[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Grant Sewell wrote: > If it is a company *owned* machine then the company ought to have > in-place enough user security measures (local-machine security policies, > group policies, strict group membership (possibly controlled by group > policy), etc) in place to prevent the average user from installing > software, and only allowing specific users to install software, and that > installation being recorded by automatic audit. On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 09:32:17AM +0000, Rob Beard wrote: > Unfortunately though a lot of smaller companies don't have things like > this in place. > You will note that the BSA website covers Software Audit programs in great length: and it is one of the ways of avoiding the problem. Mind you, someone has to manage the process Given that - the BSA claims that software piracy = theft - tips from disgruntled employees are a prime source of contacts - companies are short of cash / looking to cut costs Advantage FLOSS: 1/ Cheaper to buy 2/ Reduced admin costs (virus etc) 3/ No problems with BSA -- Henry Photocopies or faxes of my signature are not binding. This email has been signed with an electronic signature in accordance with subsection 7(3) of the Electronic Communications Act 2000. Digital Key Signature: GPG RSA 0xFB447AA1 Wed Dec 17 10:20:20 GMT 2008
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html