The idea described in that part of the article, that software vendors selling their software to an organisation should try to licence to an individual from that organisation personally, also seems like an unhealthy principle to me.
If I'm an employee, I don't want to be tied down to some third party's arbitrary commercial licensing terms just to do my job for the employer who is paying for that software so I can. Software vendors put some crazy things in EULAs, and there's no way I want to be the guy going to court to find out whether any of them stands up when tested.
As an employer, it's an even more blatant cash grab than moving one-time purchases to subscription arrangements without any useful improvement in other areas to justify it. It creates a fixed cost that walks out the door with the same notice that the employee in question gives to leave their employment. And depending on the software vendor's policies, it may be an irreplaceable asset, if for example they force you to upgrade to the latest version when buying a replacement, which in turn creates built-in obsolescence.
I'm pretty sure I'd refuse to accept the terms of such a licence agreement in either role. There is absolutely nothing in it for the licensor, as far as I can see. It seems like it's just warping the concept of copyright another step in favour of the copyright holder, which the very idea of licence agreements already does to a dubious extent anyway.
Comments
The idea described in that part of the article, that software vendors selling their software to an organisation should try to licence to an individual from that organisation personally, also seems like an unhealthy principle to me.
If I'm an employee, I don't want to be tied down to some third party's arbitrary commercial licensing terms just to do my job for the employer who is paying for that software so I can. Software vendors put some crazy things in EULAs, and there's no way I want to be the guy going to court to find out whether any of them stands up when tested.
As an employer, it's an even more blatant cash grab than moving one-time purchases to subscription arrangements without any useful improvement in other areas to justify it. It creates a fixed cost that walks out the door with the same notice that the employee in question gives to leave their employment. And depending on the software vendor's policies, it may be an irreplaceable asset, if for example they force you to upgrade to the latest version when buying a replacement, which in turn creates built-in obsolescence.
I'm pretty sure I'd refuse to accept the terms of such a licence agreement in either role. There is absolutely nothing in it for the licensor, as far as I can see. It seems like it's just warping the concept of copyright another step in favour of the copyright holder, which the very idea of licence agreements already does to a dubious extent anyway.