Software Licensing - Gaming the System

It seems in a number of my recent conversations with a major software publisher (who has one of the most complex licensing structures going)...that they keep referencing companies that "Game the System" and what a wrong thing that is to do.

Question - when they make the rules, can you really ever "Game the System"? Don't get me wrong, we specialize in helping customers get creative with how to reduce their licensing costs for their software...but if it's allowed within their convoluted licensing terms, how can you be doing anything wrong?

Take the IRS for example (since it's April 15th), their rules are complex (far more complex than any software publisher) but they expect you to take advantage of every credit that you are entitled to through their rules. They don't call foul and say you're "Gaming the System" when you take advantage of rules that work in your favor. Why should a software publisher?

LOL - yes, I did just compare this software publisher to the IRS...LOL!

Frankly, the ones who write the rules hold the cards - if you can work within those rules and minimize your costs, who are they to complain? If they don't like it, they can change their rules.

What do you think...is it possible to "Game the System" in a negative way?

Do It Yourself or Have a Professional Do It For You?

Sorry I've been rather quiet the past couple of months...we've been launching a new service (or more accurately - finally marketing an old service) and that's been distracting me a bit.

What we're doing is finally offering our SAM managed services offering (LOL...OK, when we started doing this 10 years ago we were calling it Outsourcing) to all of our clients.

Basically, we do everything to give you the information you need to run your business with the appropriate software licensing at the appropriate cost. See, for us - that's easy. We live and breathe software licensing, processes, controls and negotiations. We keep up with what's going on in the marketplace, because it's our business. Typically companies (excluding large enterprises) simply can't dedicate the resources to do this in a cost efficient manner. For us to do it, the service pays for itself and you're not running the risk that you're relying on a staff member whose knowledge is from 2 versions ago.

We're not looking to replace your current staff members...we're looking to free up their time so they can focus on areas that move you forward.

Our service has been extremely successful - we've been told by our clients that the price is attractive, the deliverables timely and needed, and the independent relationship (not the reseller, etc) extremely beneficial and ties in well with internal governance programs.

However; I'm curious, what are your thoughts?...What would you want in such a service? How often would you want it? What would you want to pay for it? Would you want a service like this?

Common Ways a Company Becomes Non-Compliant

Over the years I've worked with a number of companies and what has become obvious to me is that - it is rare that a company knowingly pirates software.

So, how do so many companies become non-compliant on their software agreements?

1) Lack of proper processes (and adherence to those processes) for software acquisition, deployment and retirement.
2) Lack of a good asset inventory tool that will accurately and easily report on what is installed.
3) Lack of records of what is owned.
4) Misconception or lack of knowledge of product use rights.
5) Misconception or lack of knowledge of volume licensing agreement rights.

Of all of these, I find the last two to be the most universal and it's a combination of misconception and lack of knowledge. Of the two I find misconception the most dangerous...because the company thinks that they're doing things right so they never ask for help.

How do the misconceptions happen? Generally, through outdated knowledge or guesswork.

Some things to be aware of:

1) Different use rights exist for different versions as well as different forms of acquisition.

For example, Microsoft 2007 software (Office, Server, Operating System) acquired OEM normally does not allow for downgrade; however, if acquired through Open, Select or Enterprise it normally does allow for downgrade. This was not always the case, in the past it had been allowed...was it allowed when you did it? Reference - http://download.microsoft.com/download/d/2/3/d23b9533-169d-4996-b198-7b9d3fe15611/downgrade_chart.doc). How were you planning to handle those OEM Office 2007 that are coming in the door? Were you going to downgrade those to 2003 until you're ready to upgrade?

2) Test and Development servers need to comply with product use rights same as Production.

3) Your Developers may have the "Professional" version of the software for development purposes but not be licensed for those for business use - be careful what's being installed on their production machines.

4) Vendors selling you a solution dependent upon another companies technology may not always provide you with full/accurate information about the licensing requirements...do your homework.

5) Client Access Licenses - in general if you're using the resources of a server, you need some form of client license for each user/device. Watch this carefully, it's the most common problem we find.

Just to name a few...

So, how do you keep up and still do your job? Frankly, you don't. You bring in professionals to educate you and provide you with documentation from the publisher supporting that education (do not rely on anything else...if a problem comes up, you're the one holding the bag) which you retain in a centralized location until those licenses (and their future upgrades) are no longer in use.

Questions? Comments? Would love to see them...