Following extensive discussions on the implementation of Software Asset Management (SAM), it is clear that there remains a widespread misunderstanding about software licensing in general. Licensing implications are seldom given due consideration during change initiatives within organisations. The concept that software is licensed, not owned, is still not fully embedded in public or corporate consciousness.
Company directors could face personal sanctions. Also, there could be significant financial penalties for the company concerned, let alone the impact on its reputation for knowingly allowing the use of illegal software within their organisations. There is a fine line between ignorance and negligence, either way, poor oversight of software licensing puts directors, and senior management at risk and companies need to get the software on their estate under control.
There are many factors to be considered with software licensing and establishing adequate processes to make sure businesses operate legally. The diverse range of software licensing models alone is sufficient to conclude that SAM is not as simple as it sounds:
- Even products from the same vendor may follow different licensing models
- Software from the same vendor can be licensed differently depending on the product
- A single product can be licensed in multiple ways depending on the option chosen
- Licensing terms and conditions often change between product versions
Organisations need a cultural shift in how they manage software, moving from ad hoc decisions to clearly defined, policy-driven approaches. Implementing SAM is not just a compliance measure; it is a vital part of operational governance. Senior leaders must recognise that proactive licensing oversight is an executive responsibility, not just an IT function.