Software Compliance
  • Home
  • What We Do
    • Services
    • Tools
    • Experience
    • FAQ
  • Resources
    • Company >
      • About Us
      • Careers
    • Agreements
    • Documentation >
      • Brochure
      • Datasheet
      • Security Measures
      • ComplianceWare >
        • Software
        • Hardware
        • Cloud Configuration
  • Contact Us
  • Latest
  • Search

Microsoft Drops SA Support Benefit

15/4/2022

0 Comments

 

As of 1st February 2023 the SA 24x7 Problem Resolution Support benefit is being ... 'retired'

In an update to the changes announced in 2019 Microsoft will no longer offer any support outside of paid support.
Picture
Original plans had customers entitled to a 24 hour support response time when their Software Assurance spend was more than $250,000 USD - as of next year though, you'll need a Support Contract.
That means either a Unified Support arrangement across your enterprise, or the uptake of pay-per-incident support (also available as a 5-pack option that expire within a 12 month period), which doesn't seem a particularly attractive proposition to smaller organisations. If you do have a Unified Support Contract you can transfer any current Software Assurance 24x7 Problem Resolution Support incidents before February 1, 2023.
And the costs - well Unified Support is customised based on the actual spend, where pay-per-incident is published at Professional Support For Single Incident – $499 USD for 1 user. Professional Support For Five Pack Annual – $1,999 USD for 1 User.
So you might need to revisit those 2023 forecasts just to make sure you've covered any additional costs you might incur - or maybe challenge Microsoft to their commitment that "Our goal is to ensure every customer gets comparable support services at a comparable price, despite the benefit retirement." !
0 Comments

Vendors Performing Your System Installs?

26/3/2022

0 Comments

 

A caution when relying on vendors to deliver projects with software installs.

Picture
Many projects require the expertise of vendors to install, configure and productionize their software and systems, however as the client and end-consumer you need to be aware of what exactly is making its way into your environments.
All too often following discovery we'll find unaccounted for vendor software, which typically after an onerous investigation is found to be remnants from the vendor-led project, anything from desktop clients to entire VM's, each of which can have dire compliance implications and cost.
But "hold-on - we didn't install it - the vendor did" is the common response, however a quick pointer to the relevant contracts will soon expose that this does not offer any defense - the customer is always responsible for compliance, even if it is the very vendors software in question.
At a more concerning level is when a vendor installs another vendors software - while this is not uncommon with the extent of partnerships and interoperability in the modern industry, it still needs to be clearly and formally covered, ideally contractually or by reference to the vendors right to distribute and use any IP they don't own. These artefacts need to be registered and retained in the event of an audit that questions your usage rights - in the worst case scenario  if the vendor has breached another parties IP rights you too could end up subject to an infringement claim, and that's no place you want to be.

So, while the vendor might be responsible for the project, you'll still be accountable for the end product.

That means ensuring your project team stays across all vendor activities - enforce your BAU practices and protocols for distributing and installing software - in all environments - for traceability and tracking purposes. The project shutdown then needs to include a close-out phase where what's been installed (anywhere) is reconciled to what you've acquired, and also what you're actually entitled to use (aka Read The Contract). Where there are gaps you'll need to either recalibrate, purchase, decommission, or have the vendor explain and resolve - all before the project can be declared finished and complete.
And never rely on the vendor's personal emails or assurances that 'all is well' - none of that will hold-up under audit (even if they are still there). When it comes to IP all bases need to be formally covered, and if that's proving to be a problem, well you might want to be even more wary.
0 Comments

Adobe Reader Distribution Rights

10/1/2022

0 Comments

 

Does your company distribute Adobe Reader to employees? ... if so, make sure you have a valid Distribution License.

Picture
Many companies are unaware of their obligations when they distribute Adobe Reader software within their organisation, that is ...
 ... even though it's free it still needs a license arrangement with Adobe.
Now it's not as onerous as it sounds - it can all be done online, so lets look at some of the detail.

When do I need it?

A Distribution License Agreement is required for:

  • ​Corporations and organisations that want to distribute Acrobat Reader or the Acrobat Reader mobile app on a company intranet site or local network.
  • Commercial vendors that want to bundle Acrobat Reader or the Acrobat Reader mobile app on physical media such as a CD or DVD, on OEM hardware such as computers and mobile devices or with OEM hardware such as scanners.
Individuals interested in the software for personal use can download it free without applying for a Distribution License.
​

Note: You do not need to apply for a Reader Distribution License if you prefer to direct users from your website to Adobe.com to download Reader.

What does the Agreement allow me to do?

You will be authorised to:
  • Distribute the current version of Adobe Reader within your organisation, for internal use only, from ​a copy of the software installed on a file server for the purpose of downloading and installation to computers within your internal network.
  • Distribute the software on a standalone basis on physical media including a hard drive.

What are the key restrictions?

You must:
  1. Only distribute the version of Adobe Reader stated in your confirmation email.
  2. install only one copy of the software on a file server for the purpose of allowing use via NFS, Citrix or other virtualisation technologies.
  3. Within 6 months of the release of a major new version by Adobe, cease distributing the current version and move distribution to the new version.
  4.  Not configure or distribute the software for use without installation, other than as provided for under (2) above.

Ok, got it ... what do I do now?

You'll need to apply for a desktop license which will take just a few minutes and is required to determine how you intend to use Reader. After you complete the short online form, you'll receive an email with a link to the installers. You'll also need to mark a renewal date 12 months from receipt to reapply - the agreement is only valid for one year.
0 Comments

The Burden of Proof ...

28/10/2021

0 Comments

 
Picture

Ensuring you have
complete records of
purchase is an often
​overlooked SAM essential.

In the absence of strict procurement practices and robust record keeping its all to common to see organisations struggling to retrieve their records of purchase backing-up their claim to entitlements. In fact how often do we hear "yeah we've got 20 licenses for that - they're listed on Dave's spreadsheet".
Now lets be clear - the fact that it's on Dave's, or Susan's or anyone's spreadsheet does not constitute evidential fact. For that, you'll need the Proof of Entitlement if issued by the vendor, or the (signed) Contract containing the license grant, or the Order issued under it for the products in question. At a minimum if those are lost in the tracks of time (no doubt residing only in someone's email who has long departed the employ of the company), you'll need the latest invoice that shows the products and quantities that were covered by the last payment (ie. either actual purchase or renewal).
Again, its all too common that it's not until an audit that organisations are forced to scramble through the purchasing, legal, IT et al records looking for some artefact to substantiate the otherwise baseless right of use claim for the vast overage of licenses that have been deployed! This trek down memory lane can be the most time consuming - and often fruitless - use of specialized resources, the cost of which is not generally recognized by management and similarly overlooked in the justification of a dedicated SAM function.
So what's the alternative? Quite simply a process that ensures those essential records are properly recorded in an organized and readily accessible system, and are kept current through routine and ongoing ownership - once established this is not as much of an overhead as it might seem, and having all of that data at hand when challenged by a vendor can go a long way in underlining your disciplined approach and credibility in such a way that you'll be last on the next audit round list, if in fact on their radar at all.
Now this will no doubt rally those skeptics with their "wait - I just call my reseller and say give me a list of what we own" approach, and while this might offer some solace it doesn't necessarily constitute proof in the same way that last document of fact - the invoice - does. How's that? Well for one example think of step-up licenses that will be printed there for all to see, but what about the original license it is based on (and worse, what if that original license is actually still in use!), or those 'from-SA' uplifts that require unravelling potentially years of purchase history to properly determine entitlement. All best avoided by having a routine practice supported by a specialized system in the first place ... 
... and for that, you might want to check out:
Picture
0 Comments

The End of Termination for Convenience

21/11/2020

0 Comments

 




​Are revised accounting rules just being used to deprive clients of termination rights...

... or is there more to it?

Picture
If it seems that your vendors are unwilling (they'll say unable) to accept a termination for convenience clause these days, you're not alone. Often this will be justified by citing their companies accounting rules and practices aligned to the 2014 revenue recognition changes post Enron where they'll refer as below:
  • if an agreement (i) provides for termination for convenience and can be terminated at any time, and (ii) the supplier is not entitled to any compensation or the termination charges are insignificant, then the supplier is not permitted to recognise the contract revenue for the full contract term (technically they can only recognise revenue for the termination notice period e.g. 30/60/90 days).
What they don't refer to is the fact that where termination charges are provided full contract revenue can be recognised:
  • If an agreement (i) provides for termination for convenience and can be terminated at any time, and (ii) the supplier would be entitled to “substantive” termination charges, then the parties’ rights and obligations are regarded to support and extend for the stated contract term and the supplier is permitted to recognise the contract revenue for the full contract term.
Of course the "substantive" qualification is the issue - just how substantive should it be?
Well there are no firm guidelines in that respect, other than simply compensating a supplier for services or deliverables provided up to the effective date of (early) termination will not be regarded as substantive. Guidelines only advise that "judgment has to be applied with consideration given to quantitative and qualitative factors". Government contracts typically require a termination for convenience clause and will  state (in part) something similar to the below:
  • any reasonable costs incurred by the Contractor that are directly attributable to the termination;
thus (1) putting the onus of quantifying the charges on the supplier, and (2) vanquishing their argument for full revenue recognition.
Having negotiated the termination for convenience clause we're now comfortable that all is good right? Well no, there are further issues to contend with. If (and thats a big 'if') the matter gets to court there would likely be consideration as to whether the contract was 'illusionary' based on the very right to terminate at will, or that the termination was not enacted in 'good faith', or even as far as not following the termination right explicitly which opens the door to damages!
So what other options are there? Well that of course depends on what exactly is being contracted, but consider the following:
  1. With a product or application allow a timeframe for a 'proof of concept' or 'fit for purpose' test on what's being acquired - if it doesn't meet your (stated) criteria allow for graceful termination before the contract really gets started;
  2. While it can prove difficult associate the commencement of the contract with the 'productionisation' of the product or application;
  3. Break the contract into "+" terms, eg. a 1 year followed by a 2 year commitment or similar to allow for non-renewal;
  4. With consumption based models ensure there is a vary down option whereby you are able to reduce your usage to zero and pay only nominal costs through to expiry;
  5. Ensure there is always a termination for cause provision that enables cancellation where the product or application does not meet its stated capability or function;
  6. Similarly, with service based contracts ensure there is always termination for non-performance based on a level of (generally repeat) failure that degrades the service to an unacceptable level.
Key to all of the above is explicit language that clearly defines the criteria by which the clauses can be invoked - when things break down to termination your vendor will not be overly receptive to subjective positions, ambiguities, or plain old opposing points of view.
And while the lawyers are endlessly debating the virtues of limitations of liability and insurances and everything else basically immaterial just ask yourself when you actually last went to court, and then ask what typically goes wrong with your contracts - invariably its performance based and for that, you just need an appropriate provision for ...

... a hasty, unequivocal exit, at the lowest possible cost!

0 Comments

Oracle Support Policy

31/8/2020

0 Comments

 

Thinking to drop some Oracle product from maintenance to save some funds?

... think again.

You'd of course think that dropping product from your annual maintenance renewals would be treated as a simple removal of the line item and its associated cost - why wouldn't it be - you're keeping those remaining as-is so what's the problem?

The ​Oracle Software Technical Support Policies ...

... thats the problem.

Or more specifically, the "​Pricing following Reduction of Licenses or Support Level" section (page 4).
Picture
Now this gem of a policy states: In the event that a subset of licenses on a single order is terminated or if the level of support is reduced, support for the remaining licenses on that license order will be priced at Oracle's list price for support in effect at the time of termination or reduction minus the applicable standard discount. ​
Wait? ... What?? 
Yep, just because you were so brash as to drop maintenance on product you no longer needed, whatever you're retaining on that order is going to be repriced - and by reprice they of course don't mean down!
Oh but the good news is in the next sentence: Such support price will not exceed the previous support fees paid for both the remaining licenses and the licenses being terminated or unsupported, and will not be reduced below the previous support fees paid for the licenses continuing to be supported.
So rest assured loyal Oracle customer - any repricing will not exceed what you were already paying, it'll just match it. So those dollar savings that you put forward saying 'we're gonna drop product x, y, and z from the next renewal and save bucket-loads' is probably the opposite - depending on whats left you might end up paying exactly what you were before!
Now where (or more correctly with who) did ​those pesky money bags end up again??
Picture
0 Comments

Licensing DR Environments

30/5/2020

0 Comments

 

Vendor DR licensing requirements can be vague ...

... here's some insight into a select few with differing views and terms across their infrastructure software.

Picture

Picture
Oracle's approach is pretty easy to sum up - you pay for everything because ...
​it's installed!
Refer the extract below from the Oracle paper 'Licensing Data Recovery Environments':
Picture
Data Recovery Environments using Copying, Synchronizing or Mirroring Standby and Remote Mirroring are commonly used terms to describe these methods of deploying Data Recovery environments. In these Data Recovery deployments, the data, and optionally the Oracle binaries, are copied to another storage device. In these Data Recovery deployments all Oracle programs that are installed and/or running must be licensed per standard policies documented in the Oracle Licensing and Services Agreement (OLSA). This includes installing Oracle programs on the DR server(s) to test the DR scenario. Licensing metrics and program options on Production and Data Recovery/Secondary servers must match.

Picture
Some recent changes to SA Benefits have extended DR for SQL Server ...
... but you still need Software Assurance to take advantage of DR Rights 
Picture
Servers – Disaster Recovery Rights: For each Instance of eligible server software Customer runs in a Physical OSE or Virtual OSE on a Licensed Server, it may temporarily run a backup Instance in a Physical OSE or Virtual OSE on either, another one of its Servers dedicated to disaster recovery, or, for Instances of eligible software other than Windows Server, on Microsoft Azure Services, provided the backup Instance is managed by Azure Site Recovery to Azure. The License Terms for the software and limitations apply to Customer’s use of the backup Instance. 

Picture
You might think the friendly types at VMware would be lenient when it comes to DR ...
... thats not the case.
If its installed, it needs a license.
Picture
If its not specifically called out in the VMware Product Guide it will need licensing, and that means everything other than Continuent and vRelaise for Log Insight. Surprisingly, VMware deem an install to be 'use' of the software - yep - just binaries sitting on a disk.

Picture
With RHEL its nice and simple ...
... if its deemed COLD 
But it can't update until its run.
Picture
RHEL ​Linux Subscription Guide: Cold backups: The server has software installed and configured, but it is turned off until the disaster occurs or for periodic disaster recovery procedure tests. For Red Hat Enterprise Linux, this means that the customer is allowed to preload the bits as a courtesy. However, Red Hat Content Delivery Network cannot be used to update the system until the disaster happens. Then, the paid subscription on the failed machine transfers to the cold backup sever. In this case, a customer does not need two subscriptions. The customer will consume only one subscription at any point in time. Red Hat will allow the customer to pre-provision the software bits onto the cold backup machine as a courtesy. If a customer is found to be running more units of Red Hat Enterprise Linux than the customer has subscribed for because the customer has found a use for these pre-provisioned servers other than this cold backup use case, the customer is obligated to pay Red Hat. 

Picture
IBM's DR Policy has not changed since 2003 ...
... ​ for PA products Cold & Warm DR is no-charge
But don't run any 'Productive' work.
Picture
Backup Use Defined: For programs running or resident on backup machines, IBM defines 3 types of situations: “cold”; “warm”; and “hot”. In the “cold” and “warm” situations, a separate license for the backup copy is normally not required, no additional charge applies, and IBM does not need to be notified. In a “hot” backup situation, the customer needs to acquire another license. All programs running in backup mode must be under the customer’s control, even if running at another enterprise’s location. 
0 Comments

Microsofts New Licensing Terms Site

16/6/2019

0 Comments

 

A New And WeLcome Direction in Consolidated, Direct, Licensing Information

Microsoft announced the 1st June 2019 as the date at which the new 'Licensing Terms Site' will replace the current downloadable document versions of the Product Terms (PT) and Online Service Terms (OST) (although at date of this publication it is still stating "under construction and for preview use only.")
Not only ​is this intended to consolidate the myriad of licensing documents and material rife across Microsoft sites, but according to the FAQ (available here) will also ease navigation through filters available by program and product, and also introduce a new 'compared-to' function which allows users to compare changes (albeit post 1st June 2019) to 'current' use rights going forward - a useful utility!
So what does it look like? - the landing screen as below (see it for yourself here):
Picture
A quick test run found the site easily navigable, presenting targeted information based on your selection in the familiar format of the Product Terms structure. Of course it can't solve the 'knowledge complexity' invariably attached to licensing - you basically still need to know what you are looking for, and then be able to apply what you find to your own situation.
A quick delve into the SQL Server section highlights the information then available by edition:
Picture
All in all though a timely advance in the overall licensing landscape that would be welcomed across other vendors with similarly broad and complex license terms and models, which makes us wonder ...
 ... is it too much to hope for a cross-industry standard? 
0 Comments

So That's Sourcing ... THEN What's Procurement?

10/10/2017

0 Comments

 
You've been there right ... in a meeting, time for the mandatory introductions, and the chair says "now from Procurement we have ..." 
... so you shake your head (not visibly) and dutifully introduce yourself, thinking
"They still have no idea!"
So lets get a few things straight. Sourcing isn't Procurement. Sourcing ultimately involves Procurement, but other than that, it's quite different. And while we're on the subject, what's with 'Category Management?'      Really??
... to our thinking, 'Category Management' is just an unnecessary classification - sure - we work in categories, be it IT, Marketing, Stationary, Travel ... whatever, but it's the Sourcing label that defines the function.
Well then, if it is different, what is Sourcing ?
Sourcing, fundamentally is a discipline (much like, and in fact premised on, Project Management) - it has methodology, it has process, it has discipline, and it has rigour (for example, CIPSA). Not that Procurement doesn't - but Procurement ultimately follows the framework that Sourcing puts in place. Rather than straight 'buying' a good Sourcing practitioner will firstly work closely with the business to ensure there is an understanding (and proper framing and presentation) of requirements, development of a Market Strategy (who to approach, and how it should be constructed - RFI, RFP, RQT ...) , all backed up by a practice of relevant and credible assessment and evaluation (and that means no less than an objective, defensible process qualified by accurate data and irrefutable artefacts), followed by the subsequent qualification of supply (being full and complete due-diligence), with expert negotiation and  agreement of (favourable!) contractual terms, plus induction of this new supply (and if you're a regulated institution, don't forget your obligations here - your license could be at stake).
So where is Procurement in all of this? Procurement then steps in to make sure the ongoing acquisition of  contracted products or services occurs within the  framework of the Sourcing arrangements that have been put in place, tracking the metrics, monitoring the costs, measuring delivery - keeping the Supplier to their commitments.
But let's hear from the practitioners out there - all you Sourcing and Procurement people doing the job day in / day out - where would you classify your role, what differentiates your function, how might  you describe what you do?
We're keen to hear your view - share your thoughts ...
0 Comments

Indirect access. In Danger?

10/5/2017

0 Comments

 
It's there in the agreement, you can bet on it. Indirect Access. Whether it's disguised as 'qualified users, or 'devices', or perhaps 'multiplexing', it's prohibited. And that means you need to be sure that the access you're providing to your licensed systems is correct and compliant.

​The simple way to think about it is that if it's related to a proprietary system, or sourced from a proprietary system, any access must be properly authorised. And that means properly licensed. So whether it's via an API, an interface, or extracts, you need to ensure that you're compliant with the terms of your agreement - to not be can prove very problematic, and potentially very costly.

​Take the recent finding (Feb 2017) in favour of SAP UK over DIAGEO Great Britain which you can view at
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2017/189.html in a remarkably readable form for a crown judgement. The core of the matter was the "Named User" metric by which DIAGEO licensed its SAP installation, and the development and use of functionality within Salesforce (known as Gen2 or Connect) that enabled DIAGEO customers and distributors to places orders, check stock availability and prices, see invoices and select delivery. Through various interfaces back to SAP, Connect provided the necessary data, lists, and workflow to those end customers and distributors 24x7 negating the need for a call centre to receive and process requests. Despite DIAGEO asserting that the use of Connect by customers was essentially no different to when they contacted and were processed through the call centre, the judge saw otherwise and ruled that such access constituted use of the SAP system.

​The implications are yet to be seen, however in summary the damages were considered by the judge as below:
​​​
"In summary, usage by Gen2 sales representatives is not authorised usage under the Agreement. SAP is entitled to additional licence and maintenance fees, the level of such fees to be assessed in the quantum phase of the trial, if not agreed, by reference to the nature and extent of the usage and SAP's price list."
So, should we be concerned? Absolutely. If you're unsure of the your license grants or metrics, the terms of your agreements, or the compliance of any periphery/accessing systems, you need to take stock and run a full assessment exercise across your domain.

​To be unaware is to be in danger.
0 Comments
    • ​+
    • +
    • +
    <
    >

    Categories

    All
    Adobe
    Agreements
    Appliances
    Audit
    BCP & DR
    Cloud
    Compliance
    ComplianceWare
    Contracts
    Forums
    IBM
    Intel
    ITAM
    Licensing
    Mainframe
    Microsoft
    Negotiating Deals
    Open Source
    Oracle
    Partnering
    Red Hat
    Roles
    SAM
    Software Metrics
    SQL Server
    Support
    Windows Server

    Archives

    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016

Unravelling license complexity for Business
ACN 623 529 751

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
Copyright © 2016-2022 (SWC) ​​

  • Home
  • What We Do
    • Services
    • Tools
    • Experience
    • FAQ
  • Resources
    • Company >
      • About Us
      • Careers
    • Agreements
    • Documentation >
      • Brochure
      • Datasheet
      • Security Measures
      • ComplianceWare >
        • Software
        • Hardware
        • Cloud Configuration
  • Contact Us
  • Latest
  • Search