"This software is NOT free for commercial use"
-
@tonyshowoff said:
@scottalanmiller Depends on the company, a lot of smaller ones steal software like crazy. BTW I do agree with all you said on this, I'm just being a jerk
Yes, but VERY few condone it in writing from HR and/or management. They will mostly say that they won't steal things until the actually opportunity is in front of them. Get the policy without the context of the theft. Then deal with the theft through the official policy channels. Have to keep the horse before the cart.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Try talking to HR about the official policy on this stuff. I bet most HR departments would say that they simply fire people caught intentionally stealing software. Talk to HR in those terms, get a policy, then enforce. I bet this works often if handled through the correct channels.
Good Luck with that when it was the Systems administrator installing pirated software.
You go to HR first, don't mention products or names. You get a policy. Once you have the official policy in hand, you deal with the thieves and pirates the same no matter who they are. With a policy in hand, if it is not enforced, HR becomes responsible for the theft as well. As does management - because they don't just allow the theft, they specifically breach their own policy to do it.
It's all about the paperwork.
Oh we had the paperwork in place. It was always defined in the employee handbook (multiple binders full of rules and such). But, it wasn't enforced because of who it was as they were just trying to get the software needed to get the job done (even though there's many free options to do the same thing)
-
Without wishing to get into another row about semantics, I'm not sure calling it stealing is entirely accurate. Breaking the terms of the licence agreement doesn't seem to be exactly the same as stealing. Especially when in a lot of cases, the user doesn't even realise or understand the difference between non-commercial and commercial use.
I'm not condoning it though and I don't do it myself, or allow it where it I work.
A similar scenario occurs with trial versions.For example, you are not allowed to do commercial work on a 30-day trial of Autodesk products. You can only use the trial for testing purposes with test data. But a lot of users will use that 30 days to do commercial work. It's wrong, but is it stealing?
Or how about when you do private work but on a work's PC. For example, using Irfanview to process your family holiday snaps during your lunch break. This isn't allowed. Is it stealing?
I'm trying to introduce a grey area here, when in reality there is no grey area. You agree to the licence terms or you don't use the software.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
Oh we had the paperwork in place. It was always defined in the employee handbook (multiple binders full of rules and such). But, it wasn't enforced because of who it was as they were just trying to get the software needed to get the job done (even though there's many free options to do the same thing)
That's when the BSA eats the company alive. When they have documented that they weren't just doing it but having to break their own rules in addition to the law to do it.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
Without wishing to get into another row about semantics, I'm not sure calling it stealing is entirely accurate. Breaking the terms of the licence agreement doesn't seem to be exactly the same as stealing. Especially when in a lot of cases, the user doesn't even realise or understand the difference between non-commercial and commercial use.
I don't believe that many, if any, people don't understand they are stealing. People who steal routinely lie as well. Dishonest people are dishonest. Once you lack integrity, you'll say anything to sound social acceptable. Everyone knows what stealing is. Every five year old knows. I think claiming that the people you work with are that mentally challenged is worse than calling them thieves. But six of one, half dozen of the other, I suppose.
But there is no license when theft is involved. There is a difference between misapplying a license and stealing. If they aren't using it as licensed, they lack a license. It's theft plain and simple. They took something that belonged to someone else.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
A similar scenario occurs with trial versions.For example, you are not allowed to do commercial work on a 30-day trial of Autodesk products. You can only use the trial for testing purposes with test data. But a lot of users will use that 30 days to do commercial work. It's wrong, but is it stealing?
Well they took Autodesk and used it without a license. So no different than driving off with a used car that belongs to someone else (an older, cheaper one.)
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
Or how about when you do private work but on a work's PC. For example, using Irfanview to process your family holiday snaps during your lunch break. This isn't allowed. Is it stealing?
Is Irfanview not licensed for personal use? Is it not licensed by the company for the user to use? Not sure what aspect is in question in this example.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
I'm trying to introduce a grey area here, when in reality there is no grey area. You agree to the licence terms or you don't use the software.
Exactly. The big question becomes, IMHO, is it the company stealing something or an individual.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
Or how about when you do private work but on a work's PC. For example, using Irfanview to process your family holiday snaps during your lunch break. This isn't allowed. Is it stealing?
Is Irfanview not licensed for personal use? Is it not licensed by the company for the user to use? Not sure what aspect is in question in this example.
Irfanview is free for personal or educational use. I believe that means the task it's being used for in most EULAs not where it's installed. Even though I wouldn't allow it as it's very likely to be used to violate the terms. But, at home for example I have computers that have both commercial use licences because I own an LLC and do commercial paid work. but I also have home/personal use licences on the same systems. I can't use those to to commercial work but there's nothing limiting me from installing them on the same system.
-
OK, now we're getting into it!
Irfanview's licence states:
*1) IrfanView is provided as freeware, but only for private, non-commercial use (that means at home).
..
1b) If you intend to use IrfanView at your place of business or for commercial purposes, please register and purchase it.That's not entirely clear to me, but the key passages are "that means at home" and "at your place of business or for commercial purposes". Note the use of the word 'or' there rather than 'and'. I'm no lawyer, but that indicates to me that it is where you install it and not what you do with it once installed.
Now I'll confess, I have, in the past, used Irfanview to do personal work on a work computer during my lunch break. According to @scottalanmiller that may mean I'm either:
- Dishonest and lack integrity
- Have the mental capacity of a four year old.
You decide!
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
But, at home for example I have computers that have both commercial use licences because I own an LLC and do commercial paid work. but I also have home/personal use licences on the same systems. I can't use those to to commercial work but there's nothing limiting me from installing them on the same system.
Again, I'm no lawyer, but if I was I would argue that the jury has to decide if your PC is a business machine that you occasionally do private work on, or a private machine that you occasionally do business work on. If it is primarily a business machine, then I would argue that you can't install ANY software using a non-commercial licence, even if you only intend to use it for non-commercial work.
Otherwise, during a software audit, the auditor would have to prove that any software was actually being used for commercial purposes, which would be next to impossible, rather than only having to prove that software was installed on a business machine.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
But, at home for example I have computers that have both commercial use licences because I own an LLC and do commercial paid work. but I also have home/personal use licences on the same systems. I can't use those to to commercial work but there's nothing limiting me from installing them on the same system.
Again, I'm no lawyer, but if I was I would argue that the jury has to decide if your PC is a business machine that you occasionally do private work on, or a private machine that you occasionally do business work on. If it is primarily a business machine, then I would argue that you can't install ANY software using a non-commercial licence, even if you only intend to use it for non-commercial work.
Otherwise, during a software audit, the auditor would have to prove that any software was actually being used for commercial purposes, which would be next to impossible, rather than only having to prove that software was installed on a business machine.
I would agree with this, at least in general. Mixing business and work is tough. But if he dual licenses on a single one and is covered with one license or the other in every case, then that should work just fine.
-
I wouldn't install Personal use software in a normal company, that's a bad idea and just asking for trouble.
However in my case it's fine. None of the free or personal use software I have is licensed based on where it's installed but based on it's use. It's fairly common for company to even give out NFR/Non-Commercial use software when you do some pro-bono work that could use it.
