Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 5th Oct 2009 17:50 UTC
Microsoft Software licensing. As home users, it's already an incomprehensible mess of legalese that nobody cares one bit about. However - we home users have it easy. The situation for business users and people managing IT departments is even worse (proprietary software, mostly, of course). Microsoft is a major culprit in this regard, and while the company acknowledges that the situation is messy, they claim they can't really do anything about it.
Permalink for comment 387783
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by g2devi on Mon 5th Oct 2009 19:21 UTC
Member since:

How can simplifying licenses increase costs? The BSD license is one of the simplest and requires no burden on development and almost zero burden on distribution. The GPL license is a bit more complicated, requiring no burden on development and only slight burden on distribution (if you make any changes). Borland's license terms (the ones that made Turbo Pascal popular) were simple (unlimited unmodified runtime redistribution for library, barely more than standard copyright terms for development tools) more more complicated and had a burden on development but none on distribution.

In all these cases, having a license manager and having a lawyer counsel you on what you can and cannot do when using the software was overkill.

Each complication to the license adds yet another cost to good companies that try to play by the rules, and more costs to Microsoft since it has to find ways to enforce all those rules.

Reply Score: 2