Author: buildbot
Date: Sat Jul 27 21:23:40 2013
New Revision: 871480
Log:
Staging update by buildbot for ooo-site
Modified:
websites/staging/ooo-site/trunk/cgi-bin/ (props changed)
websites/staging/ooo-site/trunk/content/ (props changed)
websites/staging/ooo-site/trunk/content/why/why_compliance.html
Propchange: websites/staging/ooo-site/trunk/cgi-bin/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- cms:source-revision (original)
+++ cms:source-revision Sat Jul 27 21:23:40 2013
@@ -1 +1 @@
-1507673
+1507714
Propchange: websites/staging/ooo-site/trunk/content/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- cms:source-revision (original)
+++ cms:source-revision Sat Jul 27 21:23:40 2013
@@ -1 +1 @@
-1507673
+1507714
Modified: websites/staging/ooo-site/trunk/content/why/why_compliance.html
==============================================================================
--- websites/staging/ooo-site/trunk/content/why/why_compliance.html (original)
+++ websites/staging/ooo-site/trunk/content/why/why_compliance.html Sat Jul 27
21:23:40 2013
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@
<p>The software industry watchdog, the Business Software Alliance, <a
href="https://reporting.bsa.org/r/report/add.aspx?src=us";>offers cash
rewards</a> to disgruntled employees who confidentially turn in their
employer (or ex-employer) for software piracy.</p>
<p>They call this campaign, "Bust your Boss!" Rewards can range up to $1
million.</p>
-<p>As you probably already know, you don't own commercial software in the same
way you own a chair or a desk. Instead, you license the software from the
vendor, and this license gives you
+<p>As you probably already know, you don't own software in the same way you
own a chair or a desk. Instead, you license the software from the publisher,
and this license gives you
permission to use the software, but only under terms specified by the license.
These terms typically say how many users or PC's may access the software. The
terms might even include
a clause allowing the vendor to audit your usage of the software.</p>
<p>In order to avoid the expense and penalties of a BSA audit, organizations
are increasingly adopting Software Asset Management (SAM) practices to ensure
that their use of commercial
@@ -39,10 +39,10 @@ commercial software.</p>
organizations, since tracking application usage is not needed.</p>
<p>However, organizations that use open source software and also develop and
distribute their own proprietary software, can find themselves in trouble due
to the viral nature (copyleft)
of some open source licenses. If one of your employees or contractors
inadvertently includes some copyleft code in your proprietary product, then you
could be required by that license
-to make the source code for your entire product freely available to the
public. That could kill your business.</p>
+to make the source code for your entire product freely available to the
public.</p>
<p>This is not just a theoretical concern. As aggressively as the BSA
protects the interests of its commercial members, the Software Freedom Law
Center (SFLC) protects the GPL license
-in <a
href="http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/";>high-profile
lawsuits against large corporations</a>, including Westinghouse, Samsung and
Best Buy. The Free Software Foundation (FSF), in their <a
href="http://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2012/fall/why-gpl-compliance-work-matters";>November
2012 Bulletin</a>,
-writes about their expansion of "active license enforcement".</p>
+in <a
href="http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/";>high-profile
lawsuits against large corporations</a>. The Free Software Foundation (FSF),
in their <a
href="http://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2012/fall/why-gpl-compliance-work-matters";>November
2012 Bulletin</a>, writes about their expansion of
+"active license enforcement".</p>
<p>So the cost of compliance with copyleft code can be even greater than the
use of proprietary software, since an organization risks being forced to make
the source code
for their proprietary product public and available for anyone to use, free of
charge. To mitigate this risk requires more employee education, more approval
cycles, more internal audits
and more worries. This is the increased cost of compliance when copyleft
software is brought into an organization. This is not necessarily a bad thing.
It is just the reality of
@@ -52,8 +52,8 @@ using open source software under these l
licenses, generally called "permissive" licenses, are much more friendly for
corporate use. These licenses include the MIT and BSD licenses, as well as the
<a href="http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0";>Apache Software License
2.0</a> that we use for Apache OpenOffice.</p>
<p>Like other open source licenses, the Apache License explicitly allows you
to copy and redistribute the covered product, without any license fees or
royalties. But because it is a
-permissive license, it also allows you to prepare and distribute derivative
products, without any requirement to make your own source code public. So both
BSA and SFLC/FSF risks
-are eliminated, and the cost, to your business, of license compliance is
drastically reduced.</p>
+permissive license, it also allows you to prepare and distribute derivative
products, without requiring you to make your own source code public. So both
BSA and SFLC/FSF risks
+are eliminated, and the cost, to your business, of license compliance is
greatly reduced.</p>
</div>
<!--#include virtual="/footer.html" -->
</body>
