[c-nsp] IOS pirating requests

Tue Apr 8 14:19:01 EDT 2008

SOP is buy the chassis and routing engine new from Cisco,  buy the  
line cards used.  Best of both worlds,  and legal

-Matt

On Apr 8, 2008, at 10:47 AM, Tony Varriale wrote:
> I would disagree with what's mostly here.  But, I'm guessing both of  
> us
> aren't lawyers.
>
> I do know what IS SOP these days.  Buy the gear 3rd party then  
> either the
> seller or buyer downloads and loads up some later software and/or  
> different
> feature set.
>
> That, I know for sure, is illegal unless Cisco offers the code fix  
> for a
> security issue.  And, the people that are practicing this as SOP  
> can't spell
> security.
>
> tv
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm at toybox.placo.com>
> To: "Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists" <lists at hojmark.org>; "'Daniel Hooper'"
> <dhooper at emerge.net.au>; "'Jon Lewis'" <jlewis at lewis.org>
> Cc: <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 3:58 AM
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] IOS pirating requests
>
>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
>>> [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net]On Behalf Of Asbjorn  
>>> Hojmark -
>>> Lists
>>> Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 1:23 PM
>>> To: 'Daniel Hooper'; 'Jon Lewis'
>>> Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>>> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] IOS pirating requests
>>>
>>>
>>>> But if you send me the chassis as well as the IOS and no money
>>>> changes hand's it's technically not pirating.
>>>
>>> Well, that depends on who you ask... It's pretty clear from the
>>> license that the software does *not* follow the hardware to a 3rd
>>> party. If you sell the box, you have to buy a 'transfer license'.
>>>
>>> (Wether that'll be legal in other countries is another matter).
>>>
>>
>> That has never been tested in a court and a Cisco buyer is not
>> required to sign a contract that would obligate them to such an
>> act.  In fact, if anything, the courts
>> have ruled in the few cases that have come up regarding used
>> software being sold, that it is illegal for a software vendor to
>> place a purchaser under such a restriction.  In short, if you
>> go buy a copy of Windows and use it for a few years then sell it,
>> (assuming that you have not of course used the license as the
>> basis for an upgrade, and that it's not an OEM license) that
>> you and the buyer are perfectly legal.  As for OEM software,
>> this travels with the device.  As much as Microsoft and other
>> vendors would like to have the software license of Windows
>> 'untied' from the hardware post-purchase, if you sell a PC you
>> bought with Windows preloaded, the license for the preload goes
>> with the PC.
>>
>> This also works for cell phones, DVD players, automobiles,
>> microwave ovens, hybrid key phone systems, etc. all of which
>> have embedded computers with software running.  The manufacturer
>> can only deny you new updates or cut you out of support if
>> you get the item from the secondary market - they cannot win
>> a suit against you for merely buying and owning the item that
>> has the software on it that was loaded on it when it came from
>> the factory.
>>
>> Cisco I am sure is perfectly aware of all of this.  It is undoubtedly
>> why they put the oldest and archaic IOS on their products possible.
>> For example we just sold a recent 2800 to a customer - running an
>> OLDER version of IOS  (12.4.1 I believe) than what was in it's ROM -
>> this was a brand-new, never-opened, direct from Ingram Micro router -
>> it was an IOS image that has been deferred years ago and long since
>> covered under Cisco's free "security upgrade replacement"
>>
>> Clearly, pulling such a stunt gives Cisco much leeway to argue in
>> a court that someone isn't entitled to a more current IOS version
>> because the "official OEM IOS version" that was shipped with the
>> router is going to be older than -anything- that was ever available
>> for download from the Cisco website.  Thus Cisco could make the  
>> argument
>> in a court that while a buyer of a used 2800 might have a legal right
>> to posses the 2800 with IOS 12.4.1 loaded, (because that was what
>> was on it when the router shipped from the factory) that is as new
>> an IOS as they can have, simply by merely purchasing the box.
>>
>> You really need to be careful here.  Keep in mind
>> that for the last decade software vendors have been scruplously
>> avoiding having shrinkwrap licenses tested in court, there's not been
>> a single court case of a software vendor (like Microsoft or Cisco)
>> suing anyone for violating a shrinkwrap license that they did not
>> explicitly sign and agree to abide by.  Yet there's millions of
>> devices sold every year that have shrinkwrap licenses on them.
>> Most of what you read from the software vendors is FUD and
>> speculation in this area.  And, I will also remind you, there is
>> no law that states that Cisco or any other software vendor MUST
>> tell the truth with regards to contracts or their interpretation.
>>
>> It is SOP for most companies to put illegal, rediculous, and
>> unenforceable terms in their contracts, then have their sales
>> guys claim those terms are legally binding.  In writing even.
>> Naturally, contract law being what it is, if there is ever a
>> legal dispute, this will be held against them by the judge -
>> but they do this because they know the vast majority of people
>> automatically assume that just because it's written down in
>> the contract that it must be legal.
>>
>> Ted
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
>> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/