ISO 19770-3 Ent Tags

9 years ago

Hi Charlotte. As you are probably aware, the ISO 19770-3 entitlement tag is an extension of the original ISO 19770-1 Software Asset Management standard and the ISO 19770-2 SWID (SoftWare IDentification) Tag. Although both of these standards, together with the new ISO 19770-3 entitlement tags, have been approved, we've actually seen mixed results in terms of both adoption and effectiveness. A good example of the troubles with ISO 19770-2 was highlighted in a blog from 2014 by our CTO, Peter Bjorkman: SWID Tags: What are they and why are they important? | Snow Software As best we can tell, the fundamental design flaw of ISO 19770-2 has not been addressed. Which makes us, as a technology provider, wary of relying solely on them. Hence our continued investment in the Software Recognition Service. In short, we do not agree with the position taken in your link by Jesper Ostergaard. We applaud the initiative, but do not think the reality yet matches the ambition. Before we commit fully to the ISO 19770-3 standard, we want reassurance from the committee that this standard is not open to the same abuse. The stakes for you, the customer, are too high. And while -3 may look like an easy way to check licensing entitlements and build an Effective License Position (ELP), if the information contained within the tag is wrong, it's actually very dangerous. So the answer is that, thus far, we have chosen not to rely on this standard. But we are keeping a close eye on it and as soon as we think it will really benefit the customer, we are ready to support it. We're certainly interested to hear other views from members of the Snow Globe community.

Expand Post

Community Manager (Flexera Software)
9 years ago
Hi Charlotte. As you are probably aware, the ISO 19770-3 entitlement tag is an extension of the original ISO 19770-1 Software Asset Management standard and the ISO 19770-2 SWID (SoftWare IDentification) Tag. Although both of these standards, together with the new ISO 19770-3 entitlement tags, have been approved, we've actually seen mixed results in terms of both adoption and effectiveness. A good example of the troubles with ISO 19770-2 was highlighted in a blog from 2014 by our CTO, Peter Bjorkman: SWID Tags: What are they and why are they important? | Snow Software As best we can tell, the fundamental design flaw of ISO 19770-2 has not been addressed. Which makes us, as a technology provider, wary of relying solely on them. Hence our continued investment in the Software Recognition Service. In short, we do not agree with the position taken in your link by Jesper Ostergaard. We applaud the initiative, but do not think the reality yet matches the ambition. Before we commit fully to the ISO 19770-3 standard, we want reassurance from the committee that this standard is not open to the same abuse. The stakes for you, the customer, are too high. And while -3 may look like an easy way to check licensing entitlements and build an Effective License Position (ELP), if the information contained within the tag is wrong, it's actually very dangerous. So the answer is that, thus far, we have chosen not to rely on this standard. But we are keeping a close eye on it and as soon as we think it will really benefit the customer, we are ready to support it. We're certainly interested to hear other views from members of the Snow Globe community.
Expand Post
ScouseSAM
9 years ago
I do, for the most part agree with Matt here. I have 2 main issues with this, 1. You'll likely never get SWID tags for "legacy" software which at the point SWID would be implemented would probably represent 99% of your software estate (though you need to start somewhere!) and 2. it would require buy in from all vendors and manufacturers to be accurate. I don't particularly agree with the the human error element being highlighted because human error can occur everywhere and Snow's own SRS is no exception. If we were concerned with human error to the point it stopped us from implementing things, we'd never implement anything haha. The real nail on the head from Matt for me though is that the idea and the ambition is great, it's a fantastic idea it just needs that buy in from everyone. As it stands for me, SRS for the win
Expand Post

Related Product Forums