Licensing and Loyalty Conundrum 3

[goombawaho]

I work for a guy at his home taking care of all his computer-related stuff. Actually he is my biggest individual customer by billable hours each year. I also work for the new company he just created but it is run by someone he hired as C.O.O. The owner is very much in favor of license compliance and in general "doing things the right way".

The C.O.O. of the new company seems to be saying to me, "don't worry about it if we're a few licenses short on Microsoft Office. We've bought quite a few." I find that the same key code is in use on a number of identical PCs. He seems to value saving a nickel wherever possible and then rubbing that nickel lovingly.

So, do I rat out the C.O.O and make him mad at me by telling the owner (to whom I owe a huge amount of business and for whom I have a lot of respect) OR do I just dummy up? I'm kind of hosed either way!?!?

"Living tomorrow is everyone's sorrow.
Modern man's daydreams have turned into nightmares.

 

[strongm]

Tell the COO to give you a letter that specifically stating that he is happy for the company to take full responsibility for operating without full licencing ...

 

[goombawaho]

That would be a "fun to think about but not actually do", non-real world, sarcastic response!!! That would be akin to poking a finger into his chest.

"Living tomorrow is everyone's sorrow.
Modern man's daydreams have turned into nightmares.

 

[strongm]

It was far less sarcastic thank you might think, actually. On those occasions where the company I work for have been providing support to a company that tries to do this sort of thing (avoid paying license fees), we have made it abundantly clear to them that we are unable to install nor provide support for unlicensed products and that they would therefore be completely responsible for them (including any and all liability for legal action).

If you don't and someone rats the company out, as the contracted supplier and support provider you will likely find that it is YOU who are held responsible. Your call.

 

[MikeHalloran]

You could send the COO the 'annual end of year inventory', just happening to have line items for
...
number of PCs with MSO installed
...

and somewhere nearby
...
number of MSO licenses current
...

with a BCC to the owner.


OR,
You could broach the subject as a hypothetical, to the owner, in person, just as an addendum to some other discussion.

OR,
You could ask the COO if (s)he has a plan in place for what to do when the local Sheriff stops in unannounced to do a software audit.

...
...
...


Yeah, you're hosed either way, but I'd rather piss off a temporary COO than a long time customer.

 

[edfair]

Might try to move them to the free package(s) in place of the bootleg stuff. Understand that the COO is going to be unhappy with your carping about the license issues but it is for his own best interest.

Ed Fair
Give the wrong symptoms, get the wrong solutions.

 

[goombawaho]

as the contracted supplier and support provider you will likely find that it is YOU who are held responsible.

Not likely because there WILL be an email sent about "software license compliance shortfall" or similar no matter what I do. But it will just be informational and not confrontational. The sent email will become a PDF and put in their folder.

the COO is going to be unhappy with your carping about the license issues but it is for his own best interest.

Your mom often said "in your own best interest" and it never made you happy, so probably same effect on C.O.O.

You could ask the COO if (s)he

How very non-sexist of you, though I did specify gender.

I think this may come down to telling the owner's wife that they may want to verify that things like backup and software licensing are followed strictly. Wink, wink. That's the other thing they are blowing off. No online backup. They have an external drive, but that all goes away with fire/flood/theft. It's only Quickbooks for three companies................




"Living tomorrow is everyone's sorrow.
Modern man's daydreams have turned into nightmares.

 

[SgtJarrow]

One comment no one has hit on....any chance this new company the the original "biggest customer" started and that the COO now works for is participating M$'s Enterprise Agreement True-Up Program? We use it here at the company I work for....install as much as we want or need each year and just before our Enterprise Agreement anniversary date, we do an internal audit and pay M$ for all the licenses we are using but haven't yet paid for. Simple and effective.

It is possible the COO is aware of the True Up agreement (if one exists) and he will ensure it is covered before the due date.

I would recommend asking for documentation to that effect, or as stated something documented that states the COO/company is directing the installation of software with the intent to fully license at a future date.

=======================================
People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world. (Calvin from Calvin And Hobbs)

Robert L. Johnson III
CCNA, CCDA, MCSA, CNA, Net+, A+, CHDP
C#.NET Programmer

 

[strongm]

>there WILL be an email sent about "software license compliance shortfall"

As I said, your call. But you are clearly uncomfortable with the situation, else you wouldn't have posted about it.

 

[goombawaho]

I want it licensed, but I'm not worried personally because there will be a paper (email) trail. I want it licensed because I'm fussy.

There is NO chance that anyone involved here is part of any volume licensing or that true up agreement.

"Living tomorrow is everyone's sorrow.
Modern man's daydreams have turned into nightmares.

 

[MikeHalloran]

That True-Up program sounds like a way to gently force a COO into doing something he'd rather not do.
... without you doing any of the forcing.
... well, except for telling an MS salesperson whose leg to chew on.

 

[kwbMitel]

The Bosses of this world like making decisions. I've found it very easy to present choices to said bosses in such a way that my bias is obvious but not overbearing. It is usually very easy to justify the "right" decision. Naturally, the carrot is always accompanied by the whip whereby I state I cannot support choices outside of my recommendations and that accompanying documentation should be signed acknowledging this fact.

Ultimately, give them choices and make it in their best interest to choose the choice you recommend.

**********************************************
What's most important is that you realise ... There is no spoon.

 

[goombawaho]

whereby I state I cannot support choices outside of my recommendations and that accompanying documentation should be signed acknowledging this fact.

I would find that very annoying if I was in charge of something. Maybe find myself a new IT person. It's like saying "my way or the highway".

"Living tomorrow is everyone's sorrow.
Modern man's daydreams have turned into nightmares.

 

[kwbMitel]

It's like saying "my way or the highway"

No it's not.

Real world example from today.

Customer has a phone system in a remote country that needs a hard drive replacement due to DB corruption issues. The system is not showing any symptoms other than the fact that I cannot perform backups. The most recent known working backup is from 2013. Every day that passes without correcting this issue increases the likelihood that the system will have significant down time and out of date programming. The customer has assumed the risk of continuing to run with the known defect. They have responded to my email outlining the risks of continuing to let the system run this way and know that by responding they have assumed all of the risks and consequences of their choice. I offered them the option of rebuilding the system in my lab, correcting the database to observe any changes from the live system and replace the hard drive with a minimum of downtime (less than 30 minutes). The alternative if the system fails unexpectedly is to be down until resources put in place to rebuild and that once recovered, any differences will have to be discovered as they appear. They chose the option to assume the risks and I did my best to protect their interests. I'm fine with that as I feel they've made an informed decision and I can present documentation to that fact if need be if they dispute that in the future.

**********************************************
What's most important is that you realise ... There is no spoon.

 

[goombawaho]

So, your language was incorrect. You are still supporting them but they just didn't take your recommendation. When the drive goes, you'll pick up the pieces. That's not the same as "I cannot support choices outside of my recommendations" and thus I'm dumping you.

I'll post back when I find out what the cheapo COO wants to do.

"Living tomorrow is everyone's sorrow.
Modern man's daydreams have turned into nightmares.

 

[kwbMitel]

->So, your language was incorrect.

No it was not.

Support has many levels it is not a binary decision as you make it out to be. In this instance no support means that I have no responsibility to maintain. If it blows up, I may fix it, or I may not. I probably would but not at the regular rate for sure.

**********************************************
What's most important is that you realise ... There is no spoon.

 

[strongm]

Indeed.

 

[goombawaho]

That's not the world I live in. It IS a binary decicion. I think that for many customers when you refuse to support their decision, you are basically FIRED though it may not be verbalized at that moment. Most people don't like smarta$$ IT people giving them ultimatums.

"Living tomorrow is everyone's sorrow.
Modern man's daydreams have turned into nightmares.

 

[strongm]

>Most people don't like smarta$$ IT people giving them ultimatums

They do however, if they are professional, accept that paying for expertise sometimes means they hear things they don't want to hear.

 

[kwbMitel]

@goombawaho

You seem to only have an ability of looking at things in black and white. Nothing I have said even remotely resembles your interpretation. Giving people information that they require to make choices is not presenting an ultimatum. Defining the parameters under which you are prepared to work is not an ultimatum. I am going to apply my method here with you.

In your original post you stated that your biggest customer by billable hours was seemingly forcing you into a position of a moral dilemma. You asked if you should rat him out and my answer to that is no. Quoting Mark Twain, "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience". You have no moral obligation to report license violations as far as I know.

Taking the financials out of the equation. What risks do you assume by proceeding with the work as requested. Is it foreseeable that if this company were audited that you might be held culpable for license violations? If yes, what would be the overall impact to your business. If simply fines, can you assume the risk of that financial burdon? If blacklisting, is it possible this would impact revenue from other customers? Could you lose your business? Once you have a list of possible outcomes you need to assign a probability. Once that is done, can you live with the risk. Plain and simple. No ultimatums, simply can you live with the risk and the possible outcomes.



**********************************************
What's most important is that you realise ... There is no spoon.