I haven't yet read the entire CA3 license, but I can tell you that this past
year on CA2 has been a wonderful thing for us. Yes, it's expensive.
However, it has permitted us to do the following:
** free up staff time because we no longer have to count licenses
** acquire/install multiple versions of a single product (i.e., Office 2000
in labs, Office 97 in offices)
** move ahead with Back Office applications without having to buy more CALs
** accommodate the last-minute panic calls from faculty ("I need 25 more
license of Visual Studio by Monday!!")
** accommodate our faculty's desire to standardize primarily on MS products
** permit adequate licensing for classroom software that is needed for only
a few students but in many labs
I was displeased with the Home Use portion of CA2 because it's far too
restrictive to be practical, so we chose not to even offer it. As for
student workers, we included our computer lab assistants in the count but
nearly all other student workers are thru work-study and I doubt (rather, I
hope) they do not need to be counted in the new agreement.
I fought this method of licensing for a long time, but I can say that the
stress, record keeping, and nickel-and-dime nonsense that we were dealing
with has been drastically reduced via this agreement. That is enough for
me, as the cost of the agreement is less than it would have been to hire
another tech support staffer just to deal with the software acquisition and
I do think, though, that Educause needs to stay on top of this issue, with
Microsoft and with others.
Ms. Leslie Kaufman
Director of Information Technology
Center for Information Technology Services
Point Park College
201 Wood Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1984
Email: [log in to unmask]
From: Con Dietz [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 3:50 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [LICENSING] Microsoft Licensing
I have been told on occasion that "I just don't get it." Sometimes it is
even true! Now, I would say to Microsoft, "You just don't get it."
Why is Microsoft trying (I hope unsuccessfully) to get all of us (higher
education institutions) to lease software annually instead of buying a
license to use?
Don't they know that:
1) it will cost us more,
2) not everyone needs the latest and greatest every year,
3) even if we wanted the latest and greatest it might not be efficient to
learn about the new software every year,
4) all of us (that I know about) collectively (through Educause) and
individually, want to, and take steps to, prevent unauthorized use,
5) we want graduates to be cognizant of the software used in their careers,
6) it is in the best interests of Microsoft to have higher education teach
students to use their software.
I could go on, but at some point we (higher education) will be forced to use
other software. I have tried to talk to Microsoft representatives at
multiple levels regarding the fact that their site licensing policies will
cause us to spend money we don't have and have licenses we just don't need.
They fail to get it.
Which is it?
1) I just don't get it, or
2) Microsoft just doesn't get it.
How can we have an impact? What could Educause do in support of it's