At The Institute for Technology Asset Management, we’ve encountered the “Non-Commercial Use”
clause in multiple instances of enterprises being audited for non-compliance.
The bottom line behind this clause is its very “obtuse-ness” (if you will).
Much like the “right to audit” clause & its reliance on various nebulous (ever-shifting?) definitions of both “audit” & “compliance”, the Non-Commercial Use clause permits the copyright holder to write the rules as they encounter the instance – even up to selecting the most useful copyright law to cite in your legal notification - thus maximizing the potential for non-compliance settlement fines & penalties.
Further (& again, we believe intentionally), VERY few IT personnel have any clue how non-commercial applies to ownership of the system versus how the product is actually being utilized much less which systems in the enterprise contain these products. As software asset managers - SAMs - it's up to us to help educate the enterprise about this hazardous clause - one that is present in a wide range of licenses.
Result of Misinterpreting This Clause: You become an easy - & conveniently defenseless - audit target!
Bottom Line: Closely review the license terms. If the license has a Non-Commercial Use clause, recognize that the clause essentially applies to both where you put the product AND how you use that product. Essentially, do not place the product on a corporate system & do not use that product to produce any subsequent product or service.
Want a revealing experience relating to this type of clause (from the perspective of real live IT personnel)? Read the following thread - it's long...but invest the time in clearly understanding this classic disconnect between licensees & licensors. The organization initiating the thread used an evaluation licensed product – with a non-commercial use license caveat - in a production environment. The odds are really high that your own IT personnel have done this, or are doing this… The thread is HERE.
Much like the “right to audit” clause & its reliance on various nebulous (ever-shifting?) definitions of both “audit” & “compliance”, the Non-Commercial Use clause permits the copyright holder to write the rules as they encounter the instance – even up to selecting the most useful copyright law to cite in your legal notification - thus maximizing the potential for non-compliance settlement fines & penalties.
Further (& again, we believe intentionally), VERY few IT personnel have any clue how non-commercial applies to ownership of the system versus how the product is actually being utilized much less which systems in the enterprise contain these products. As software asset managers - SAMs - it's up to us to help educate the enterprise about this hazardous clause - one that is present in a wide range of licenses.
Result of Misinterpreting This Clause: You become an easy - & conveniently defenseless - audit target!
Bottom Line: Closely review the license terms. If the license has a Non-Commercial Use clause, recognize that the clause essentially applies to both where you put the product AND how you use that product. Essentially, do not place the product on a corporate system & do not use that product to produce any subsequent product or service.
Want a revealing experience relating to this type of clause (from the perspective of real live IT personnel)? Read the following thread - it's long...but invest the time in clearly understanding this classic disconnect between licensees & licensors. The organization initiating the thread used an evaluation licensed product – with a non-commercial use license caveat - in a production environment. The odds are really high that your own IT personnel have done this, or are doing this… The thread is HERE.
