What is fair use when it comes to using software on a network? That's a question that underlies a recent reader gripe about WildPackets implementing copy protection in its EtherPeek protocol analyzer.
"I was dismayed to learn that one of my favorite tools as a network administrator, WildPackets EtherPeek, has instituted product activation with their version 6.0 upgrade," the reader wrote. " Not because I wish to violate their licensing provisions, but because it amounts to an unwarranted intrusion into my internal environment, and a presumption of guilt. Further, this betrays a lack of understanding of how customers might actually work with the product. Network tools such as this which I rely on for troubleshooting and monitoring/evidence gathering of possible security incidents need to be flexible in application, not hobbled by some damned lawyers."
The reader argues he needs to be able to install one of his two licensed EtherPeek copies where the trouble is. "If an incident occurs in a network segment where I don't have a sniffer permanently deployed, I may need to set one up quickly," he wrote. "Moving an existing machine may mean I miss something vital, while I'm moving equipment, reconfiguring network properties, etc. It may be quicker to simply install a copy, grab a trace and then uninstall. These products are expensive and I don't have the budget to buy licenses to keep on the shelf 'just in case.' But if I have to call them with an activation request, I might as well shuttle equipment around."
Of course, it's entirely possible that's the kind of usage WildPackets hopes to eliminate with its copy protection. "In the e-mail announcing version 6.0, they said that the 'activation process will assist us in reducing software piracy by ensuring that our software products are being used solely by authorized customers,'" the reader wrote. "Taken literally, that statement would mean that they simply don't want me giving copies to third parties. Well, I wouldn't anyway -- I don't need an activation scheme that gets in the way of legitimate use in order to keep me from blatantly violating the law.
"I look at it like this: I purchased two licenses," the reader continued. "I never have more than two copies functioning at one time, and indeed, only have it permanently installed on two machines. But I may from time to time (this has happened less than a handful of times in the several years that I've owned it) briefly install it on a third machine for a specific purpose, then promptly remove it - strictly as a matter of convenience to avoid schlepping machines around. (I use desktops, not laptops, largely as a matter of budget savings.) I don't think that should violate the licensing. Maybe they don't either, I don't know, but if they're using activation then it clearly prevents that kind of use, at least without a lot of hoop jumping."
The reader says he's not trying to pick a fight with WildPackets. "It's their software and they can do as they please, and I don't have to keep using it," the reader wrote. "I detest product activation in general, and have so far successfully avoided using any software that requires it, and hope to continue to do so. Indeed, in my shop, we've frozen the desktops on Windows 2000, and are preparing to follow Novell into Linux-on-the-desktop land. As regards EtherPeek, I guess I won't upgrade to 6.0. When our maintenance agreement comes due this fall, I'll tell them then why I'm not renewing. Rather, I'll spend the time I'd otherwise waste dealing with product activation by becoming familiar with the open source Ethereal package. It may not be as pretty as EtherPeek, but the price is right and so is the licensing."
I think we can all agree this reader's solution to the problem is the right one - if you don't like what the vendor is doing, vote with your feet. But what about his temporary use of the software on an occasional third machine? I haven't seen the EtherPeek license agreement, but it's a good bet that he was violating it on those occasions. But does that mean he was really doing something wrong?
Before you answer that question, let me point out that ten years ago what the reader was doing would have been in compliance with the concurrent licensing model then in use by almost all PC software vendors. As long as you had no more copies of a program running concurrently than you had licenses, you knew you were fine. It was only after Microsoft eliminated concurrent licensing with Office 95 that the industry started moving away from that notion of how a license should be used.
Licenses may have changed, but does that mean that what's fair has changed, too? Write me at Foster@gripe2ed.com or post a comment on my website and tell me what you think.
12:30:25 AM 
|
|
