Kagetsuki, this happens to be my business (it's called Software Asset Management aka SAM), so I am at the same time excited to see a thread on /. but appalled at many of the responses. Please, please, please, do yourself a favor and engage both a lawyer and a licensing consultant. I'd be happy to refer you. The lawyer is obviously to deal with the BSA's lawyers. The licensing consultant is to provide a full 'license reconciliation' for the products in question, taking into consideration each specific vendor's rules for counting proof of purchase, application usage, and license entitlement consumption. As a company with a volume license agreement, you have some important rights, but also a lot of responsibilities. The vendors with which you have volume license agreements have the right to audit you (it's right there in the boilerplate - check it) and the BSA often takes up this effort. But since it is often a revenue generating activity for them, your best bet is to help them understand that their return, i.e., new licenses you will have to purchase, will be not worth their effort in auditing. Feel free to reach out if you want to know more.

At least you were right about one thing: Windows Datacenter is licensed Per Processor (socket). Windows Server Standard and Enterprise can be licensed per instance (aka Per Server) for most people or Per Processor (per socket) for SPLAs. IBM, Oracle, and many others consider a Core an individual processor in their so-called Per Processor licensing.

I seem to remember saying something similar in 1991 when first playing with MacOS 7's TTS. I think my super old mac still speaks more clearly than my kindle. At this rate, the author's guild has at least until 2027 to refine their rhetoric - I can't wait! pins and needles!

Agreed. Plus, have these advocacy groups considered that battered wives will also now have a better shot of knowing if their abusive husband is calling them??

vl, your misguided analogy stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of capital. The measurement of lost sales does not have to be a bijection to have a direct impact. What if only 1 in every 1000 people who copied software illegally would pay for it if that was the only option to acquire it? That's still a very clear and direct impact. Like you mention, a person who is paid per lawn mowed is also definitely directly impacted by the loss of revenue. However, what about the person who owns the lawn services company? It is money out of his pocket too, when someone doesn't pay, and he spent the vast amount of resources to build the business. For a large company it may not mean much at all to his bottom line but you can't really believe that it doesn't affect him, do you? A lost sale is a lost sale. He lost revenue, regardless of how little a fraction of his total gross it was. So you could have or would have mowed it yourself, you say? Well, you didn't. Maybe he no longer actively manages the company but sails around the world on a yacht and puts in absolutely no labor and immediately takes out any resources the company produces. It still makes no difference, you still owe him and he still deserves to capture any bit of return on his investment he legally can. If that doesn't jive, how about the following example: pirating software is similar to a tenant skipping out on rent. Just because the builder turned landlord didn't do a darn thing to improve or manage your apartment in the last 10 years, since he originally built it, does not mean he isn't entitled to receiving his fees for your access to his capital. He still paid Y for the building and deserves to get his X each and every month from anyone that *chooses* to live there for as long as he owns that building. It has nothing (nothing!) to do with how much effort or resources he may or may not have or ever will put into the building. It has to do with ownership. If you created it, bought it, or otherwise own it, generally speaking, you also own the right to say how it can be used and at what price. (period!) Buyers make the choice to accept or reject those terms... and if you try to squat in his building he will have the Sheriff toss you out on your butt. Finally, your summary statement: "copying doesn't have the same direct impact to the vendor as theft, and copying does not necessarily imply a lost sale." implicitly acknowledges that while (1) copying doesn't have the "same" impact, and also (2) does not "imply" a lost sale, it still has an impact on revenues for rights owners. Considering that you aren't the rights owner in this case, you don't have the right to classify how significant that impact may be in real or intangible terms. Sorry, but that's the bottom line. Think it's unfair? Go create something. Then you can release it free if you like.