possibility completely. They don't seem to understand companies aren't very thrilled to pay substantial amounts of money for software which can't be managed with existing tools and standards and which updates and calls home essentially at will, causing all kinds of practical issues. All that for software which hasn't really changed or improved much the past decade or so. It's hard to blame people who decide pirating is more sensible, even if I don't agree with it. At this point it's not even about the money any more.

[rhb]

I think very large organisations could probably save themselves money by employing developers to either develop their own software in house, or modifying an existing open source package to suit the business, rather than purchasing an off the shelf product. Once your software licencing, deployment and auditing costs reach 7 digits it starts to make more sense. Look at what Google do.

Developing in house is generally disastrous.   I spent 20 years fixing in house software for major oil companies.  I was paid far more than the software was worth.  And that excluded the initial development cost.

Whenever possible, I solved problems either by modifying existing free software or writing additional modules for it.

Developing something like a reservoir simulator would probably cost over $100 million *if* you had an absolutely first class development team.  Just porting a single seismic imaging code to a GPU from a CPU would cost over $200K.

Scientific and technical software is very different from everything else.  There are edge cases and singularities in the equations which must be handled correctly.

Consider this equation.  As Phi approaches zero, Kd and Kw approach Ks.  So it's a numerical horse race as to which term blows up first.  I spent days figuring out how to solve it so it didn't blow up.

Kw         =      Kd       +       Kf
_______        _______      ____________
Ks - Kw        Ks - Kd       Phi*(Ks - Kf)

It's called "Gassmann's Equation" and it is the low frequency limit on the effect of the pore fluid on the stiffness of a porous medium.  It gets worse when you need to consider higher frequencies.  It is the single most difficult expression I have ever had to code.  The thing that makes it so hard is that none of the values are noise free.

[Nominal Animal]

I spent days figuring out how to solve it so it didn't blow up.

I hope you had access to a good CAS like Maple.  I couldn't do computational physics without a computer algebra system at all.

Consider embedded atom model. The potential energy E_i of an atom is

         E_i = F(sum(rho(r_ij[/i]), j ≠ i)) + 0.5 sum(V(r_ij), j ≠ i)

where the sum is over all other atoms j, r_ij the distance between atoms i and j, F(rho) represents an embedding energy, and V(r) is a pairwise potential. Both F and V have algebraic expressions, but they're more commonly expressed as cubic piecewise polynomials (with a few thousand samples).

To calculate the trajectories, you need the forces instead of the potential. Force is opposite to the gradient of the potential, so you need to calculate the derivative of the total potential (the above being the potential for one atom), with the contribution to the total forces separated to unique atom pairs. Then, you need to do small enough time steps that no energy is lost due to trajectory integrals (which are really "just" sums, because the only way you calculate such integrals is via numerical approximation anyway; except that you use predictor-corrector algorithms instead of plain sums).

I definitely do not intend this to look like one-upmanship, because EAM is one of the simpler ones, and chemists (especially organic chemists simulating proteins and whatnot) use an order of magnitude more complex models. In their force field models, it is common to not do the summations over atom pairs, but over pairs, triplets, and quads.

My actual point is, to implement efficient, robust, reliable scientific computation, one needs a multidisciplinary background: you need someone who knows enough computer science to construct good algorithms; someone who can do it diligently and apply good software engineering practices to keep it maintainable, testable, and correct; someone who understands the math enough to see the singularities and boundary conditions that keep the model valid; but all in one package because in the core code, all of those need to be applied on the whole and on every line. And that's just the core developers. Then you need someone to work with the domain scientists to see what they need as opposed to want, and someone with a bit of graphical background to ensure the results are visualized correctly. The reason such research can be done in universities is because they have to do it to get the scientific results they want. In the industry, it isn't cheap. It isn't sexy, not a glorious field at all.  But definitely interesting and challenging, if you have the chops, and the intestinal fortitude to deal with the substandard crap you need to fix.  I like it, and can do it given a good CAS, but lack that intestinal fortitude myself.

Developing in house is generally disastrous. [...]
Whenever possible, I solved problems either by modifying existing free software or writing additional modules for it.

Completely agreed. This stuff is hard to do right, and the only true cost-effective way is via open source development.

I do not necessarily mean free or copyleft stuff; just development where different teams working on similar problems share the source for their tools among each other, and preferably with Universities (both postdocs and students) doing research on same/similar problems.  (That's how we advanced science for hundreds of years thus far, with good results.)

[Zero999]

I think very large organisations could probably save themselves money by employing developers to either develop their own software in house, or modifying an existing open source package to suit the business, rather than purchasing an off the shelf product. Once your software licencing, deployment and auditing costs reach 7 digits it starts to make more sense. Look at what Google do.

Developing in house is generally disastrous.   I spent 20 years fixing in house software for major oil companies.  I was paid far more than the software was worth.  And that excluded the initial development cost.

That was just your experience. No doubt there are examples where it's gone wrong but many companies do develop their own software in house. I work at company which does aerospace research which develops plenty of software.

Rolling out proprietary software can be just as costly, if not more so. I remember a company wasting loads of money on new ERP software to replace an old more manual system and it was a total disaster. That crappy software couldn't even do basic stock control properly. A simple database built on a free engine would have worked much better and been cheaper to implement. I could've done a better job using LibreOffice.

Whenever possible, I solved problems either by modifying existing free software or writing additional modules for it.

So you fixed it by writing code, rather than buying proprietary software? I agree and I said that before, see the highlighted section above.

[Mr. Scram]

Developing your own solution at great expense instead of buying COTS is a well known trap. Developing your own makes sense if it doesn't already exist, but that's much more rare than you'd think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_invented_here

[Zero999]

Developing your own solution at great expense instead of buying COTS is a well known trap. Developing your own makes sense if it doesn't already exist, but that's much more rare than you'd think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_invented_here

I am well aware of that, which is why I was talking more about using open source software, than reinventing the wheel. Look at what Google do.

In the case I where I work, it didn't exist, so it made sense, but I don't work in that side of the company, so know little about it.

[vtwin@cox.net]

Developing your own solution at great expense instead of buying COTS is a well known trap. Developing your own makes sense if it doesn't already exist, but that's much more rare than you'd think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_invented_here

This is a argument which goes around and around in a circle.

There are benefits to using pre-developed software. For example, it is unlikely a company's business methodology creating letters is going to be substantially different where developing their own in-house word processor makes any type of financial sense. Far easier (and less expensive) to purchase Word.

However, if business processes are substantially unique such that an off-the-shelf product would require significant modification in order to be usable (or, conversely, you have to significantly change your business processes to conform with the software's limitations) then you're not saving any money. In these instances in-house development makes sense.

[Mr. Scram]

This is a argument which goes around and around in a circle.

There are benefits to using pre-developed software. For example, it is unlikely a company's business methodology creating letters is going to be substantially different where developing their own in-house word processor makes any type of financial sense. Far easier (and less expensive) to purchase Word.

However, if business processes are substantially unique such that an off-the-shelf product would require significant modification in order to be usable (or, conversely, you have to significantly change your business processes to conform with the software's limitations) then you're not saving any money. In these instances in-house development makes sense.

The problem with that is that most companies have talked themselves into being "substantially unique". Everyone thinks he's special, but if you really look at what companies do the overwhelming majority is a run of the mill business, or one consisting of standard components.

[vtwin@cox.net]

The problem with that is that most companies have talked themselves into being "substantially unique". Everyone thinks he's special, but if you really look at what companies do the overwhelming majority is a run of the mill business, or one consisting of standard components.

Like I said, you can go around and around with this argument. My wife is an IT audit manager at an accounting firm (the initials of which you're probably familiar with) and sees this day in and day out.

For instance, a company my wife audits uses an in-house expense report system. It was developed in-house because a certain federal agency has periodic reporting requirements which companies in this industry have to adhere to. At the point the expense report is entered, the sales rep has to enter the certain information which is verified against national databases and other consistency checks are performed to ensure the legally-mandated reporting requirements can be met. This software was developed a decade ago and hasn't substantially changed since then other than routine maintenance/patches to address new reporting requirements instituted by the federal agency. If the company doesn't accurately report the legally mandated information, they run the risk of being shut down or being heavily fined.

The company was recently acquired and the new CFO has decided he wants SAP Concur in the "cloud" because "clouds" are pretty and they're the in-thing. You're hip if you're in the cloud. So in addition to the multi-hundred-thousand-dollar annual license fee, he's paying SAP many hundreds of thousands to customize the package to perform this verification function in addition to other things the federal agency requires already present in the in-house program. So, what's the end result? The company ends up paying SAP to customize a piece of software to meet certain requirements (already met by the existing program), which really does nothing more than subsidizes SAP's development costs of a product which they can now go out and market to other companies as having this particular set of features.  Oh, and I should mention the "new" spiffy SAP product doesn't do sales fleet management (which the in-house product did) so Finance is now hiring another person to work with an in-house Excel spreadsheet to do it manually.

The in-house solution was developed way back when the company was held by a small number of private investors interested in maximizing their bottom line, and the cost-savings of developing the in-house app was easily demonstrated on paper (it took their in-house development staff of 1 person 3 months full-time to develop, another month to parallel test and eventually go live after performing a software validation process). Today, its held by a public company and the sky is the limit with spending OPM.

When the IT audit was conducted, there was no underlying reason to change the software, it was not lacking and was adequately documented (source, policies, procedures, etc.) if the development staff got hit by an asteroid. But hey, now the CFO can say "We run SAP" on his resume for his next C-level job, right?

Sometimes, off-the-shelf software makes sense. Other times, a custom-developed application makes sense.

But, when you sell hammers, you see a hammer as the solution to everything.

[Nominal Animal]

For example, it is unlikely a company's business methodology creating letters is going to be substantially different where developing their own in-house word processor makes any type of financial sense. Far easier (and less expensive) to purchase Word.

I'd recommend LibreOffice instead, so you can use the first year license costs to pay someone to streamline the work, create the letter templates, and basic instructions outlining how to utilise the templates and letter-write most efficiently. That way you

• Escape the vendor lock-in
• Extract maximum yield from your common tools
• Customise the tools to best suit your business/use case/workflow

Having done a couple of such customization jobbies as a young whippersnapper (as a subcontractor for a graphic artist; Word 6.0 and WordPerfect era), I know that approach works.

So the real question is not whether to buy a clear-off-the-shelf solution or develop your own in-house solution, but how to optimise workflows. Some of the cost is best spent in buying off the shelf (be that software like Maple or Mathematica, for which no comparable open source alternatives exist; I do know about Maxima, SageMath and Octave), some in paying someone to customise stuff for you, and a surprising amount is needed to keep your secretaries skill level up to par.

(I'm sure you've heard cases where government organizations have "redacted" information by changing text background color black, or drawing black rectangles over the text, then saving the document as PDF.  That stuff, in my opinion, is their bosses' fault, for not ensuring their minions know how to use the tools properly.)

Like rhb said, and I already concurred, even when doing scientific computation you might think is one-off, it is well worth the investment (and the theoretical business risk of "leaking our sooper-sekret kode ju-ju we should patent") to share known working software tools.  They just do not contain as much secret sauce as people think. It is the business-internal/research-group processes and "logical approaches" (dunno proper term; "problem solving paradigm applied") that might, and it is surprisingly exactly that that most businesses spend nothing on, and rarely if ever document in any way.  It's like paying thousands for fancy new typewriters used by secretaries typing 10 words a minute using their forefingers only.

[Keysight Technologies Rep]

At Keysight, we value and appreciate your feedback. Keysight periodically updates its End User License Agreement (EULA) to stay current with technology and industry best practices and issued a new EULA effective November 1, 2018. The intent of Keysight’s EULA is to preserve software value for licensed users by discouraging software piracy and unlicensed use. This allows Keysight to continually develop and improve its software. The terms of the EULA should not pose a concern to licensed users. If you have any questions or additional concerns about Keysight’s EULA, please contact your regional Keysight call center and a response will be provided, normally within 48 hours. We appreciate your interest in Keysight and Keysight products.

[MarkS]

The problem with your EULA is that it applies to both businesses and home users (hobbyists) equally. And the, "licensed users have nothing to fear" doesn't hold water. How would you know the location of the device except via the license? IP addresses will only get you so far. Just try to enter a private residence in the U.S. unaccompanied by law enforcement in possession of a warrant and see where that gets you.

[Mr. Scram]

At Keysight, we value and appreciate your feedback. Keysight periodically updates its End User License Agreement (EULA) to stay current with technology and industry best practices and issued a new EULA effective November 1, 2018. The intent of Keysight’s EULA is to preserve software value for licensed users by discouraging software piracy and unlicensed use. This allows Keysight to continually develop and improve its software. The terms of the EULA should not pose a concern to licensed users. If you have any questions or additional concerns about Keysight’s EULA, please contact your regional Keysight call center and a response will be provided, normally within 48 hours. We appreciate your interest in Keysight and Keysight products.

Quoted for posterity. Keysight will not audit or pursue licensed users. I'm not sure how it intends to audit unlicensed users it has no agreement or legal standing with, but there you go.

[TERRA Operative]

Good thing I bought my Keysight gear before Nov 1st 2018.


Don't think I'll buy anymore new Keysight at this rate. I'll stick with 2nd hand HP boat anchors...

[Zero999]

Good thing I bought my Keysight gear before Nov 1st 2018.


Don't think I'll buy anymore new Keysight at this rate. I'll stick with 2nd hand HP boat anchors...

I agree. Where I work it's important to avoid this kind of thing because the company is involved with defence contracts.

We have quite a lot of old test equipment. The only modern 'scopes we have are a Tektronix one (can't remember the model) and a couple of cheap Owon SDS7102-V. The latter get more use because running off batteries is handy and they're light and cheap, so it's no disaster if we break one. I also have my own hacked Rigol DS1054Z, which I bought because of the hack, so Rigol actually made money from me, by making hacking easy.

I'm glad I know about this so we can avoid Keyshite products in future.

[soldar]

I said "akin to terrorism".
There is no "license enforcement" by private commercial company.  Enforcement is a job of government "law enforcement" agencies. That is the law. If Microsoft or Keysight don't like what I do or they are in doubt that I might be in breach of contract they can go to court and sue me. They have no other LEGAL approach available.

They cannot even revoke my licenses one sided, without court order allowing them to do so because it was found in court that I was, in fact in breach of contract.
It's not Wild West. They don't get to enforce their own version of law by themselves.

If they disable my business, and cause me loses, they are guilty of act of commercial sabotage and liable for that. And if they are unlucky that I have government contract, they will be in fact in big problems.My government might actually declare it "act of terrorism by foreign agents", because of cross border activity. And act of espionage, because  of remote tools in my network.
It's not me who invents this.

To make it clear, I'm talking of them reaching in my network and disabling my scope.
If I use software as a service, they can disable their service on their side, in which they are not doing anything on my side.

Big problem is that USA law is very liberal what you can write in contract. Not so much in other countries, especially in EU.
I assure you that contracts in EU look very differently that those in USA. I've seen both versions for same equipment.
And if contract has stipulations that are in violation of consumer rights, human rights,etc etc. they are simply ignored (redacted) like they don't exist.

You seem to know a lot about the Law. In America "if contract has stipulations that are in violation of consumer rights, human rights," or plain public policy those stipulations will not be enforced by the courts. The courts will not enforce clauses which are against the law. I would think that is pretty much universal.

But software as a service has not been deemed contrary to any laws anywhere as far as I know. Now it is up to you to provide citations of laws or court cases which support your position because I am doubtful about your unsupported assertions.

In any case, if you buy a software that needs to be validated and enabled online every time it is started or every so many minutes of use and it is clear from the get go that that is the way the software works then I can't see how you could have any claim unless the vendor is failing their obligations in which case your remedy is to sue them in court.

All this talk about "akin to terrorism" etc is just silly, childish talk. Let us see some real world evidence, some citations, of statutes or court cases. Everything else is empty talk.

[2N3055]

I said "akin to terrorism".
If they disable my business, and cause me loses, they are guilty of act of commercial sabotage and liable for that.
And if they are unlucky that I have government contract, they will be in fact in big problems.
My government might actually declare it "act of terrorism by foreign agents", because of cross border activity. And act of espionage, because  of remote tools in my network.
It's not me who invents this.

All this talk about "akin to terrorism" etc is just silly, childish talk. Let us see some real world evidence, some citations, of statutes or court cases. Everything else is empty talk.

You can name call me whatever you want. It is not me inventing this terminology or paranoia.
Any act in which a third party connects to my network without my permission, and disables my functioning and/or creates damages is cybercrime. And if it does that to a company that is under government contract that is connected to national security or a company that provides nationwide services (like electric grid) that will put nation in state of distress it is deemed cyberterrorism.
For examples search Google.

I'm not one of these entities. I'm not saying "hacking" me would be "cyberterrorism". But it would be cybercrime. And they have no way to know who is other other side.

And Kesight Rep gave a nice and expected response: They have no intention to do any of such things, because they are not stupid. It would be wrong a illegal, and Keysight is none of that.
If they happen to get into the point that there is suspicion of someone illegally exploiting Keysight intellectual property they will start whatever legal procedure is in that particular jurisdiction and rely on legal system to give results.

Which means that this topic's question was answered by Keysight and was put to rest.
I'm happy with answer. I have no further questions on this topic.
Regards,

[soldar]

Any act in which a third party connects to my network without my permission, and disables my functioning and/or creates damages is cybercrime.

  I have not seen any software that "connects to your website without your permission".  It seems we are talking exactly the opposite: the software needs to connect to their website to keep functioning.

Again: the proof is in the pudding. Let us see some real world cases rather than wild speculation.

[2N3055]

Any act in which a third party connects to my network without my permission, and disables my functioning and/or creates damages is cybercrime.

  I have not seen any software that "connects to your website without your permission".  It seems we are talking exactly the opposite: the software needs to connect to their website to keep functioning.

Again: the proof is in the pudding. Let us see some real world cases rather than wild speculation.

Again,

read all from the beginning.  I didn't say, imply or stipulate that thea ARE DOING IT. Quite the opposite, i said they cannot do that because it would be stupid and illegal and they are therefore wouldn't do it. They are Kesight, not bunch of idiots.

You jumped in the middle of the sentence, took a phrase you didn't like (maybe because of something else that bothers you in your life) and decided to make me target of your frustrations.

As I said, Keysight answered, it's all good. I'm good, we're good..

But what I said stays: If a third party connects to your network illegally and create damages, steal data, even connect to a computer that according to GDPR contains what is considered personal data, they are committing cybercrime.  If some company suspects you are infringing on their intellectual property they sue you. And courts sort it out, and police or whatever will execute the decisions.

Software as service is a different thing. And even there, they can defy you service only if you are in clear breach of contract, and they have a way to legally prove that.
They could do it in clear cases, like you didn't pay what you owe, of you publicly disclose some information right there on Internet or such. 
They can't just deny you service because they don't like you or they are suspicious. Or better to say, they can, but that would open them to all kinds of potential problems.
And corporate lawyers don't like those.

Have a nice evening.

Regards,

Sinisa

[Jr460]

I wonder what defence contractors such as Lockheed Martin and Marshall's aerospace do?

Keysight: Can we audit your software and test equipment.

Defence contractor: No way. We can't allow a third party access to our restricted network, unless they're working on one of the projects and have signed the official secrets act.

Keysight: Then we'll revoke all your licences and take you to court.

Defence contractor: Good luck with that one!

You think this or M$ is bad, you should try Oracle.   Every few years they change in some way their software licensing model, per CPU/core, unless it is on Solaris, or concurrent user, or unlimited per machine, or........   They expect you to buy the product all over again.   They don't tell you how to transfer from one model to the next.   They will of course offer to to audit you machines and help determine the right amount to pay.....   if you pay them to come in and do the audit.    I've seen they try that with an arm of the federal gov.

[PlainName]

Sorry to be off-topic, but this needs to be zonked before it become (meaningless) common usage:

Again: the proof is in the pudding.

The correct quote, and meaning, is "The proof of the pudding is in the eating."

Should be self-explanatory: pudding isn't proof of anything; eating it shows whether it is good or bad.

You're welcome

[tooki]

Sorry to burst your bubble, dunkemhigh, but (to quote the sage Austin Powers), “that train has sailed...”. “The proof is in the pudding” has been used since the 1920s.

[PlainName]

I am not alone

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=the%20proof%20is%20in%20the%20pudding

A phrase that, when uttered, instantly identifies the speaker as being incredibly stupid and illiterate.

The original saying is "the proof of the pudding is in the eating", basically meaning that something has to be experienced/utilized in order to prove how good it is.

This phrase got messed up by idiots who don't quite understand what they are saying.

Similar mistakes include could care less (couldn't care less), stop running around with your chicken cut off (stop running around like a chicken with its head cut off), begs the question (raises the question), here here (hear hear), and all that glitters is gold (all that glitters/glisters is not gold - "glisters" is used in the original Shakespeare quote)

If no-one corrects these mistakes then pretty soon we'll no longer understand wtf anyone is on about. Think about those for whom English is a second (or third) language - how are they to figure out what it meant by (literally) meaningless bon mots such as the the pudding thing?
 

[tooki]

I never said you’re alone, I said you’re a century too late. This particular saying is now well established, whether you approve of it or not.

As for foreign learners: even the original isn’t particularly self explanatory (which is probably why it got mangled in the first place), so a learner is going to have to look it up anyway.

Having studied linguistics, I’m much more of a pragmatist: languages change and evolve. It doesn’t mean accepting everything, but some things do change around us and become newly correct, and there’s essentially fuck-all anyone can do about it.

[ebastler]

Sorry to burst your bubble, dunkemhigh, but (to quote the sage Austin Powers), “that train has sailed...”. “The proof is in the pudding” has been used since the 1920s.

dunkemhigh still has the majority on his side:
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=proof+is+in+the+pudding%2Cpudding+is+in+the+eating&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=17&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cproof%20is%20in%20the%20pudding%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cpudding%20is%20in%20the%20eating%3B%2Cc0

But let's revisit this 10 years from now... 

[2N3055]

Sorry to burst your bubble, dunkemhigh, but (to quote the sage Austin Powers), “that train has sailed...”. “The proof is in the pudding” has been used since the 1920s.

dunkemhigh still has the majority on his side:
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=proof+is+in+the+pudding%2Cpudding+is+in+the+eating&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=17&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cproof%20is%20in%20the%20pudding%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cpudding%20is%20in%20the%20eating%3B%2Cc0

But let's revisit this 10 years from now... 

But if you search from 1800 to 2008 he's right... :-)

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=proof+is+in+the+pudding%2Cpudding+is+in+the+eating&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=17&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cproof%20is%20in%20the%20pudding%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cpudding%20is%20in%20the%20eating%3B%2Cc0

Like he said, language is live and changes all the time.

[PlainName]

Either way, it was the 60s where it all started to go wrong. Damn hippies and dropouts, only puddings they ate had special ingredients..

[PlainName]

That ngram viewer is a great timewaster! Check out British English, where it's mostly the correct way, and American English, where it's mostly the wrong way. You can see who doesn't understand what they're saying.

And check out French. They're exclusively with the Brits on this. As are the Germans. Hmmm, maybe we should be sticking together...

[IanMacdonald]

This has been discussed at length on IT sites. Basically, the issue is that firms will pay up for software licenses rather and adhere to conditions of use which are probably unenforceable, rather than face a costly legal battle.

The only basis to software licensing is copyright Law, and this has a well-defined remit of allowing the creator of a work to control copying and public performance of that work.  The copying aspect is fairly clear, though it is not so clear as to what constitutes public performance of software, if anything does.

Even so, it is hard to see how this allows for restrictions on the number of users who can access a server, for example. In that case no part of the server software is being copied or performed. Another contentious issue is that of OEM software which (ostensibly) cannot be transferred to another computer.  If a HD containing Windows is transferred from a failed computer to a replacement, then the OS software is not even copied, so it's hard to see how a copyright violation could possibly arise. 

I'm told that the reason the vendors get away with making these outside-of-remit restrictions is simply that no-one has challenged them at Law. If they were challenged, or the threat of a challenge arose, they would probably just back down, because a judgement going against them would likely set a precedent making all restrictions outside the literal scope of copyright Law illegal. That would have massive consequences for the likes of server OS vendors, who could then only charge for installed instances of the OS itself, regardless of the number of user connections. I'd love to see that happen. 

In the case of test equipment, a lot of what goes on would be classed as crippleware if it were done on computers. Especially, equipment being sold with features which are intentionally disabled even though the controls for these features are on the front panel and look as if they ought to work. It seems that labs have simply accepted this situation without protest, whereas computer users rallied against it when it was tried on them, and largely got it outlawed. 

[TheSteve]

Sorry to be off-topic, but this needs to be zonked before it become (meaningless) common usage:

Again: the proof is in the pudding.

The correct quote, and meaning, is "The proof of the pudding is in the eating."

Should be self-explanatory: pudding isn't proof of anything; eating it shows whether it is good or bad.

You're welcome

All of you have proven is that this forum could use additional moderation.

[tooki]

Sorry to burst your bubble, dunkemhigh, but (to quote the sage Austin Powers), “that train has sailed...”. “The proof is in the pudding” has been used since the 1920s.

dunkemhigh still has the majority on his side:
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=proof+is+in+the+pudding%2Cpudding+is+in+the+eating&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=17&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cproof%20is%20in%20the%20pudding%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cpudding%20is%20in%20the%20eating%3B%2Cc0

But let's revisit this 10 years from now... 

Plus, that’s not a fully representative sample of common language use. You’d need to also look at spoken speech patterns, etc.

[ebastler]

All of you have proven is that this forum could use additional moderation.

As General Chat discussions go, I think this little digression was just fine...

[Simon]

Let's try to stay vaguely on topic.

[ejeffrey]

I wonder what defence contractors such as Lockheed Martin and Marshall's aerospace do?

Keysight: Can we audit your software and test equipment.

Defence contractor: No way. We can't allow a third party access to our restricted network, unless they're working on one of the projects and have signed the official secrets act.

Keysight: Then we'll revoke all your licences and take you to court.

Defence contractor: Good luck with that one!

We ran into that issue renewing our ADS license a big back.  They added the audit terms and our legal team wouldn't sign off on it because it is obviously insane.  It took several months (while keysight kept issuing free temporary licenses) and they got it removed from our contract.  I assume defense contractors deal with this all the time, and don't have any problem getting those terms changed.  I could only wish keysight (and other software vendors) did cost-benefit analysis on this sort of thing -- I can't imagine that they claw back much if any revenue from these terms, but it cost them 10s of thousands of dollars in lost licensing costs for us alone, plus the time their lawyers spent arguing back and forth about obviously unenforceable license terms.

It isn't just big stupid companies.  My university in grad school had a standard clause in their terms of business that any vendor they work with gives the university the right to do a complete financial audit of their entire company.  Most people ignored it, but a few companies called BS, and the university wouldn't accept language that said the university could audit their records only related to the transaction.  One supplier we worked with ended up forming a shell corp that just acted as a distributor, which the university was fine with.

[GilbouFR]

Software licenses, like laws, no one respects them if they are too complicated, or restrictive.
Most ULA (User License Agreements) are obscure, complex, almost unreadable unless you are lawyer and most of them do contain illegal items.
The golden rule is do not try to F your customers. Because they won't forget ever.