So...why share this here, a haven for an open source (and non-MS) language and home to many non-MS users? To spread the word and make sure that the broadest audience sees it. Many of us do use MS products and/or deal with people, organizations, and entities that use their stuff. As an example, my wife used to be CIO [ 1 ] for a company that received such a letter and she a) notified management--who did nothing, b) made me perform an licensing audit at home, and c) felt some of the emotional responses to mentioned by some of the folks in the article. the letter came addressed to her, since she was the one that handled the registration of their software. She wasn't a happy camper.

I'm not saying that piracy isn't a problem. It is. I'm not saying you shouldn't be in compliance with all licenses; you should. I'm not saying that the BSA isn't within their rights to conduct marketing campaigns. They are. However, this one crosses the line of good taste and professional conduct, at least as I define that line. Your mileage may vary. See if it does.

I'm not advocating any specific action, other than some reflection. If you think this is another tactic MS is using to spread FUD, if you think it's a little heavy-handed, if you are simply looking for another reason to further dislike MS or whomever, then you might keep that article in mind while considering or working with organizations that are considering additional purchases from MS.

It's also another good reason why I really like Perl and its community. The focus is more geared toward getting the job done rather than the profit motive. Profit is good and I'm perfectly willing to support reasonable pay for reasonable return. But, I do not like being strong-armed, blackmailed, or bled.

Consider, for example, the current upgrade price for the Professional version of MSO (which you need if you use Access). It's more than the full purchase price was three years ago. I can't afford that for my home use, especially when they're doing the same thing with their OS upgrades.

I'm not saying we should hate MS, but I really don't like it when they throw their weight around, especially in such a heavy-handed and cavalier fashion. I am not saying that companies can't make money off their software products, knowledge, and/or expertise. Of course they can and should charge fair prices for services rendered.

But, compare MS's behavior with O'Reilly, which may be somewhat similar to apples and oranges. O'Reilly works very hard to provide good products at fair prices. They work hard at giving something to the community while asking for their support. They've got a decent upgrade policy for new editions. In other words, O'Reilly earns your money and treats you with respect.

MS behaves, in many respects, like protection racketeers. You have to buy their products because a) "everyone else" uses them, b) the file formats are incompatible from version to version, c) they're (generally) the only game in town. Worse, they're changing their licensing policies so that you only rent their products for a period of time. Everything they do is geared toward you buying more product. They're not content to let you drive the decision, they have to force you into it...and this "Truce" campaign is nothing more than a thinly disguised attempt to scare you into buying more product.

They can't compete technically, so they con you. They can't entice you with innovation, so they threaten you with legal action. They can't design better software than you, so they extend the standard and then "integrate" it into the OS.

I would rather see MS take some lessons from folks like O'Reilly. Fair pay for fair product. O'Reilly's products are good and (mostly) worth buying. I don't mind paying them for their books, in part because I almost always feel the book is worth buying and I almost always get something out of each one I tackle. I can't say that for any other book publisher. I certainly can't say that about MS's upgrades over the last ten years.

Sorry for the rant, but this type of thing really ticks me off. You can return to your regularly scheduled quest for Perl Enlightenment.

--f

[ 1 ] - In title only. In truth, she was a database programmer; she had no management support, less authority, and no other team-members. All real decisions, including the purchase of software, were handled by the CFO. Thankfully, she no longer works there.

Update: Fixed the SBA vs. BSA typos. The SBA are good guys. ;-) Thanks to VSarkiss for pointing that out.