Fair principle 11: The scope, execution and intended outcome of an audit shall be clearly defined in the contract.

Monitoring the proper use of software and its licenses is a legitimate right of software vendors. But around a possible audit process, clear agreements must be made between supplier and customer.

Vendors can create highly complex licensing models. The customer does not know how to comply with this. The audit then shows that the customer does not comply with the complex rules properly, and the supplier imposes (heavy) sanctions.

• The result, objectivity and intended purpose often go beyond the nature of an actual audit.
• Often there is an additional goal to sell more licenses, new products and services or to put pressure on the customer for a new platform or business model.
• During an audit, customers should not be held liable for software that is installed by default but has never been used or activated, for example by a license key.

Business users are usually not against a contractually stipulated audit right, but good agreements make good friends. Let us therefore conclude with this eleventh and final principle; the scope, performance and intended outcome of an audit should be clearly defined in the contract.

Support Fair Principle 11 op LinkedIn