Given the depredations that software publishers visit on us little guys in the name of license compliance -- with Microsoft's WGA shenanigans just the most recent prime example -- you might assume that the big corporate customers have it a lot easier than we do. After all, at least the Microsofts, Symantecs, and Adobes generally supply their volume license customers with DRM-free versions of their software. Even so, corporate customers have long had their own crosses to bear - in particular, the often arbitrary demands to submit to audits of their license compliance by any and all of their software vendors who might be looking for a quick revenue hit.
For reasons that will become clear later, I've recently been talking with a number of experts in the area of software license enforcement practices. One is Steven Russman, publisher of ECP Media, an organization that focuses on improving the technology asset management capabilities of IT managers. Almost in passing Russman happened to mention a survey ECP has run in recent years asking large corporate software customers about their software audit experiences, and I was struck by some of his findings.
Most of the respondents to the ECP survey are from very large corporations with thousands of desktops, and the great majority already has software asset management programs in place. You might think therefore they wouldn't be likely targets for software audits, but that's not the case. In ECP's 2005 survey, respondents had on average been subjected to more than three different audits the previous year, even up to a dozen. Many complained about the nasty tones that even small software publishers adopt in their audit demands.
And few of Russman's members doubt why they were targeted. "Any number of things can trigger the software publisher's request for a review," says Russman. "In some cases it could be a tip from an employee or an ex-employee. But most likely, it's just part of the software company's routine review cycle. We're always hearing stories from members about thinly veiled threats to get them to settle before the software publisher's quarter closes. It's all about generating more money."
Russman believes that at least some of the larger software publishers are actually softening their approach, allowing more customers to conduct self-audits and even sometimes accepting it when the customer reports they are in compliance. But the software publishers may have little choice, because Russman also detects a growing intolerance among large corporate customers for these audit practices. "There is a backlash because the customers are really sick of this," says Russman. "And the software publishers realize that they have alienated a lot of the big companies in the process. They are going to lose business, so they have to find a different approach."
And what might that new approach be? Well, that brings us back to why I was talking to Russman in the first place. One idea some software publishers are moving toward is to at least supplement their audit demands by including embedded license controls in their products. We'll be discussing that topic further in the near future, because it's one that raises a lot of issues for customers and vendors alike.
In the meantime, those of you with audit experiences of your own to relate are invited to visit the ECP website to participate in their current "Software Publisher's Enforcement Programs" survey. And, of course, whether you're a big customer or one of us little guys, let us know what you think about software audits by posting your comments below and writing me at Foster@gripe2ed.com.
Read and post comments about this story here.
12:29:42 AM 
|
