
Do you have 30k CHF pocket money? - bkolobara
https://cds.cern.ch/journal/CERNBulletin/2015/28/News%20Articles/2030047?ln=en
======
ak2196
This might in fact turn out to be one of the biggest, most expensive blunders
by the company in question. Years later the tale is recalled - aggressive
misguided legal department sends a C&D to one of the greatest projects in
human civilization. Internet responds by hackers pooling in time and resources
to build an alternative, superior, free solution that becomes the benchmark
effectively putting the aforementioned vendor out of business. Poetic justice.

~~~
JosephRedfern
I suspect (but should stress that I don't _know_ , my suspicions are based
purely on name and the fact that it's listed on the CERN Engineering Software
DB) that the software in question is Allegro AMS Simulator:
[http://www.cadence.com/products/pcb/ams_simulator/pages/defa...](http://www.cadence.com/products/pcb/ams_simulator/pages/default.aspx).

Let's get building!

~~~
trymas
In my university we used COMSOL Multiphysics
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COMSOL_Multiphysics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COMSOL_Multiphysics)).
It is 'AllSIM' software and in coincidence was used for very similar case as
in the article.

~~~
petercooper
"CERN purchases multi-user licenses for COMSOL Multiphysics"

[https://www.comsol.com/press/news/article/821/](https://www.comsol.com/press/news/article/821/)

"Another factor that was attractive was the fact that a single network license
allows CERN to run a COMSOL job on any number of cores or a compute cluster."

And their "Floating Network License" allows use across an entire network, but
not off that network:
[https://uk.comsol.com/products/licensing](https://uk.comsol.com/products/licensing)

~~~
JosephRedfern
True, that could well be the software they're refering to. The reason I
suspected that it may be Allegro AMS Simulator was a combination of it being
listed on the CERN Engineering Software DB[1] and the product name.

[1] [http://information-
technology.web.cern.ch/services/software](http://information-
technology.web.cern.ch/services/software)

~~~
petercooper
Yeah, I would imagine CERN uses a _lot_ of different packages. Indeed, they'd
probably be mad not to run serious simulations across multiple systems to
sanity check.. :)

------
shanemhansen
So much fail here. If someone is aware of the vendor's name please publish it
here so that I can avoid doing business with them.

The software company was within it's rights, but there's a big difference
between what you're legally allowed to do when you detect a licence violation
by a big customer and what you should do. You _should_ attempt to preserve
your company's good name at CERN and get the licensing situation fixed (by
removing the extra copy or relicensing it). You _should not_ try to go after a
poor CERN student for 30k because he/she installed your software on the wrong
computer despite having a valid license.

~~~
andyjohnson0
Catalog of licenced software products used at CERN: [http://information-
technology.web.cern.ch/services/software](http://information-
technology.web.cern.ch/services/software)

For what its worth, as a developer, I agree that the vendor should be able to
enforce their product licencing. They have to make a living. But their actions
here are heavy-handed, and those of CERN and the university are cowardly.
Given what CERN does, and that the person in question was a student, its not
like anyone _profited_ from the licence infringement.

A more mature response would be to arrange for the student to do a modest
amount of unpaid work for the software vendor to symbolically make amends and
understand each others point of view.

~~~
sbuk
Why are the actions of CERN and the University cowardly? Neither institution
decided to use unlicensed software, the student did. He, as an adult, should
be held accountable for his choices and his actions. I do agree that "AllSIM"
are being heavy handed...

~~~
andyjohnson0
The student made a bad choice and I agree that they should take responsibility
for their actions. I described a way to do that. The software vendor has a
right to make a living from selling licences.

But. Students are usually young, relatively inexperienced, and have limited
resources. A $31k fine would probably end their academic career and have a
long-term effect on their life. And to what end? Why do this to someone at the
start of their adult life?

CERN and the university - without agreeing with the student's actions - should
recognise the power imbalance between the student and the software vendor, and
the absence of any _real_ damage caused, and they should look after their
people. That doesn't mean siding with the student, just using their position
as respected institutions to bring about a just settlement. Their failure to
do that makes them cowards.

~~~
danielweber
The student is likely judgment-proof.

------
StavrosK
Wow, this post makes me angry and I don't know at whom. Is it the student's
fault, who wanted to use the software he had legally licensed, but couldn't
because of stupid licensing terms, or the company's fault for wanting to get
paid for their software?

I'm inclined to side with the student, I think. When I pay for stuff, I want
to be free to use it in a reasonable manner, and restricting usage of the
software on the specific computers the company likes is not reasonable.

~~~
sbuk
He hadn't legally licensed the software. The student is entirely at fault.

~~~
tomp
But not for 30k. I doubt a court would award this much in damages if he was
sued. Even before that, I don't think CERN is justified in releasing his
identity (edit: I mean, the identity of the student to the software vendor for
them to sue).

~~~
danielweber
CERN did a grown-up negotiation with the vendor to come to an agreement. The
student then violated that agreement.

If I get caught taking a $5 item from a store in my pocket, should I just be
able to pay the $5 and say "hey, we're all even now."?

~~~
iofj
1) CERN also did a grown-up negotiation to have the person work for them, and
therefore carry out his function as the legal entity "CERN", not as himself.
Any action he did in his function, is legally executed by CERN, not by the
employee. That of course includes installing software he needs for his job,
and certainly covers installing any software CERN directed him to install.

This works both ways : if he invents/builds/... something and CERN sells the
fruits of his labor (or otherwise profits from it), he doesn't have a claim to
single cent of that profit. If he does something as part of his job that
damages CERN, the most he can lose is his job. If he unintentionally blows up
CERN headquarters, CERN quite literally has to pay him his wages for doing so,
medical expenses, ... the company would even have to replace his cell phone if
it broke during the explosion and pay to have his pants cleaned afterwards.
The unintentional part is only required because, if intentional, it would be a
criminal act (and this intent needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, not
merely indicated). Even if he failed to follow safety procedures while doing
so, it was the company's responsibility to correct him, and the consequences
for failing to do so are theirs.

2) stealing is a criminal act, and governed by an ENTIRELY different part of
the law. The two cannot be compared. This case would be governed by employment
law and commercial law, stealing is covered by criminal law.

But your example has another flaw: if you can even vaguely reasonably claim
you took the item by accident, yes you should be able to pay the $5 and be
even. No criminal court judge is going to convict anyone who non-violently
took a $5 item, and offered to pay the damage in full the second he was
confronted. This would not be reasonable.

~~~
gutnor
IANAL but your company is not shielding you from legal responsibility of the
illegal actions you take, even if you are required by your employee to engage
in those activities.

That is a warning to be careful I heard was given to sysadmin. Even if their
boss require them to steal personal information or "find" software, they are
legally responsible for doing it.

There is a point area somewhere between murder and failure to protect
confidential information at which the company takes over responsibility, but
that's not a blanket protection as financial obligations.

~~~
iofj
Depends what you mean by "illegal", there are over two dozen main kinds of
illegal. As a massive simplification anything not found in the "criminal law"
or "employment law" books your employer covers while you're working (and in
some states while you're doing things you're only doing because you work, e.g.
drive to work).

So, very generally speaking, anything you can't get arrested for is covered by
your employer.

------
stestagg
The thing that angers me about this, is that the user could legally access
this software from his Laptop, albeit over an inferior third-party interface.

His choice was between accessing the software over a display proxy, and
accessing the software locally. The provided functionality was essentially the
same either way.

I don't understand how this minor technical distinction should be worth 30
kCHF.

~~~
danielweber
CERN had the option to negotiate for a traveling license and declined to do
so.

The fact that there was a technically inferior workaround means jack shit.
Yes, it's technically inferior, that's why you should pay for the real thing.

"A workaround to your licensing deal existed so I wasn't violating your
licensing deal!" is nonsense.

~~~
stestagg
In which case, the remote desktop approach should not be allowed either.

If you're going to have arbitrary "You can't use the software except at this
location" clauses, then they should be applied consistently

~~~
danielweber
It's not "arbitrary." The contract didn't allow it. CERN didn't buy it.

And even if it were "abritrary," the time to discuss that is when you are
negotiating the software license with your vendor. This isn't shrinkwrap
software being sold at ElBo under a clickwrap license. It's a sophisticated
buyer who has a staff member dedicated to the job.

You can tell "roaming license" was valuable because this student went to a
warez site to get around it. The vendor likely charges more for it, and CERN
didn't want to pay it, so CERN voluntarily left that functionality off the
table. Then the student decided to overrule CERN's negotiating and the rules
CERN had explicitly set out[1]. Oops.

I don't get to decide the GPL is stupid and release modified software without
source.

[1]
[https://cern.ch//security/rules/en/index.shtml](https://cern.ch//security/rules/en/index.shtml)

------
neo2001
I am the only one who thinks CERN should ask AllSIM to fuck off?

~~~
andkon
For real. This is something a single call to their AllSIM account manager
should be able to fix.

------
cmenge
I find the behavior of the software manufacturer rude and unacceptable. CERN
is certainly not the type of company that screws you over or produces
counterfeit copies for their own profit; 30kCHF is an outrageous claim.

Sure, people using your software without a valid license is not cool. On the
other hand, AllSIM didn't suffer any damages.

Also, there are probably not that many potential customers in the world for
AllSIM(TM). Maybe CERN should have used their power to make clear that this
was the act of a naive student, and that a ridiculous fine could seriously
impede the future business relation with CERN...

~~~
masklinn
> I find the behavior of the software manufacturer rude and unacceptable.

I've seen many photographers who ended up with the exact same behaviour
because any other is a good way to get steamrolled. Infringement =
infringement invoice, period, end of the story.

> 30kCHF is an outrageous claim.

Depending how the original license cost (for a _roaming_ license too) is, not
necessarily. An infringement invoice must be significantly higher than a
regular license or there's no point to getting a license, you can just wait to
be caught. Considering the kind of products we're talking about, licenses are
probably in the 5k~10k range. A 3~5x infringement surcharge isn't outrageous.

> On the other hand, AllSIM didn't suffer any damages.

Somebody used their product unlicensed in a way not allowed by the licenses
they had access to, that sounds like damages.

> Also, there are probably not that many potential customers in the world for
> AllSIM(TM).

On the other hand, there probably aren't that many potential replacements in
the world for AllSIM.

> Maybe CERN should have used their power to make clear that this was the act
> of a naive student, and that a ridiculous fine could seriously impede the
> future business relation with CERN…

Why? CERN suffered no damages, they forwarded the invoice to the student.

~~~
JupiterMoon
> CERN suffered no damages

Well their own blog post will damage their reputation quite a lot.

~~~
masklinn
With whom? Certainly not software vendors, probably not students or
researchers either. Frontend web developers? Now I'm sure that will be a great
great bother for them.

~~~
JupiterMoon
Students and researchers. They don't care about copyright or software free or
otherwise. They care that their institution is seen to be on their side and
prepared to look out for them. CERN clearly is not in this case.

~~~
danielweber
> Students and researchers. They don't care about copyright or software free
> or otherwise

[citation needed]

~~~
JupiterMoon
Personal experience. In the physical sciences this really doesn't need a
citation.

------
neo2001
1\. CERN is not doing the right thing. 2\. Bragging about this in their blog
should make CERN be fucking ashamed.

~~~
vortico
It's not bragging, but warning others, I would guess.

~~~
neo2001
Warning about not to work when they are on holidays?

~~~
neo2001
Why you need facts, when you have a great imagination like me?

------
chipgap98
Yes the student fucked up, but CERN does have the 30k to spare, where as this
student probably does not. Sure this is a good lesson to share, but also this
is someone's life. They could have let the student go but still paid for it.
Its the human thing to do

~~~
trymas
Even though CERN's budget is probably humongous, it does not mean it can spend
30k CHF (27.5k €, 30.5k $) left and right. As it is huge amount of cash.

The best way to do is explain and negotiate with AllSIM. As I understood the
student used pirated software for a very short period of time. If AllSIM are
human, they will not charge CERN, or charge low fine (<1k €).

Rules are rules, without obeying them, student compromised reputation of whole
CERN, then his/hers university and finally himself. Probably CERN will not
hire him and will not recommend to anybody else.

~~~
rfrey
"Rules are rules, without obeying them, student compromised reputation of
whole CERN"

An uncompromising "rules are rules" attitude for non life-threatening policy
violations in an organization comprised of human beings is asinine.

It is not the student who is damaging the reputation of CERN in this
situation, it is CERN.

~~~
trymas
You don't need to break 'life-threatening' rule to compromise your reputation.

It's just about who is trustworthy and reliable, and who is not, especially in
an organisation where people are very educated and probably with high morality
standards.

~~~
JupiterMoon
Nope you just have to prove to be an officious pompous organisation which
bullies it's people. Which CERN certainly has here. Go CERN.

~~~
sbuk
You really are going too far. CERN haven't 'bullied' anyone. The individual
broke the law, why should CERN pay?

~~~
JupiterMoon
As has already been established repeatedly on this thread quite possibly no
one should pay. If I send you an invoice for $30000 it does not mean that you
owe it to me merely that I am demanding it.

~~~
sbuk
So the bully is AllSIM; CERN are merely passing the invoice on to the relevant
party...

~~~
JupiterMoon
No the bullies are AllSIM, CERN and the University.

CERN or possibly the University employed the student. They are the relevant
party.

AllSIM are almost ridiculous with this speculative invoice.

~~~
sbuk
Right, I'm going to try and put this in very simple terms. The student is the
one who broke the law. HE deserves to be punished. CERN are not the employer,
the University are. HE was seconded to CERN _by_ the University. However, the
actions HE took were done on HIS own. Had HE been directed to pirate the
software by either CERN or the Univerity, then you may have a point. As it
stands you do not. Pointless. I'm sure you are going to suggest draconian
licensing terms, blah, blah, blah... The fact remains that the terms exist
and, as a professional scientist, HE should have behaved _ethically_ and
operated within the confines of the license. End of discussion.

~~~
JupiterMoon
I will put this even more simply.

You are a copyright maximalist. I have a different view where I believe that
creators should be paid but not to exclusion of the rest of society and not to
the exclusion of the rule of law. This colours both of our views of the facts
and we will never agree. We both think that the other is sadly misinformed and
a foolish with a politically motivated viewpoint.

Goodbye.

~~~
sbuk
Nope, wrong again. You are anti-intellectual property, but that has little
bearing on the facts of this story.

I believe that if you have made an agreement, you keep it and if your employer
has agreements with third parties, that you honour those too. If you, or this
indivudual, have moral objections to said agreements, the choices are simple,
leave their employ.

Taking and using the software without permission or regard for agreements made
in _legally binding contracts_ is not an option, and it is not morally or
ethically anyware close to doing the right thing. You seem to have lost sight
of this because your views are politically motivated. It has nothing to do
with your views of how the world should work.

Since you are so concerned with the 'the rule of law' (due process doesn't
exist in UK law, we have natural justice, but that's by-the-by), the students
actions were in direct contravention of established laws and policies. You
seem to think that HE is above censure because 'capitalism is bad, man'. Well
I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you but, it's actually about ethics.
This individual has none, and clearly neither do you.

QED.

~~~
JupiterMoon
Everything here is totally wrong.

I am certainly not an anti-capitalist. Although I don't regard such a comment
as a slur.

I do think that creators should be paid.

I don't think that companies should slam arbitrary egregious charges on people
-- and I know that courts don't always uphold these speculative invoices and
indeed have been known to punish the people making the demand and their legal
representation quite strongly.

I do know that most people in the real world would find this utterly
outrageous given that the student had the right to use the software in
question in the setting in which it was detected.

I personally would not do what he did -- all software that I use is either
free (as in speech) or properly licensed.

Oh and you are a copyright troll apologist.

~~~
sbuk
The only thing that is wrong is the twisted interpretation the story! The
charge isn't arbitrary!

The student didn't have the right to use the software! It was only licensed to
be used _at CERN_. HE downloaded it from an illegal site that provided a
cracked version of the software on his own laptop so that HE could travel and
not be at CERN, where he _was_ entitled to use the software![0] He was even
allowed to access the software using terminal services, but, in caps so it's
easy for you to understand, CHOSE TO PIRATE THE SOFTWARE FOR HIS OWN
CONVENIENCE!!! If you had read and understood the article, as you claim, you
would know this. You even aknowledge that the software was improperly
licensed!!!

To your ad hominem, I will respond in kind; you are an idiot.

[0] From the second paragraph of the fucking article: " _But our student
failed to download AllSIM from DFS onto his office PC, since that wasn’t where
he wanted to use it. He wanted to install it on his laptop so that he could
work on his simulation while travelling. However, the CERN AllSIM installation
would not allow for this, as roaming usage is not covered by CERN 's AllSIM
licence. The student had a need and was not willing to compromise i.e. by
using the Windows Terminal Service. Instead, he used Google and quickly found
AllSIM for free on a dubious website. Three clicks later, he was ready to
go._"

------
powertower
In case anyone was also wondering, that's the Swiss Franc, and not a Chinese
currency, and converts to about 30,800 US dollars.

> As he was affiliated with a university, CERN passed all costs to them who,
> in turn, passed them on to the student.

At first I thought that the software vendor was being unjustifiable. But if
you think about it, the student was not just part of CERN, he was also (using
the s/w) to work on a CERN project - so it does kind of all fall back into
CERN's lap. Yet CERN passed the cost to the university, which passed the fine
to the student?

~~~
masklinn
> Yet they passed the cost to the university, which passed the fine to the
> student?

CERN had a license pool available which the student didn't use, and the
student most likely broke CERN's rules wrt licensed software. Why would CERN
pay for a student's breach of their rules?

~~~
powertower
The way I look at it is that the licensing agreement, and penalty clauses, is
totally between CERN and the software vendor, and not the particular student.

Did the student sign some type of a indemnification agreement with CERN?

~~~
danielweber
+1. I don't support or defend the student's actions one bit, but the 30K was
negotiated between CERN and the vendor. Fire him with a "not eligible for
rehire note" in his HR file: fine. Make him the subject of orientation
studies: great. Trying to get him to pay CERN's fine: sketchy.

------
yc1010
My opinion of CERN has gone done a few notches after reading this bitchy blog
post, this is some poor sap's life they have ruined for taking initiative
around silly restrictions to get shit done.

They should have contacted the software company in question and settled this,
now both CERN and Allsim have a bad reputation and a student is deep in debt

~~~
danielweber
"Hey, I was just trying to get work done, that's why I downloaded warez to
bring into the secure computing facility."

There's a lot of businesses where someone downloading and running shitware
they find on the Internet can be a _lot_ more expensive than 30K.

~~~
yc1010
The keyword here is CAN, no harm was done to CERN in this case that we know
of.

It makes for a toxic workplace once employees/students in a facility feel like
they can be thrown under a bus by management, or worse purposefully made an
example of.

The whole approach here is destructive and makes me think that someone at CERN
went on a power trip and is a real arsehole to work for.

~~~
danielweber
> no harm was done to CERN

Yes it was. CERN's negotiated contracts were broken, triggering a 30K damage
award. Just because it's "on paper" doesn't mean the damage isn't real. He
could have done the same kind of damage if he had sexually harassed an
underling.[1]

I can say with very high confidence that "don't pirate software" is a key part
of orientation at CERN, the same way as at most large companies.

The student might not have known about the specifics of the contract (and he
shouldn't pay the 30K), but it's not the company's responsibility to tell each
and every idiot "here is why you obey our policies." It's the company's
responsibility to tell each idiot "these rules are important to obey."

[1] of course the student likely didn't have any reports

------
goodcanadian
WTF?

The student was wrong. He had access to a legal copy through CERN, but
instead, he used a pirated copy. Not only is that legally wrong, it is
bizarre.

The company was wrong. They are not a law enforcement agency. They have no
right to demand a fine of CHF30000 be paid. At best, they can send a cease and
desist. If they believe significant damages have occurred, they can sue.

CERN was wrong to pay the fine and pass it on to the student. For one, they
had a site license. For another, after investigating, they found it to be the
stupid act of a naive student who, I am sure, has learned his lesson by now.
However, it was no skin off their back to pay up and pass it on. They should
have refused to pay the fine and participated in coming to an amicable
settlement between all parties involved.

~~~
masklinn
> The company was wrong. […] They have no right to demand a fine of CHF30000
> be paid.

The company has every right to send a speculative or infringement invoice, the
infringing party also has every right to ignore said invoice and try their
chance in court.

> For one, they had a site license.

Which didn't cover the student's usage.

> For another, after investigating, they found it to be the stupid act of a
> naive student who

had likely breached CERN policy and was possibly a hazard to CERN's computer
systems.

~~~
goodcanadian
_The company has every right to send an infringement invoice, the infringing
party also has every right to ignore said invoice and try their chance in
court._

They have every right to send a notice as I said, myself. It is the fine that
I believe is unreasonable regardless of whether it is explicitly part of
CERN's contract with the company.

 _Which didn 't cover the student's usage._

No, but then, it wasn't CERN who downloaded and used a pirated copy, was it?

 _had likely breached CERN policy and was possibly a hazard to CERN 's
computer systems._

They said flat out that he violated their computing policy, so they can take
away his computing privileges, but paying a CHF30K "fine" and sending him the
bill?

------
cx201
CERN should try to mediate between the software company and the student.

The high fine of 30k was probably set because the company thought CERN was
violating their licensing. For an institution or large company the size of
CERN, 30k might be a justifiable fine.

If the company knew the infringement was done by a single student, they
probably would not have set such a high fine.

Also, I doubt 30k would hold up in court as a reasonable fine, given that the
student had access to the software anyway. Although him downloading the
software illegaly shows some criminal energy.

But maybe I'm wrong and the company knowingly fined 30k for the single
person's license infringement and CERN tried to avert that. Would be nice to
know some more details.

------
rasz_pl
Lessons to learn from this:

1 CERN will fuck you over, do not count on them, and definitely do not go
above and beyond to finish a job assigned by them

2 Use outbound firewall when using pirated software. Download said pirated
software only from connections that cant be traced back to you. Learn about
output files watermarking (for example IDA Pro watermarks everything).

Good job CERN, prime blog post there, people skills so stronk!

------
svdree
This bulletin is obviously aimed at scaring others who were thinking of doing
something similar. Still, it's a bit heavy handed, isn't it? No one was hurt,
no damage was done, CERN responded immediately when notified, and it turned
out to be a dumb student who fucked up. Give the dude a slap on the wrist, and
let it go.

------
peterclary
"the student has not only placed the Organization's reputation at risk" Not
nearly as much as posting about it on a publicly-accessible blog.

------
toyg
CERN should have told AllSIM to go pound sand on "indemnity"; just pay the
difference between the license they have and the one they need, even just in
kind (losing a couple of users). This under threat of losing CERN forever as a
customer. I bet AllSIM would have relented: 30k CHF won't pay three weeks of
lawyer fees, nor will they make up for years of CERN business.

That was the right thing to do, not washing their hands of it and crucifixing
a kid. Unfortunate things happen all the time in business, real men deal with
it with fairness. This is despicable behaviour.

------
ifdefdebug
You don't take a binary blob from a dubious website and install it onto a
company machine, and if it was his own laptop, then you don't use such a blob
to produce another blob and install that on your company's machine. That's
such a damn stupid thing to to in so many ways. The IT security department has
all the reasons to be angry, much worse could have happened than triggering
some company's license monitoring system.

Having said that, I hope they are going to let go on the student with that
30k.

------
leni536
Was the company in question legally right? Probably (I'm not a lawyer). Was
this a dick move? Totally. Did this move makes them any long term benefit? I
don't think so. I think they lose this short term 30k CHF in long term by
harmed reputation. So in the end everybody loses.

------
t0mbstone
I'm confused. If CERN has the licenses, and the student is covered under that
usage case, why wouldn't their license rights apply to the software that the
student was using (regardless of where they got the the binary installation or
whether it had a crack). The software has still been paid for, so why wouldn't
the software company allow it? It sounds like the software company is
exploiting a technicality in their licensing terms, for no real reason other
than greed?

~~~
danielweber
So my neighbor has a book in his house I want to read. He didn't want the book
out of his house. So we both got legal counsel and negotiated a contract that
I paid him an amount of money and I could read the book inside his house. He
also put a damages clause in the contract because for some reason people have
violated his stupid rule.

Well, pretty soon I wanted to read the book outside. Oh, but the rule. But
wait, I had him outsmarted! I put the book on table in the house next to a
window, and then I could read the book while outside.

Wait, this is stupid. Why am I reading a book through the window? I'll just
pull the book out through the window and read it there.

WTF, my neighbor now says I violated the contract? I've triggered the damages
clause of the contract I vountarily agreed to? All I did was move a book three
feet through a window! I had a contract that I could read it!! I THOUGHT THIS
WAS AMERICA!!!

------
petercooper
Sure, Switzerland isn't in the EU but can companies really issue huge fines to
other people there? Here in the UK I believe fines/penalties in civil
situations can be restricted to the actual damage caused (?).

I hope this ends up in court if Switzerland has similar rules. It seems like
one of those situations where a company might _legally_ be able to do
something, but the ethics are uneasy.

~~~
roel_v
This is not a 'fine' in the legal sense, it's a (most likely) contractually
agreed penalty for non-compliance with the licence terms, or otherwise a
settlement proposal. This is most likely a no brainer, from a legal point of
view (it's how pretty much all specialty licence deals are constructed) - as
I'm sure CERN's in-house councel has advised.

There is a reason this sort of thing is covered during orientation training.
Sure, many people (especially those new to the real world like students) roll
their eyes at it and think it's all just a bunch of mumbo jumbo; and OK,
usually in practice it's not as strict as it seems at first, but that doesn't
mean it's any less real.

~~~
JupiterMoon
In many European countries many software licenses are worthless. Similarly
such penalty clauses have no legal weight. This is likely to be far from a
legal "no brainer".

~~~
roel_v
Pray tell in what country whatsoftware licenses are 'worthless'. Because
they're contracts like any other, and parties are free to contract anything
they want (bar illegal things, which a penalty clause certainly isn't)
anywhere in Europe.

And yes I do have a law degree.

~~~
petercooper
I'm in the UK which is only one part of Europe, and while "penalty clauses"
are not _illegal_ here, they are unenforceable. Liquidated damage clauses that
impose reparations of a genuine pre-estimate of probable loss are fine,
however. Whether $30000 is such is a matter for debate. If the software would
cost $30000 for licensing on a single laptop, maybe it would be.

------
vezzy-fnord
I don't mean to be zealous, but I'll be honest. Why don't research
organizations and international conventions have strict policies of using only
free (as in freedom) software? I think this is a cautionary tale right here of
why it's important. The licensing pitfalls of violating proprietary terms are
so much higher stake.

~~~
masklinn
> Why don't research organizations and international conventions have strict
> policies of using only free (as in freedom) software?

What are they to do when no such "free software" package exists? Stop
research? Spend years trying to build one when there's a known industrial
package available off the shelf?

~~~
vezzy-fnord
Isn't that already the reality for plenty of commercial enterprises, where
certain licenses are avoided like the plague? Licensing is an unfortunate form
of yak shaving that everyone must get around.

Considering the alternative is conducting research on top of intrinsically
obscurantist proprietary software, the trade-off might well be worth it.

~~~
danielweber
There are adults who want to get their job done and don't care about your
feelings about free software. 30K is chump change as far as CERN's software
budget is concerned and is not going to make them give up on commercial
software.

Also, because I can anticipate the response: just because 30K is not worth
giving up on commercial software, it doesn't mean they shouldn't try to fix
the user fuckup that cost them 30K.

~~~
vezzy-fnord
The only one invoking "feelings" here is you alone, and it implies to me
you're the one who is most susceptible to them here. If you have some vendetta
against free software, then leave it out for now.

The question of how one reconciles obscurantist practices with the scientific
method remains open.

------
meapix
this is somebody's life, screw licensing.

------
eitally
This happens frequently at large corporations, where a design engineer uses
either an educational or personal license on a corporate machine (or vice
versa), either out of ignorance or simply because they want to work more
flexibly than they'd otherwise be allowed. IT departments don't adequately
educate about it, imho, and software companies are too heavy-handed in
enforcement, but regardless of all this, the student was in the wrong here and
absolutely knew better than to use a pirated license.

------
teddyh
The so-called freedom that software authors have to choose a software license
is in reality not a freedom, but a controlling power over other people – the
users of said software.

[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-
power.en.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.en.html)

