I'm coming at this from the perspective of a network license scheme only. It is harder perhaps to deal with this control issue for firms that use standalone seats. I suspect the language is written from that angle primarily.
Not true, a company has excellent control over licenses if the only way a PC can obtain a license is when they are connected to their domain, via VPN/LAN/WAN. Working from home is no different in this case than if the PC were in a cubicle at the office. While connected to the domain, thru VPN, I can run software by obtaining a license from the network license server. The only way I can stay licensed, and disconnected from the network, is to borrow the license which removes one license from the network pool. I also can choose to let the term of the borrowed license expire or reconnect to the domain, via VPN, and return the license early.Originally Posted by bmyers
This is the part that I believe is inaccurate...as long as a VPN is involved. Define monitor, nobody monitors usage at the office either...except when someone says they can't get a license.... (or when dealing with the budget)Originally Posted by Autodesk
Working from home is also no different than a firm's several offices acquiring their licenses through their WAN and network server located in one city. The only way you can get a license is if there is one available in the pool. As long as the licenses served are valid for the country they are served to, can't do this between the UK and USA for example. You technically need separate license pools for each country.
It seems odd to me to focus on the ownership of the PC when Autodesk has the power to restrict such abuses by not providing standalone authorization codes for network licensed seats. Without such a code the only way to use the software anywhere is to have the PC join the domain via VPN or LAN/WAN.
Not that me muttering about this here will change it...