BSA反盗版激怒企业：“我不跟羞辱我们的人做生意！”
出处：博客中国(Blogchina.com) 原始出处： ZDNet China
Sterling Ball是个说话风趣且平易近人的老板，他担任吉他琴弦制造商Ernie Ball的CEO，该公司在音乐圈享有极高盛名，包括吉他之神Eric Clapton或重金属摇滚乐团Metallica都指名推荐它的琴弦。
不过自从该公司三年前决定全数扬弃微软产品后，Ernie Ball又多了一个不小的名气：一家敢向商业软件说"不"，却又能活到现在的厂商。
话说2000年，商业软件联盟(BSA)突击检查该公司，并找到好几版未经合法授权使用的软件版本。Sterling Ball最后以6.5万美元外加3.5万美元律师费与BSA达成和解。但代表软件大厂版权利益的BSA竟在晚报大幅刊登广告，拿Ernie Ball为例子警告其他企业要看紧自家的软件版权。
Ball不甘受此屈辱，下令该公司IT部门在六个月内把所有微软产品通通扫出门。"我说，即使员工要开始学打算盘我都在所不惜。"最近出席LinuxWorld大会的Ball回忆道。"我不希望跟羞辱我们公司的人做生意。"
Ball的IT手下最后凑合了许多开放源代码软件来使用，包括Red Hat版本Linux，OpenOffice办公室套件、Mozilla的Web浏览器，以及几个开放源代码还无法取代的专属程序。
身为Ernie Ball公司第二代继承人，Sterling Ball表示此一转变并没有太大问题，自此他乐得逢人就说开放源代码的优点。最近他则CNET记者畅谈他的转变经验。
Q：可否先概略谈一下你怎么会变成开放源代码的代言人？
我之所以加入开放源代码阵营，主因是我们一直都是一家奉公守法的家族企业，经营30年余年来从没没被告过，也没有跳票或出过任何问题。结果有一天，警卫通知我有检警单位要进来检查软件，我心想应该没有问题，我买的电脑都附有合法的软件版权，但我律师却跟我说情况会蛮糟糕的。
BSA那时有个"检举老板"(Nail Your Boss)计划，鼓励员工举报自己的公司，我们就这样被检举了，反正，我们就被迫关闭，我们那时也才只有8%不合格而已(公司电脑总数为72台)。
Q：怎么会这样？
我们继续使用旧电脑的关系。工程部若是新购电脑，我们就把旧电脑转移至行政部门使用，但若你没把硬碟整个清乾净，这就算违法使用了。即使他们知道这个软件根本没人在用，但只要存在电脑中就算违法。我觉得大家都应该礼尚往来，我不可能用微软那种作风来对待我的客户，我原本也是很支持微软的，但自此就非常讨厌微软了。
Q：你那时希望和解吗？
从来没有，这是员工与老板之间的想法上的差异。他们攻击我的家族名声，刻意让我们难堪，我从来就没打算要和解，我很乐意去打官司，但BSA早已透过国会取得权力，我们打从第一天就得开始替他们负担律师费。这也就是为何没人敢跟他们挑战，因为没人付得起。我的律师对我说，这场官司打起来得付上25万美元，且你还得负担他们的费用，至少50万美元跑不掉，这么做实在不值得，你救乖乖付钱了事，继续做生意就好了。一般人多半会被吓到，赶紧乖乖付权利金，并一直付下去。
Q：BSA督察员走了之后呢？
就是双方律师的协商了，从那时起我也下定决心不再使用他们的任何产品。但老实说，当初若不是微软，我们的企业也不可能做得起来，因此我还是要感谢他们。
Q：因此你不能接受的是被拿来当作活广告，而非检查本身？
在商场上，没人喜欢这样被践踏。他们利用我们的商誉来销售他们产品，这样做不对，若你觉得我们软件使用不当，先打个电话来通知我们改进都行，但他们却是用偷袭的方式，我猜这是因为当初这地区还算是新市场，而我们又是这附近最大的制造商，所以就选我们当作杀鸡儆猴的目标吧。
Q：决定驱逐微软之后呢？
我们研究了所有其他替代方案，我们看过苹果的，但微软也有投资这家公司(编按：微软在1997年投资苹果1.5亿美元)，因此我们就不考虑了。我们看过Sun的Sun Ray系统，市面上有的我们几乎都看过了，最后还是觉得Linux，尤其是Red Hat可行性最高。
Q：所以现在是什么样的Linux环境呢？
我不是IT人员，我是专门做商业决策的，我只知道我们现在用的是Red Hat搭配OpenOffice，与Mozilla，Evolution这些东西。
我们当初找出的方式就是现在市场开始在流行的产物，只是当初我们必须自家动脑筋去想出来。想来真的很有趣，不过短短三年半的时间，我们从当初的意气用事未经商业思考，摇身一变到现在竟然可跟技术人员谈得头头是道，我知道当我改用开放源代码后，我就马上省下8万美元了，每次看到微软又出新产品，比如Windows XP，我就省得更多，因为我不用再添购新硬件来满足软件需求。最棒的是，原本跑不动Windows 2000，已经快被淘汰的电脑竟然还可起死回生，现在还能在我们的软件上继续使用。
Q：转变后的适应情况如何？
真的很奇妙，我们照样使用email、client/server、试算表、文书处理，跟Windows环境没什么两样。有分析师算过，转换到开放源代码的每个员工成本为1250美元，但我们并没有这么高，我不想讲实际的数字，但我可以这么说，我不用再按人头来付权利金了，我不用再买新电脑，若真的有需要，我们都用组装电脑就行了，我们所处理的东西并不需要用到多高阶的系统。
Q：但现在有人说，若把后续支援与服务费用加进来，开放源代码的成本也是很高的。
需要什么支援呢？我又不用打电话向Red Hat求援，不需要，这只是唬人的而已；我们也没有处理病毒的成本，根本没碰上过病毒；若员工电脑真的有问题，IT人员也不用跑去现场修理，他只需在自己座位上就搞定了，因为一切都是服务器架构了，我真的觉得成本降低很多，至于分析师爱怎么说那是他们的事。
另一个好处是生产力问题，若你的电脑中包含许多跟工作不相干的功能，员工就很容易会去拿来玩，我公司就没这种问题。若你只需要用到文书处理，我就安装文书处理软件给你就行了，你的电脑里不会有小画家或PowerPoint其他有的没的。我再跟你说一件事，自从公司把电脑中的浏览器卸载后，员工上班浏览eBay的次数就大大降低；负责填表格，进出货的员工干嘛需要网页浏览器？若你有2000台电脑，每一台都要一个Web浏览器，那真的太夸张了。这只会造成员工分心而已。
Q：微软方面后来有跟你接触过吗？
今天在会场上，有位希望匿名的微软员工听了我的演说后跑来跟我道歉。他问我是否有人跟我道歉过，因为他觉得那种作法真的很无理，我跟他说没有，于是他就跟我道歉，他说他们其实并没有恶意。我当然相信他们或许无意那么做，但当一家公司变大后，它根本不知浪畔虏戎辛寺煲希皇钦獯嗡恍⌒牟戎幸恢缓炻煲习樟恕?
Q：Erinie Ball在音乐圈素享盛名，现在跨行红到科技圈，感觉如何？
我很高兴在科技产业还能有一些影响力，这也突显出整个产业的荒谬性，一家改用开放源代码的小公司竟然可以获得媒体大幅报导，这其中原因正是因为大家总有错误的认知，以挥形⑷恚揪突畈幌氯ィ惨虼司苡梦⑷淼姆炊闪诵挛拧?
这只不过是软件而已，你必须掌握哪些是公司该做的事，然后找出适当的工具来加以执行，我们不是一家落伍的组织，我们是相当先进的，我们也获得通讯与设计奖，即使我不用微软Outlook寄送email也不会对我们有所阻碍，这真的很好笑，我只是用了一套不同软件，就可以在这种科技大厂云集的场合跟满座的听众发表演讲。
Q：你多半使用现成的套装软件，那么你在开放源代码领域中都找得到你需要的东西吗？
有的，有些东西真的很难找，比如薪资软件，我们后来有找到相当好用的，但开发人员真的需要开始写一些商场上真正需要的程序，他们现在都还忙着打造市场上已经有的服务器，做一堆之前已经做过的事，大家不应该只是写一些替代微软的软件而已，而是要前瞻一些，做出一些不一样的全新产品才是。
Q：SCO指控Linux一事，你有任何看法吗？
我看不出这场官司有任何好处，但我有使用他们的Unix系统，现在我已经下令先卸载了，我实在看不惯这种作法。他们这么做只会对整个Linux社区投下一个巨大的阴影。
看惯了软件更迭，Windows 98不支援了，NT不支援了，OS/2不支援了，但身为IT主管，你看上Linux的好处就是它会一直被支援下去，这是最主要的考量点之一。
Q：假如SCO打赢呢？
假设性问题很难回答，反正桥到船头自然直，但我真的很难理解会有人宣称拥有Linux所有权。
我使用开放源代码不是为了贪它是免费软件，我不认为天下有白吃的午餐，光是建置就要花钱了，至于成本高低则要看是谁在说话。微软与一些分析师会告诉你支援与服务成本很高，这真是太夸张了，他们不妨来我办公室做做看，我们找Red Hat来支援的机率很低，几乎等于零，它也不像Windows那么会当机，且我也不用每次微软一推出新版本，就要忙着买新电脑。
Q：微软有试图回来拉拢你吗？
微软手中握有490亿美元现金，它哪会把我看在眼里。若他们真的在意我这家公司，一开始就不可能用那种方式来对待我。我也很高兴他们没回来拉拢我，我很感激他们让我看清楚事情的真相，因为我真的省下很多钱，且工作效率也没打上折扣，且我跟客户沟通也没有任何障碍，我真的很感谢你，微软。（编辑：高飞）
英文全文：
Rockin’ on without Microsoft
By David Becker
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
August 20, 2003, 4:00 AM PT
http://news.com.com/2008-1082-5065859.html
Sterling Ball, a jovial, plain-talking businessman, is CEO of Ernie Ball, the world’s leading maker of premium guitar strings endorsed by generations of artists ranging from the likes of Eric Clapton to the dudes from Metallica.
But since jettisoning all of Microsoft products three years ago, Ernie Ball has also gained notoriety as a company that dumped most of its proprietary software--and still lived to tell the tale.
In 2000, the Business Software Alliance conducted a raid and subsequent audit at the San Luis Obispo, Calif.-based company that turned up a few dozen unlicensed copies of programs. Ball settled for $65,000, plus $35,000 in legal fees. But by then, the BSA, a trade group that helps enforce copyrights and licensing provisions for major business software makers, had put the company on the evening news and featured it in regional ads warning other businesses to monitor their software licenses.
Humiliated by the experience, Ball told his IT department he wanted Microsoft products out of his business within six months. "I said, ’I don’t care if we have to buy 10,000 abacuses,’" recalled Ball, who recently addressed the LinuxWorld trade show. "We won’t do business with someone who treats us poorly."
Ball’s IT crew settled on a potpourri of open-source software--Red Hat’s version of Linux, the OpenOffice office suite, Mozilla’s Web browser--plus a few proprietary applications that couldn’t be duplicated by open source. Ball, whose father, Ernie, founded the company, says the transition was a breeze, and since then he’s been happy to extol the virtues of open-source software to anyone who asks. He spoke with CNET News.com about his experience.
Q: Can you start by giving us a brief rundown of how you became an open-source advocate?
A: I became an open-source guy because we’re a privately owned company, a family business that’s been around for 30 years, making products and being a good member of society. We’ve never been sued, never had any problems paying our bills. And one day I got a call that there were armed marshals at my door talking about software license compliance...I thought I was OK; I buy computers with licensed software. But my lawyer told me it could be pretty bad.
The BSA had a program back then called "Nail Your Boss," where they encouraged disgruntled employees to report on their company...and that’s what happened to us. Anyways, they basically shut us down...We were out of compliance I figure by about 8 percent (out of 72 desktops).
How did that happen?
We pass our old computers down. The guys in engineering need a new PC, so they get one and we pass theirs on to somebody doing clerical work. Well, if you don’t wipe the hard drive on that PC, that’s a violation. Even if they can tell a piece of software isn’t being used, it’s still a violation if it’s on that hard drive. What I really thought is that you ought to treat people the way you want to be treated. I couldn’t treat a customer the way Microsoft dealt with me...I went from being a pro-Microsoft guy to instantly being an anti-Microsoft guy.
Did you want to settle?
Never, never. That’s the difference between the way an employee and an owner thinks. They attacked my family’s name and came into my community and made us look bad. There was never an instance of me wanting to give in. I would have loved to have fought it. But when (the BSA) went to Congress to get their powers, part of what they got is that I automatically have to pay their legal fees from day one. That’s why nobody’s ever challenged them--they can’t afford it. My attorney said it was going to cost our side a quarter million dollars to fight them, and since you’re paying their side, too, figure at least half a million. It’s not worth it. You pay the fine and get on with your business. What most people do is get terrified and pay their license and continue to pay their licenses. And they do that no matter what the license program turns into.
What happened after the auditors showed up?
It was just negotiation between lawyers back and forth. And while that was going on, that’s when I vowed I was never going to use another one of their products. But I’ve got to tell you, I couldn’t have built my business without Microsoft, so I thank them. Now that I’m not so bitter, I’m glad I’m in the position I’m in. They made that possible, and I thank them.
So it was the publicity more than the audit itself that got you riled?
Nobody likes to be made an example of, but especially in the name of commerce. They were using me to sell software, and I just didn’t think that was right. Call me first if you think we have a compliance issue. Let’s do a voluntary audit and see what’s there. They went right for the gut...I think it was because it was a new (geographical) area for them, and we’re the No. 1 manufacturer in the county, so why not go after us?
So what did swearing off Microsoft entail?
We looked at all the alternatives. We looked at Apple, but that’s owned in part by Microsoft. (Editor’s note: Microsoft invested $150 million in Apple in 1997.) We just looked around. We looked at Sun’s Sun Ray systems. We looked at a lot of things. And it just came back to Linux, and Red Hat in particular, was a good solution.
So what kind of Linux setup do you have?
You know what, I’m not the IT guy. I make the business decisions. All I know is we’re running Red Hat with Open Office and Mozilla and Evolution and the basic stuff.
I know I saved $80,000 right away by going to open source.
We were creating the cocktail that people are guzzling down today, but we had to find it and put it together on our own. It’s so funny--in three and half years, we went from being these idiots that were thinking emotionally rather than businesslike...to now we’re smart and talking to tech guys. I know I saved $80,000 right away by going to open source, and each time something like (Windows) XP comes along, I save even more money because I don’t have to buy new equipment to run the software. One of the great things is that we’re able to run a poor man’s thin client by using old computers we weren’t using before because it couldn’t handle Windows 2000. They work fine with the software we have now.
How has the transition gone?
It’s the funniest thing--we’re using it for e-mail client/server, spreadsheets and word processing. It’s like working in Windows. One of the analysts said it costs $1,250 per person to change over to open source. It wasn’t anywhere near that for us. I’m reluctant to give actual numbers. I can give any number I want to support my position, and so can the other guy. But I’ll tell you, I’m not paying any per-seat license. I’m not buying any new computers. When we need something, we have white box systems we put together ourselves. It doesn’t need to be much of a system for most of what we do.
But there’s a real argument now about total cost of ownership, once you start adding up service, support, etc.
What support? I’m not making calls to Red Hat; I don’t need to. I think that’s propaganda...What about the cost of dealing with a virus? We don’t have ’em. How about when we do have a problem, you don’t have to send some guy to a corner of the building to find out what’s going on--he never leaves his desk, because everything’s server-based. There’s no doubt that what I’m doing is cheaper to operate. The analyst guys can say whatever they want.
The other thing is that if you look at productivity. If you put a bunch of stuff on people’s desktops they don’t need to do their job, chances are they’re going to use it. I don’t have that problem. If all you need is word processing, that’s all you’re going to have on your desktop, a word processor. It’s not going to have Paint or PowerPoint. I tell you what, our hits to eBay went down greatly when not everybody had a Web browser. For somebody whose job is filling out forms all day, invoicing and exporting, why do they need a Web browser? The idea that if you have 2,000 terminals they all have to have a Web browser, that’s crazy. It just creates distractions.
Have you heard anything from Microsoft since you started speaking out about them?
I got an apology today from a wants-to-be-anonymous Microsoft employee who heard me talk. He asked me if anyone ever apologized, because what happened to me sounded pretty rough to him, and I told him no. He said, "Well, I am. But we’re nice guys." I’m sure they are. When a machine gets too big, it doesn’t know when it’s stepping on ants. But every once in a while, you step on a red ant.
Ernie Ball is pretty much known as a musician’s buddy. How does it feel to be a technology guru, as well?
The myth has been built so big that you can’t survive without Microsoft.
I think it’s great for me to be a technology influence. It shows how ridiculous it is that I can get press because I switched to OpenOffice. And the reason why is because the myth has been built so big that you can’t survive without Microsoft, so that somebody who does get by without Microsoft is a story.
It’s just software. You have to figure out what you need to do within your organization and then get the right stuff for that. And we’re not a backwards organization. We’re progressive; we’ve won communications and design awards...The fact that I’m not sending my e-mail through Outlook doesn’t hinder us. It’s just kind of funny. I’m speaking to a standing-room-only audience at a major technology show because I use a different piece of software--that’s hysterical.
You’ve pretty much gotten by with off-the-shelf software. Was it tough to find everything you needed in the open-source world?
Yeah, there are some things that are tough to find, like payroll software. We found something, and it works well. But the developers need to start writing the real-world applications people need to run a business...engineering, art and design tools, that kind of stuff...They’re all trying to build servers that already exist and do a whole bunch of stuff that’s already out there...I think there’s a lot of room to not just create an alternative to Microsoft but really take the next step and do something new.
Any thoughts on SCO’s claims on Linux?
I don’t know the merits of the lawsuit, but I run their Unix and I’m taking it off that system. I just don’t like the way it’s being handled. I feel like I’m being threatened again.
They never said anything to me, and if I was smart, I probably wouldn’t mention it. But I don’t like how they’re doing it. What they’re doing is casting a shadow over the whole Linux community. Look, when you’ve got Windows 98 not being supported, NT not being supported, OS/2 not being supported--if you’re a decision maker in the IT field, you need to be able to look at Linux as something that’s going to continue to be supported. It’s a major consideration when you’re making those decisions.
What if SCO wins?
There are too many what-ifs. What if they lose? What if IBM buys them? I really don’t know, and I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it. But I can’t believe somebody really wants to claim ownership of Linux...it’s not going to make me think twice.
You see, I’m not in this just to get free software. No. 1, I don’t think there’s any such thing as free software. I think there’s a cost in implementing all of it. How much of a cost depends on whom you talk to. Microsoft and some analysts will tell you about all the support calls and service problems. That’s hysterical. Have they worked in my office? I can find out how many calls my guys have made to Red Hat, but I’m pretty sure the answer is none or close to it...It just doesn’t crash as much as Windows. And I don’t have to buy new computers every time they come out with a new release and abandon the old one.
Has Microsoft tried to win you back?
Microsoft is a growing business with $49 billion in the bank. What do they care about me? If they cared about me, they wouldn’t have approached me the way they did in the first place...And I’m glad they didn’t try to get me back. I thank them for opening my eyes, because I’m definitely money ahead now and I’m definitely just as productive, and I don’t have any problems communicating with my customers. So thank you, Microsoft.