I am wondering if you guys have opinions/ideas on how to work around the issue of employers that make us install software we know they don't own or have a right to use. In these days, nobody can afford to lose their job. But I also want to cover my own behind you know? I do not like having to install "illegal" software, but how do I tell my employer this without losing my job?
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations strongm on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Avoiding unlicensed/cracked software while keeping your job 10
- Thread starter CostaRica
- Start date
About the only thing you can do is make it known to your supervisor(s) that, "Hey, you guys know the heat we can catch for unlicensed software?" If they don't and aren't interested, inform them. Otherwise, that's about it...you can either play the stoic and walk out in protest or you can eat the humble pie and install as ordered.
You have the option of "whistleblowing," which may or may not apply in your case, as it's more of a "public interest" provision. Or, you could make the anonymous call to the software company(ies) that are being taken advantage of and initiate that audit that's going to bring down your present company. In either scenario, you might lose your job. Of course, when the proverbial dung hits the fan, it's not likely the line worker doing the illegal installs who's going to take the heat, it's those with the deepest pockets who are going to get hit with the lawsuit.
How important is the issue to you? You know what they're doing is wrong, but are you willing to trade your paycheck for ethical vindication? YOU are the one who can make the call, not me, not anyone in this forum offering their two cents worth... Rotten situation, but not that unique I'm afraid. I work for a public entity that pulled this $*&# for three years before the (small) software company got wise and threatened a suit. End result, we walked without a scratch after agreeing to "make things right" by starting to pay for the licenses with no retroactive penalty. Go figure...
Good luck to you...
You have the option of "whistleblowing," which may or may not apply in your case, as it's more of a "public interest" provision. Or, you could make the anonymous call to the software company(ies) that are being taken advantage of and initiate that audit that's going to bring down your present company. In either scenario, you might lose your job. Of course, when the proverbial dung hits the fan, it's not likely the line worker doing the illegal installs who's going to take the heat, it's those with the deepest pockets who are going to get hit with the lawsuit.
How important is the issue to you? You know what they're doing is wrong, but are you willing to trade your paycheck for ethical vindication? YOU are the one who can make the call, not me, not anyone in this forum offering their two cents worth... Rotten situation, but not that unique I'm afraid. I work for a public entity that pulled this $*&# for three years before the (small) software company got wise and threatened a suit. End result, we walked without a scratch after agreeing to "make things right" by starting to pay for the licenses with no retroactive penalty. Go figure...
Good luck to you...
I feel your pain, my company computer had to have certain software just for me to do my job, I think the only legal piece of sofware they have supplied to me is the OS that comes with the laptop. It's rather annoying to me because I generally try to keep clean systems, but in that atmosphere I am using several thousand dollars worth of software that they give me on either burned CD's or in zip files with a key that has already been used about 5 to 50 times more than it should have been.
-Tarwn [sub]01010100 01101001 01100101 01110010 01101110 01101111 01101011 00101110 01100011 01101111 01101101 [/sub]
[sup]29 3K 10 3D 3L 3J 3K 10 32 35 10 3E 39 33 35 10 3K 3F 10 38 31 3M 35 10 36 3I 35 35 10 3K 39 3D 35 10 1Q 19[/sup]
Get better results for your questions: faq333-2924
Frequently Asked ASP Questions: faq333-3048
-Tarwn [sub]01010100 01101001 01100101 01110010 01101110 01101111 01101011 00101110 01100011 01101111 01101101 [/sub]
[sup]29 3K 10 3D 3L 3J 3K 10 32 35 10 3E 39 33 35 10 3K 3F 10 38 31 3M 35 10 36 3I 35 35 10 3K 39 3D 35 10 1Q 19[/sup]
Get better results for your questions: faq333-2924
Frequently Asked ASP Questions: faq333-3048
I have no pity for businesses that infrige on copyrights. Ask your direct superior if they plan to buy licences regarding the software in question.
If he tells you the company doesn't plan to give him Open source or freeware options that wouldn't make his actions illegal.
If you can use Open Source software instead of the software he asks you to use. Tell him why.
I'm one of those people that believe that software users shouldn't pay a dime if they are home users. But if they are in business to make money and use software that isn't free they should pay for it. Gary Haran
==========================
If he tells you the company doesn't plan to give him Open source or freeware options that wouldn't make his actions illegal.
If you can use Open Source software instead of the software he asks you to use. Tell him why.
I'm one of those people that believe that software users shouldn't pay a dime if they are home users. But if they are in business to make money and use software that isn't free they should pay for it. Gary Haran
==========================
sleipnir214
Programmer
xutopia:
Home users should not have to pay for software? I would love to hear how you arrived at that conclusion. Want the best answers? Ask the best questions: TANSTAAFL!
Home users should not have to pay for software? I would love to hear how you arrived at that conclusion. Want the best answers? Ask the best questions: TANSTAAFL!
sleipnir,
It is more a philosophy of principles rather than a de facto possibility.
I don't believe software is something that should be sold to people in a licence form. I hate the current model of proprietary formats and models.
I don't mind so much compagnies like UltraEdit that do extra efforts to provide quality software that don't stop you from going back and forth with other software. Heck I'm happy to buy a licence from them. But if I find an open source text editor that makes more sense (both budgetarily or for features i'll drop them in a split second).
Everyone should be using Free software both at home and in the office because there are tons of people offering quality software that is free.
Unfortunatly life isn't that way. We have big compagnies forcing their way into businesses and people's homes by not allowing anyone to use their proprietary format.
The only thing really stopping the Open Source movement from getting everywhere is that Microsoft keeps their forceful hands on people with their Office file format.
There are quality open source office applications but they cannot work with Office documents. Many businesses don't want to start using OpenOffice (free) but feel obliged to use something expensive (MS style) because that means they can operate with the majority of people out there. Heck someone looking for a job needs to send their resume in Word format if they want it to be opened by any potential employer.
If Microsoft would be forced to open their file format to others or start using a real XML format (not one that is proprietary and incompatible with other office applications), then people would be allowed to use free software to work with people all over the world and heck if Microsoft software really is that much better they could choose to pay to use it.
Truth is Microsoft doesn't offer much more than any other free software. If you use their software you are bullied around and have to pay for your licences for the years to come. If you don't they make sure it is hard enough for you to work in the IT field.
So as a rule of thumb I think people should have only free software on their computers at home. If they are forced by some bully to use their software then I don't feel bad if they "borrow" that software to view files or do anything else they need to (convert to OpenOffice format or send a resume in Word format).
Businesses on the other hand if they really made sensible choices as far as expenses are concerned they should have only one computer with expensive software running on it (so that people can convert to open file formats and communicate with the rest of the bullied world).
The rest of the machines should run Linux, OpenOffice, Evolution, GIMP, PHP, Perl, Apache and other quality tools that in very many ways provide better cost/quality ratio than MS products do. Gary Haran
==========================
It is more a philosophy of principles rather than a de facto possibility.
I don't believe software is something that should be sold to people in a licence form. I hate the current model of proprietary formats and models.
I don't mind so much compagnies like UltraEdit that do extra efforts to provide quality software that don't stop you from going back and forth with other software. Heck I'm happy to buy a licence from them. But if I find an open source text editor that makes more sense (both budgetarily or for features i'll drop them in a split second).
Everyone should be using Free software both at home and in the office because there are tons of people offering quality software that is free.
Unfortunatly life isn't that way. We have big compagnies forcing their way into businesses and people's homes by not allowing anyone to use their proprietary format.
The only thing really stopping the Open Source movement from getting everywhere is that Microsoft keeps their forceful hands on people with their Office file format.
There are quality open source office applications but they cannot work with Office documents. Many businesses don't want to start using OpenOffice (free) but feel obliged to use something expensive (MS style) because that means they can operate with the majority of people out there. Heck someone looking for a job needs to send their resume in Word format if they want it to be opened by any potential employer.
If Microsoft would be forced to open their file format to others or start using a real XML format (not one that is proprietary and incompatible with other office applications), then people would be allowed to use free software to work with people all over the world and heck if Microsoft software really is that much better they could choose to pay to use it.
Truth is Microsoft doesn't offer much more than any other free software. If you use their software you are bullied around and have to pay for your licences for the years to come. If you don't they make sure it is hard enough for you to work in the IT field.
So as a rule of thumb I think people should have only free software on their computers at home. If they are forced by some bully to use their software then I don't feel bad if they "borrow" that software to view files or do anything else they need to (convert to OpenOffice format or send a resume in Word format).
Businesses on the other hand if they really made sensible choices as far as expenses are concerned they should have only one computer with expensive software running on it (so that people can convert to open file formats and communicate with the rest of the bullied world).
The rest of the machines should run Linux, OpenOffice, Evolution, GIMP, PHP, Perl, Apache and other quality tools that in very many ways provide better cost/quality ratio than MS products do. Gary Haran
==========================
sleipnir214
Programmer
xutopia:
I disagree that it is the Big Corporations [evil background music] that is holding back adoption of open-source and free softare in the home.
I think that it is currently a function of two things: ignorance of the products available to your average home user, and a lack of the higher technical skills necessary to install and maintain some open-source and free software.
Your average home user wants to know how to browse the web and send and receive email. If they use office productivity tools, I don't think that interoperability is a problem. Some users may bring work home from the office, but I've seen no evidence that this is a majority of home users. So if you don't have to interoperate with the software written by Big Corporations [evil background music], the the nature of a file format is immaterial.
But the one thing that the Big Corporations [evil background music] have that open source and free software do not is marketing. Unless someone tells them about it, your average home user will never know about the quality of software that is available without monetary outlay. We can marvel to one another at what is available, but we are both preaching to the choir.
And right now, a lot of the software we're talking about requires a little deeper knowledge to install and maintain. A deeper knowledge your average home user (and for that matter, your average office user) has. This is changing for the better, but the software is not quite there yet. Want the best answers? Ask the best questions: TANSTAAFL!
I disagree that it is the Big Corporations [evil background music] that is holding back adoption of open-source and free softare in the home.
I think that it is currently a function of two things: ignorance of the products available to your average home user, and a lack of the higher technical skills necessary to install and maintain some open-source and free software.
Your average home user wants to know how to browse the web and send and receive email. If they use office productivity tools, I don't think that interoperability is a problem. Some users may bring work home from the office, but I've seen no evidence that this is a majority of home users. So if you don't have to interoperate with the software written by Big Corporations [evil background music], the the nature of a file format is immaterial.
But the one thing that the Big Corporations [evil background music] have that open source and free software do not is marketing. Unless someone tells them about it, your average home user will never know about the quality of software that is available without monetary outlay. We can marvel to one another at what is available, but we are both preaching to the choir.
And right now, a lot of the software we're talking about requires a little deeper knowledge to install and maintain. A deeper knowledge your average home user (and for that matter, your average office user) has. This is changing for the better, but the software is not quite there yet. Want the best answers? Ask the best questions: TANSTAAFL!
guestgulkan
Technical User
I must disagree with xutopia about software licensing.
Software is infinitely copyable - hardware is not.
There must be some protection for the software producers. Licensing details can be annoying it's true - but is there a better way??
Software is infinitely copyable - hardware is not.
There must be some protection for the software producers. Licensing details can be annoying it's true - but is there a better way??
xutopia: I would love to use open source at work, unfortunately the software that we provide consulting, installation, custom applications, etc has only 2 operating systems it runs on, MS Windows NT/2000 and VMS. And most of the additonal software they have works only from an MS Windows system, some of which is MS Office plugins.
The database software is designed specifically for the manufacturing industries we work with, with 20 years of development behind it. Even if there were another solution that was open source, we would still be required to convince all of our clients to choose an open source solution, which would require us to first convince their corporate offices to allow us to use/supply open source solutions, which means the usual work in showing that security is tight enough and that they can hire staff to upkeep these systems and that the software can be suported, etc, because their IT staff generally has MS certifications and possibly some network cert's but generally no experience with security and upkeep in a *nix atmosphere.
And this all is based on the fact that to the leaders of my company, anything with an install and a text file with a key is freeware because they can't be bothered to spend money on software we cannot afford yet need in order to develop software and do configurations for our clients...
-Tarwn [sub]01010100 01101001 01100101 01110010 01101110 01101111 01101011 00101110 01100011 01101111 01101101 [/sub]
[sup]29 3K 10 3D 3L 3J 3K 10 32 35 10 3E 39 33 35 10 3K 3F 10 38 31 3M 35 10 36 3I 35 35 10 3K 39 3D 35 10 1Q 19[/sup]
Get better results for your questions: faq333-2924
Frequently Asked ASP Questions: faq333-3048
The database software is designed specifically for the manufacturing industries we work with, with 20 years of development behind it. Even if there were another solution that was open source, we would still be required to convince all of our clients to choose an open source solution, which would require us to first convince their corporate offices to allow us to use/supply open source solutions, which means the usual work in showing that security is tight enough and that they can hire staff to upkeep these systems and that the software can be suported, etc, because their IT staff generally has MS certifications and possibly some network cert's but generally no experience with security and upkeep in a *nix atmosphere.
And this all is based on the fact that to the leaders of my company, anything with an install and a text file with a key is freeware because they can't be bothered to spend money on software we cannot afford yet need in order to develop software and do configurations for our clients...
-Tarwn [sub]01010100 01101001 01100101 01110010 01101110 01101111 01101011 00101110 01100011 01101111 01101101 [/sub]
[sup]29 3K 10 3D 3L 3J 3K 10 32 35 10 3E 39 33 35 10 3K 3F 10 38 31 3M 35 10 36 3I 35 35 10 3K 39 3D 35 10 1Q 19[/sup]
Get better results for your questions: faq333-2924
Frequently Asked ASP Questions: faq333-3048
I read a statistic that something like 80% of all Copyright reports come from Ex Employees. Might be better to hold the last card for when you leave.
Or, you could mention this fact when asking for legal copies: "Y'know, all it takes is one disgruntled ex-employee to call the BSA, and we'd have to perform an audit".
It actually happened to a company I used to work for (disgruntled laid-off employee called the BSA fink-line). The IT staff had to run scanning software on every PC and send the reports in. Not only did the audit process itself cost time & money, but then they had to buy copies of various packages to bring them into compliance (turned out they were pretty close, anyway).
Chip H.
Or, you could mention this fact when asking for legal copies: "Y'know, all it takes is one disgruntled ex-employee to call the BSA, and we'd have to perform an audit".
It actually happened to a company I used to work for (disgruntled laid-off employee called the BSA fink-line). The IT staff had to run scanning software on every PC and send the reports in. Not only did the audit process itself cost time & money, but then they had to buy copies of various packages to bring them into compliance (turned out they were pretty close, anyway).
Chip H.
-
2
- #12
So, home software should be free?
Using that logic, there are a few other things that should be free:
Cable TV, including premium channels, in your home.
The newspaper, except maybe for the business pages.
My boat, since I use it strictly for personal use.
Gas for my boat.
Bait, since I don't sell fish.
Beer (I never drink on the job).
Or maybe, if you use a product, you should pay for it. In my experience, it's often cheaper to pay for software that fits your needs and works the way you expect it to.
Using that logic, there are a few other things that should be free:
Cable TV, including premium channels, in your home.
The newspaper, except maybe for the business pages.
My boat, since I use it strictly for personal use.
Gas for my boat.
Bait, since I don't sell fish.
Beer (I never drink on the job).
Or maybe, if you use a product, you should pay for it. In my experience, it's often cheaper to pay for software that fits your needs and works the way you expect it to.
Are you saying then that windows should be free? As in you should pay for programs that work the way you expect them to.
I'm sorry, I just couldn't resist the free shot.
I agree that everybody should pay for what they use. Unless it is specified that it is free. But it does bug me that software companies collect money for their product knowing that there are bugs, and then don't follow up to fix the mess.
CostaRica, one pressure point is to mention to the boss that if called to testify in a piracy action you will be compelled to tell the truth that the company knew about the problem and that the company would be liable for additional penalties. But be careful in how you do it. Carrr gave good advice.
Ed Fair
Any advice I give is my best judgement based on my interpretation of the facts you supply. Help increase my knowledge by providing some feedback, good or bad, on any advice I have given.
I'm sorry, I just couldn't resist the free shot.
I agree that everybody should pay for what they use. Unless it is specified that it is free. But it does bug me that software companies collect money for their product knowing that there are bugs, and then don't follow up to fix the mess.
CostaRica, one pressure point is to mention to the boss that if called to testify in a piracy action you will be compelled to tell the truth that the company knew about the problem and that the company would be liable for additional penalties. But be careful in how you do it. Carrr gave good advice.
Ed Fair
Any advice I give is my best judgement based on my interpretation of the facts you supply. Help increase my knowledge by providing some feedback, good or bad, on any advice I have given.
Well, not weighing in on my agreement or disagreement... but I thought his implication was quite well cleared up in his second post.
He's saying since people aren't constrained by companies on their home computers they should choose from all the free software out there to satisfy their needs.
-Rob
He's saying since people aren't constrained by companies on their home computers they should choose from all the free software out there to satisfy their needs.
-Rob
CajunCenturion
Programmer
The notion that home users shouldn't have to pay for software doesn't make sense.
Firstly, there are lots of companies who make their living by developing software primarily for home use. xutopia - I understand that you don't believe software is something that should be sold to people in a licence form. In what form should these companies that target home users sell their wares?
Everyone should be using Free software both at home and in the office - I prefer that everyone at home and in the office should have a choice to use whatever they feel best meets their needs.
xutopia - Do you beleive that Open Source means that it is free? Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
Firstly, there are lots of companies who make their living by developing software primarily for home use. xutopia - I understand that you don't believe software is something that should be sold to people in a licence form. In what form should these companies that target home users sell their wares?
Everyone should be using Free software both at home and in the office - I prefer that everyone at home and in the office should have a choice to use whatever they feel best meets their needs.
xutopia - Do you beleive that Open Source means that it is free? Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
Here is Xutopia's comment:
"So as a rule of thumb I think people should have only free software on their computers at home. If they are forced by some bully to use their software then I don't feel bad if they "borrow" that software to view files or do anything else they need to (convert to OpenOffice format or send a resume in Word format)."
That's what I disagree with. If you want to steal software, fine - just don't blame it on Microsoft, or some other "bully".
I've got no problem with free software, but the fact it, most users are familiar with mainline commercial programs. I also think those programs tend to work better, and when you run into problems, there are a lot of places you can find help.
"So as a rule of thumb I think people should have only free software on their computers at home. If they are forced by some bully to use their software then I don't feel bad if they "borrow" that software to view files or do anything else they need to (convert to OpenOffice format or send a resume in Word format)."
That's what I disagree with. If you want to steal software, fine - just don't blame it on Microsoft, or some other "bully".
I've got no problem with free software, but the fact it, most users are familiar with mainline commercial programs. I also think those programs tend to work better, and when you run into problems, there are a lot of places you can find help.
-
1
- #17
lionelhill
Technical User
I'm not sure there's much "should" about paying for software. Software manufacturers are like everyone else who makes something: they do it maybe partly because it's fun, but mostly to pay the bills.
No one "should" expect someone else to work for nothing, and if I write a nice piece of software, I find it unpleasant that others can claim they have a right to have it and use it for free!
Nevertheless there are lots of practicalities about this.
(1) It's quite likely the next bit of software I release on the world privately Will be Absolutely Free, because a bit of self-advertisement does no harm, and I feel that many people have helped me, I'd like to make them a little gift back. But no one has a right to Demand a gift: it's something given because I'm in a good mood.
(2) Adobe get on very well giving away Acrobat reader for free for the very practical reason that no one would buy the Acrobat writer if no one could read the files it wrote...
(3) It makes no commercial sense to overcharge. Think taxes (especially in UK in Pitt's time!). If you tax too heavily, people put all their efforts into evading tax ('cos it's unreasonable), and you have to invest heavily in chasing defaulters, and actual revenue falls. I have a quibble with companies who sell sophisticated data handling packages to universities, but won't sell cheap student copies to graduate students. The usual upshot of this is all the students pirate the full version. If the company sold a watered-down version for a few tens of pounds, the student would probably pay for it. This is Lost Income!!
(4) This doesn't apply to whole software packages, but to parts of them: at some point an idea becomes a basic tool, and its originator goes down in history as a Great Man or Woman, but ceases to get income. Where would computing be if we had to pay royalties on things like the concept of indexed addressing, or the concept of a loop? The executors of Charles Babbage would be very rich. That's presumeably why patents expire: let the author reap their harvest, and then let the rest of us use the good idea.
Oh, and to go back to the original thread, I have every sympathy with the author. It is a horrid situation. Bring back Dongles! Practically, all you can do is spread scare-stories about spyware and online registrations that send back information about programmes other than the one that is being registered... Potentially I suppose one day someone might get found out and prosecuted that way.
No one "should" expect someone else to work for nothing, and if I write a nice piece of software, I find it unpleasant that others can claim they have a right to have it and use it for free!
Nevertheless there are lots of practicalities about this.
(1) It's quite likely the next bit of software I release on the world privately Will be Absolutely Free, because a bit of self-advertisement does no harm, and I feel that many people have helped me, I'd like to make them a little gift back. But no one has a right to Demand a gift: it's something given because I'm in a good mood.
(2) Adobe get on very well giving away Acrobat reader for free for the very practical reason that no one would buy the Acrobat writer if no one could read the files it wrote...
(3) It makes no commercial sense to overcharge. Think taxes (especially in UK in Pitt's time!). If you tax too heavily, people put all their efforts into evading tax ('cos it's unreasonable), and you have to invest heavily in chasing defaulters, and actual revenue falls. I have a quibble with companies who sell sophisticated data handling packages to universities, but won't sell cheap student copies to graduate students. The usual upshot of this is all the students pirate the full version. If the company sold a watered-down version for a few tens of pounds, the student would probably pay for it. This is Lost Income!!
(4) This doesn't apply to whole software packages, but to parts of them: at some point an idea becomes a basic tool, and its originator goes down in history as a Great Man or Woman, but ceases to get income. Where would computing be if we had to pay royalties on things like the concept of indexed addressing, or the concept of a loop? The executors of Charles Babbage would be very rich. That's presumeably why patents expire: let the author reap their harvest, and then let the rest of us use the good idea.
Oh, and to go back to the original thread, I have every sympathy with the author. It is a horrid situation. Bring back Dongles! Practically, all you can do is spread scare-stories about spyware and online registrations that send back information about programmes other than the one that is being registered... Potentially I suppose one day someone might get found out and prosecuted that way.
CajunCenturion
Programmer
lionhill - with respect to your practicalities:
Items 1 and 2 are marketing decisions made by the software manufacturer as an investment in their product line. And of course, that's a natural part of business development. The manufacturer has every right to give some, all, or part of it away as part of the long-term plan. I gather from xutopia position, that since he's going to be a home user, that it should be his right, as the home user, to decide what he gets for free. As he said in his first post "I'm one of those people that believe that software users shouldn't pay a dime if they are home users".
Items 3 and 4 are both quite true in the own right. Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
Items 1 and 2 are marketing decisions made by the software manufacturer as an investment in their product line. And of course, that's a natural part of business development. The manufacturer has every right to give some, all, or part of it away as part of the long-term plan. I gather from xutopia position, that since he's going to be a home user, that it should be his right, as the home user, to decide what he gets for free. As he said in his first post "I'm one of those people that believe that software users shouldn't pay a dime if they are home users".
Items 3 and 4 are both quite true in the own right. Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
lionelhill
Technical User
Cajun, I think I'm disagreeing with Xutopia on that one. After all, if I made frying pans I'd be a bit miffed if the only people who agreed to pay for them were restaurant owners.
if software was made freely available to home users, what would happen to the game industry? That would be a LOT of programmers out of work, because they companys would have no revenue to pay them.
I am against megacompanys that sell bloatware that's full of bugs at unaffordable prices, but to each his own. I will try to get people to use openoffice whenever possible, and other freeware/shareware/open source solutions, but if they decide to use a commercial packages and pay through the nose, then I'll make sure they purchase the licences they need.
I am against megacompanys that sell bloatware that's full of bugs at unaffordable prices, but to each his own. I will try to get people to use openoffice whenever possible, and other freeware/shareware/open source solutions, but if they decide to use a commercial packages and pay through the nose, then I'll make sure they purchase the licences they need.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question