You'd think that if we didn't agree with a software product's licensing conditions or found them incompatible with our needs, we'd look elsewhere. Instead, we blithely ignore the EULAs and use the stuff anyway. For example, there's emergency management agency dispatch software that uses the JRE (Java Runtime Engine). The JRE's EULA says, "Java technology is not fault tolerant and is not designed, manufactured or intended for use ... in hazardous environments requiring fail-safe performance ... in which the failure of Java technology could lead directly to death, personal injury or severe physical or environmental damage." Now that's funny.

We ignore EULAs because most sysadmins click through without even reading them. It's a corporate ritual: the "blah, blah" that sysadmins intone upon seeing a EULA, followed by "Where's the damn 'I agree' button, I've got work to do."

How valid is the EULA if nobody in charge agrees to it? After all, your sysadmins are clicking through only because if they don't, their jobs may be imperiled. That's a question for the lawyers, I'm afraid. And some states are making sure lawyers get increasingly involved.

UCITA (Uniform Computer Information Transaction Act) makes software licensing really troublesome. But it's not about legislation or liability. Network managers need to consider licensing's burdens. What is the overhead associated with using reasonably licensed software versus unreasonably licensed software?

Unreasonably licensed software is getting ridiculous, particularly as one Seattle-based monopoly crows at its apparent victory over the Department of Justice. Microsoft's latest ploy is forcing users to activate their products online or face a time-bombed application with the politically correct title "reduced functionality mode." They might as well say, "To serve you better, we have deactivated your software!" For now, this maneuver affects only retail buyers, but we can expect the trend to worsen as license "leasing" becomes more popular.

Their Own Worst Enemy

Proprietary licensed software is, if not dead, in its death throes. Licensers have gotten way too greedy and paranoid. Start calculating how much opportunity, cost and overtime it will take when Microsoft knocks on your door and delivers an attorney-signed letter asking you to submit your "OVERDUE Microsoft Inventory Report" in 14 days. It doesn't matter if you're squeaky clean; you'll be burning the midnight oil to make sure your report is 110 percent accurate. Don't want to join in the fun? Sure, let's pit ourselves against the mighty legal muscle of Microsoft. You first.

More than 15 years ago, Richard Stallman was saying that "software should be free." Most businesses called him a pinko commie nutcake. Folks like Steve Ballmer are still name-calling, dubbing open-sourced Linux a cancer. Others say open-source software is lousy, unsupportable and restrictive, yet most of the Internet runs on BIND, Sendmail and Apache -- all open source. Even Microsoft has swiped portions of FreeBSD's TCP/IP code for its products.

Doesn't it make sense to spend money on open-source support services rather than on proprietary licenses? Folks are flocking to the Red Hat paradigm: Pay for support, get free upgrades with source code -- and without licenses that burden the enterprise. This is why companies like Red Hat will have Microsoftesque success in the next decade.