Open Source Weblog

It’s not the first time we’ve come across a case of Microsoft attempting to charge schools for software that they cannot use. Back in January I reported on the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency’s report into Microsoft's academic licensing programmes.

The report stated:

“If a school wants to cover any of its ICT estate using a subscription agreement, it must cover all its ‘eligible PCs’. Microsoft has set the definition of an eligible PC as any computer with a specification of a PII processor or higher (the PII was launched in 1997). The eligible PC definition also includes Apple Macintosh computers (G3 or higher). This approach results in over-licensing, double licensing and other anomalies.”

And:

“A further anomaly arises in that a school which uses a mix of Microsoft-based and Apple computers can find itself paying Microsoft a licence fee for software which cannot run on its Apple machines.”

Ignoring the competitive impact on open source alternatives (where is the incentive to look elsewhere if you have to pay for Windows anyway) for a moment, consider the fact that some of your tax or school fee dollars, or pounds, or krone are not being spent on educating children but on providing Microsoft with revenue for software that schools cannot and will not use.

At least the Norwegian Competition Authority has forced Microsoft to back down, according to Linpro. For its part Becta warned schools against entering into academic license agreement with Microsoft unless the company implemented recommended changes, while at the same time extending a MOU with Microsoft that enabled schools to take advantage of the licensing program.

Becta effectively gave Microsoft a year’s grace to implement its recommendations and told schools to delay a decision until the publication of its final report in early 2008. In the meantime, UK schools continue to be charge for software they can’t use.