sw licenses: why not prevent rather than punish?

[MauroTC]

Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for his excellent report. . .
in our days with the technological and computer means available any software house could verify in real time the licensing situation installed in your company; I remember you were doing so many years ago, that if you tried to install something that had been reached the limit the system informed you of the thing and you could not do anything but give up.
Now instead you leave "freedom" to install where you want (if the limit for example and max two stations, you can cmq do a third, fourth...) and also use simultaneously (drinking, knowing that you are outlawed). and then wait for the user to do what he doesn't have to do and hold it.
I repeat, who's wrong pays (a little like the Velox, I warned you, you've crossed the limit, now it's right that you pay), but in this case you're not the technical means that force you to respect the speed, in case sw there would be, but it's convenient not to use them.
subdole is the term that is most spontaneous to me to assign.

 

[Vittorio]

control difficulties: Software owners can do their best to protect the product, but it is difficult to completely prevent illegal installation. crackers and hackers are always looking for new ways to bypass protection.
accessibility and dissemination: allowing flexibility in installation can increase the spread of software. For example, offering a free trial version can attract more users, although some of them may then illegally install the full software.
strategy di marketing: Some companies use free or pirated installation as part of a marketing strategy. For example, a software could be free for personal use, but require a license for commercial purposes.

 

[Vittorio]

Now instead you leave "freedom" to install where you want (if the limit for example and max two stations, you can cmq do a third, fourth...) and also use simultaneously (drinking, knowing that you are outlawed).

However, they warn you of the rules to be respected exactly as the Velox warns you that there is speed control and do not put the bolted bands to reduce it
if you read all the pappardella that is there when installing a software at the end there is to flag "accept [si] [no]"

 

[ceschi1959]

the software licenses we use are managed by the felxlm, we have tot licenses and tot x 2 installations. when you reach the tot number and try to start the software from a further installation the system says that you reached the maximum number and then nisba. it is interesting instead the possibility to start more sessions of the software that I use from the same machine as the philosophy of the software house is one mouse one person.

 

[Mello Dessi]

depends very much on the "protection grade". For example, we use software where it takes the "pennine" to access/make the program work, so you can have installed the program on all computers, but you can only use it in 1 or how many licenses/pennines you bought.

 

[il teo]

I would also prefer to be more bound but not fear to be wrong. I always knew that the software I bought could work both on PC and on a laptop (logically not at the same time, even if not written). the problem is that they had never worn out from the fix before accessing the laptop and signaled it as double use. Fortunately they have pardoned me, but to no longer encounter such problems I have eliminated any other installation.