FC: A defense of Borland's license saying auditors may inspect your PC

From: Declan McCullagh (declanat_private)
Date: Mon Jan 14 2002 - 06:51:34 PST

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "FC: Unions are another casualty of dot com deaths"

    Okay, so Borland says that if you accept its software license, its 
    copyright enforcement goon squad will "have the right to enter your 
    premises" to snoop through your records to verify that you're not lying 
    about how many computers you have the software installed on.
    
    The Internet's self-annointed privacy watchdogs are already savaging 
    Borland. The author of the freshmeat piece says: "We forfeit our right of 
    privacy at our facilities or our homes -- a right which we are guaranteed 
    under the Constitution." (Never mind that the Bill of Rights only limits 
    the power of government, not Borland.) The Slashdot crowd and maybe EPIC 
    will be all over this soon too.
    
    But what's wrong with this license? In exchange for something of value, you 
    give up something of value. It's called a contract, folks, get over it. By 
    granting Borland that right, you arguably gain software at a lower cost 
    because of reduced piracy. What's more, people give up rights all the time 
    -- if I take a job at Newsweek, I give up my right to freelance for Time. 
    If I license a photo to ABC News, I might sign a contract giving up the 
    right to sell the photo to NBC News.
    
    It is true that my privacy right may be more important to me than a few 
    hundred or a few thousand dollars -- though for the right sum, I'll be 
    delighted to let Borland do an "ls -lR / | fgrep -i borland" on my PC once 
    a month. But nobody's forcing me to sign on the dotted line -- or click on 
    the "I accept" button. Any sufficiently sentient person will be able to 
    weigh the costs (snoopy auditors) against the benefits (possible increased 
    productivity) gained from the Borlandware. If the costs outweigh the 
    benefits, I still have three obvious choices: (1) Tell Borland to go to 
    hell; (2) Negotiate with Borland to excise that clause from the contract, 
    perhaps in exchange for a higher price; (3) Take my business to a competitor.
    
    If Borland's auditing clause becomes perceived as sufficiently onerous, its 
    competitors will be quick to capitalize on it. When Yahoo/Geocities 
    announced that it would own all your content in perpetuity, competitors 
    announced they would not. Geocities members left in droves. Yahoo realized 
    that they had made a braindead decision and backed down. It took all of 72 
    hours or so.
    
    True, many people don't read shrinkwrap agreements, and there are the usual 
    jokes about the next version of Microsoft Windows requiring you to give up 
    your firstborn to Bill Gates & co somewhere in the fine print. I don't have 
    a good answer for that -- either these are contracts which are binding, or 
    they are not. I think we're probably better served by considering them to 
    be contracts, while simultaneously encouraging the industry to move to a 
    more-or-less standard one that consumers will become familiar with. 
    Additions can be highlighted and will be easier to spot. That approach will 
    encourage the industry to stick with just the standardized contract, I think.
    
    Personally, I wouldn't agree to Borland's deal, unless I could save so much 
    through productivity gains it would be worth the hassle. (Saving "enough" 
    would be roughly defined as the price of a Lotus Esprit Turbo.) But in the 
    fuss over Borland's contract, let's not lose sight of the fact that 
    agreeing to it is our choice: Not everyone values privacy so much, or might 
    sign off in exchange for the cost of a Honda Civic. :)
    
    -Declan
    
    PS: I haven't read the license on Borland's website; my comments are based 
    on the mirrored copy on freshmeat.
    
    **********
    
    From: "John Cieciel" <uselesseaterat_private>
    To: "dec" <declanat_private>
    Subject: freshmeat.net: Editorials - An Open Letter to Borland/Inprise 
    Concerning Licensi
    Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 00:41:46 -0600
    MIME-Version: 1.0
    
    
    Borland licensing agreement which allows a Borland representative to enter 
    your house to check your computer to verify you've paid the amount agreed upon.
    
    <http://freshmeat.net/articles/view/369>http://freshmeat.net/articles/view/369
    If true, very newsworthy so...
    
    John Cieciel
    
    **********
    
    http://freshmeat.net/.misc/borland-license.txt
    
    12.  AUDIT.  During the term of this License and for one
    (1) year thereafter, upon reasonable notice and during
    normal business hours, Borland or its outside auditors will
    have the right to enter your premises and access your
    records and computer systems to verify that you have paid
    to Borland the correct amounts owed under this License
    and determine whether the Products are being used in
    accordance with the terms of this License.  You will
    provide reasonable assistance to Borland in connection
    with this provision.  You agree to pay the cost of the audit
    if any underpayments during the period covered by the
    audit amount to more than five percent (5%) of the fees
    actually owed for that period.
    
    **********
    
    
    
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
    You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
    Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
    To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
    This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Jan 14 2002 - 06:53:28 PST