↑ Return to Summit Archives

2011 Summit Archive

2011 Virginia Software Summit Agenda, Session Notes and FAQ
August 3, 2011, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA


9 – 9:30am – Welcome and Continental Breakfast – NOTES
James Hilton, University of Virginia
Sharon Pitt, George Mason University
Gene Roche, Electronic Campus of Virginia

9:30 – 10am – Breakout Session – NOTES
Challenges and opportunities for software management at your institution
Summit participants work in groups
Sharon Pitt – George Mason University

10 – 11am – Vendor Panel Discussion – NOTES
Representatives from software companies will begin by presenting challenge and opportunities of software management and licensing.  Summit participants will engage with panelists for a lively discussion of the future of software management for higher education.

Panelists include:
Alex Funke, Corporate Account Manager, Citrix, Inc.
Ron Richard – Regional Sales Manager, Southeast Region, Adobe, Inc.
Richard Rodts – Sales Manager, Education, Business Analytics, IBM, Inc.
Troy Schaudt – Account Executive, Wolfram Research
Sharon Pitt – George Mason University

11am – Noon – Point/Counterpoint – NOTES
Click Through Licenses – Ignore Them or Take Them Seriously?
In the spirit of point/counterpoint sessions offered at EDUCAUSE meetings, our presenters will discuss key issue surround Click Through Licenses on two distinctly different approaches.  Summit participants will engage in the discussion after the initial presentation.

Participants include:
Adam Ayer – President, LicenseLogic
Tony Townsend – University of Virginia
Joe Simard – University of Virginia

Noon – 1pm – Lunch

1 – 2 pm – Panel Discussion: – NOTES
Panelists will share current practices, challenges and future goals in institutional software license management.

Panelists include:
Patty Branscome – Virginia Tech
Peggy Sander – Miami University of Ohio
Joe Simard – University of Virginia
Drew Davis – James Madison University

2 – 2:30pm – Breakout Session: – NOTES
Determining actionable software management strategies
Summit participants work in groups
Drew Davis – James Madison University

2:30 – 3:00pm – Summit Discussion: – NOTES
Summit participants will discuss the value of establishing a formal consortium to facilitate statewide software licensing procurement for educational and research software

Sharon Pitt – George Mason University
Joe Simard – University of Virginia

3:00 – 3:30pm – Breakout Session:
Define success, establish action items and wrap-up
Sharon Pitt, George Mason University

3:30 – Adjourn

Session Notes:


James Hilton, University of Virginia

  • “Exhort to do good work”
  • It’s common to talk about relentless changes; risk being deaf to real change
  • Change coming is as large or larger than moving from mainframe to personal computing
  • Challenging fundamental belief that the institution controls the technology
  • If we don’t want to consider/accept/allow personal devices (iPhones, etc.), just try to stop it J
  • Faculty/staff/students – want and expect an environment where IT is consumerized; they can choose which/what technology they want to use
  • At core of all that is software licensing – biggest lever to pull that affects how easily we make this transition; security and data belongs to institution; not the technology
  • His Dream: Software licenses are like a library; accessible to everybody, used by few. If you have a high demand for copies, buy additional. Need terms to provide institutions the terms they need
  • World he wants: Accountable, independent agents in creating their tech environment
  • Make the choice: get hit by train or drive the train

Sharon Pitt, George Mason University

  • Challenges and Opportunities (Chopportunities)
  • Leverage students’ technology
  • Virtualized environments to offer software
  • Fees, tuition, books rising; is software another area that requires additional $ from students?
  • Challenges for software licensing and software licensing management

Breakout Session:  What are the challenges and opportunities for software vendors and license management?

  • Providing software that can run on all student and faculty staff computers
  • Providing software that is not needed by all campus constituents
  • Consistently managing software provisioning for students (e.g. avoiding the creation of separate processes for managing each piece of software)
  • Asking vendors to manage as much of the download and software management process for students as possible
  • Ensuring that software licenses do not expire in the middle of a semester
  • Acquiring prebuilt and configured virtualized/sequenced packages from the vendor
  • Creating a uniform business model
  • Achieving inter-institutional agreement
  • Developing an easier process for accepting terms and conditions for license agreements (e.g. a single, acceptable agreement for all Virginia institutions)
  • Eliminating multiple fields of use (e.g. educational, research)
  • Acquiring funding for software licensing (2)
  • Acquiring acceptable and reasonably priced licenses for virtualization
  • Getting accurate information from end users regarding the software that is needed
  • Getting concurrent license agreement for virtualized delivery of services
  • Lowering support costs through concurrent or unlimited licenses
  • Ensuring compliance through easier licensing strategies
  • Working with public higher education can be challenges (as opposed to private higher education and/or corporate entities)
  • Coordinating purchases across a university, piecemeal, as opposed to paying centrally
  • Coordinating acquisition of funds within the institution
  • Overcoming or accepting cultural expectation that central IT will pay for professional software needs
  • Overcoming or accepting faculty desire to pay for a license once and keep it forever (and include upgrades in the one-time cost), or being able to do this
  • Determining how software licenses should be funded…end user, student fee, central budget support, coordinate purchase across departments, etc…..
  • Developing a consistent, sustainable and easy business model around one funding strategy for software acquisition and provisioning.
  • Determining and communicating institutional need for specific software licenses
  • Paying for software via grant funding
  • Determining a cost structure to sell software that is delivered virtually
  • Meeting the specific needs of higher education with a consistent agreement (e.g. avoiding addendum agreements specific to each institution
  • Provisioning software both virtually and physically. There is a need for both.
  • Acquiring software contracts that do not specify university-owned computers as the location of installation
  • Acquiring software contracts that do not specify a campus or a radius from a campus
  • Allowing for shared licenses for shared courses between universities, non-traditional students, and study abroad.
  • Responding to consumerization of devices, delivery and hosting via the Cloud
  • Predicting and paying for increased software costs.  SPSS costs have doubled, how can institutions keep up with this for every software package or be able to predict costs?
  • Investigating open source solutions
  • Deploying open source solutions, even when open sources may not be the best solution for teaching or learning
  • Acquiring greater discounts from vendors for teaching students how to use a vendor’s software
  • Managing licenses versions/flavors/license servers that conflict
  • Acquiring licenses that compatible with an academic calendar
  • Using software as a services as an alternative to physical installation
  • Collaborating on multi-institutional licenses (e.g. Mathematica, ESRI in Virginia)
  • Developing an institutional strategy for software licensing when faculty and departments purchase software with individual and departmental budgets
  • Licensing for different uses, learning, mixed usage (e.g. knowledge workers)
  • Installing multiple versions of software for each use.
  • Tracking the use of a product, or not having to (e.g. Microsoft Campus Agreement)
  • Measuring use is inconsistent
  • Collating funds to pay for various uses on different campuses
  • Allowing home use
  • Centralizing software budgets
  • Establishing processes to acquire software for an entire campus
  • Establishing a vendor-provided system to account for software
  • Seeking new business models (e.g. rent software for a semester)

Vendor panel discussion

Adobe. Adobe is in listening mode.  Hana Yang has just been hired to define Adobe’s e-text and virtualization strategies.  The key to Adobe’s success will be flexibility.  Last year at the summit, Adobe talked about its enterprise license strategy.  Adobe has worked on forming strategy.  Adobe has a new manager of North American Sales.  Since last year, many customers in the state have moved to it.  Demand for support of creative projects has skyrocketed. In the past, Adobe has been a niche player in the Arts.  Over the years, demand for creative products has skyrocketed:  BFAs, MFAs, others.  Adobe is looking at licensing on a term base at 2-3% for education compared to full licensing costs.  The biggest challenge with virtualization is addressing the total student community.  What is the best way to license?  Specific population? Specific products? Adobe is open to considering everything; nothing is off the table at this point.  Students served by Adobe products range from intensive curricular use to broad use (e.g. Adobe Premier to Adobe Reader).

Citrix.  Citrix is a 20 year old company. Citrix is built of virtualization. Citrix is excited about virtualization.  Citrix works closely with Microsoft to provide its virtualization services.  Licensing is complex; Citrix recognizes inherent challenges. Large vendors have resources to produce products that can be virtualized.  Smaller vendors have more of a struggle. There are niche players in the software space, particularly in the educational community.  Should software be built by user or by device?  Right now, we are going through a change as big as the change from mainframe to PC.  Folks at Citrix call it the 3PC era:  personal cloud, private cloud and public cloud.  We can’t keep the personal cloud from coming into the workplace.  Who owns the stuff that it is in the public cloud?  For the provision of software as a service, the based license is Microsoft and then other licenses are purchased on top of that.  SaaS may require different procurement strategies.  Citrix has rolled out ELA as well.  Challenges with budgeting, etc. in small vs. large organizations.  How do you give each what they need?  Work with institutions to meet needs around IT strategy, business strategy and procurement strategy—all have to work together.  6 tiers of licensing – varying discounts.

SPSS. For SPSS, licensing is a continuation of a journey strated about 2 years ago.  New management.  Looking for feedback from the higher education community.  Feedback received to date is that it is difficult to work with SPSS.  SPSS was working on the “new deal” before it was purchased by IBM.  SPSS wants to create licensing options for universities whether big or small.  The transition of the business to IBM means required changes to terms and conditions.  IBM legal has been receptive to the needs of higher education. SPSS has been pleased to see that relationships can be leveraged within IBM.  Doesn’t mean this is an easy process.  SPSS is committed to getting through and building.  Barring any changes, next years terms and conditions are set in stone.  SPSS has more visibility into changes in IBM.  Goal:  be more proactive; act as consultant to corporate entities; communicate changes 12-18 months ahead of time.  New licenses programs have been created, like the capacity for customers to virtualize.  Have program where IBM provides data mining experience.  SPSS provides training programs to be certified in software tools. Certification programs –faculty/staff/students can be certified by a 3rd party.  Partner corporate entities and educational institutions; work with students to solve business problems.  SPSS fits in well within IBM.

Wolfram.  Company has been around over 20 years.  Wolfram was pleased to work with institutions in the Commonwealth of Virginia to achieve a statewide license for Mathematica.  This is a first step. Wolfram wants faculty feel supported.  They want faculty to know that the tool that they have invested in will not go away projects/initiatives like Watson and analytics. Wolfram is smaller than other companies represented; believes that small size helped to get the statewide agreement in place.  Other products:  Alpha, CDF.


What benefits to Wolfram in pursuing statewide?

Wolfram: The more people who have access to it the better. Looking at opportunity. Have in place with a number of larger states as well. If students use the technology, they will go into the workplace and bring the technology with them. Faculty have confidence the product will be around. All faculty/staff/students have access to on all machines, personal, virtualized. Pricing and maintenance can stay low

What are benefits of putting in the work up front?

SPSS: Once license is there, it’s there – leverage existing licenses. IBM has a lot of openness to find a way to get things done. They had meeting of rules: things that are not negotiable, but they have since been. Have good leadership; ability to move forward, understand partnership that needs to happen in education.

Adobe: If we can get a contract in place for statewide- spend time up front getting it right, and all need to do is renew. Also provides other opportunities, for example, Indiana University invests in evangelists to assist faculty in adding value to the learning experience.

Trial software –what to do if they try and like, but can’t afford?

SPSS: Users have used SPSS for so long it has become a commodity. One of our missions is to break out of licensing and talk about business need. One of their large challenges in facilitating the conversation.

Attendee comment: Vendors need to recognize one size doesn’t fit all. Some licensing efforts are centralized, some grass roots. Would like to see more flexibility in licensing for institutions; getting to know and understanding business model and how they manage license. Can’t base entirely on total FTE

We have 3 application vendors and one framework, middleware vendor. Are there special challenges at your level that you think educational institutions need to be aware of?

Citrix: Yes – delivering IT as a service, talking about centralizing. This can be a cultural conversation along with functional, business and costs conversations. Understand WHY we do it this way, and is it the best way? Critical for orgs to understand the problem they’re trying to solve, what it looks like, and create champions across the school and overall institution. Evangelize

It took 4 months to renegotiate for a contact management system. What do you think we as a group need to do to get to the point of getting something like Wolfram contract in place?

Adobe: Smaller companies tend to be looser on contracts than larger “ships”. Terms differ among states. Come up with Ts&Cs that apply across the board. Have a couple key players to work on T&Cs.  What’s the commonwealth allow?

What is IBM’s philosophy on business vs research, academic?

SPSS: Have some heavily lifting moving forward. Hospital vs. school. With New Deal we could add a rider. Teaching/learning is heavily underwritten. Administrative use is looked upon very differently @ IBM. Need to look at how the software been used traditionally and how it will be used moving foward. IBM is not going to lose a relationship. Need to have conversation on how to get there; different than the “rules.” Need internal conversation as well.

We have heard of management changes, etc. [IBM/SPSS] When do you think there will be a clear path?

SPSS: Will move in tiers. access for faculty/students. Slower in working business side. Continuing conversation- needs to be revisited

Adobe: We are pretty far down the road in licensing institutions themselves. Have creative solutions to meet needs of institutions. In terms teaching hospital with over 50% faculty, they are covered under faculty/staff terms. Struggling with the student portion: pools of licenses, virtuals. Adobe has royalty payments to MPEG, Dolby.


Desire for simplification of T&Cs by what someone will actually be doing with the software. Hard to differentiate.

Adobe: The decision at Adobe is, once licensed, we are out of business of caring what you do with it.

SPSS: To protect pricing levels where they are for teaching and learning, we need to have those delineations. Doesn’t mean it will always be that way. Have worked around that – open to discussions

Citrix: only track applications[appliances?]. No distinction between hospital and university. Have tiered discount program. Education gets ~40% off list/street prices. Scale buys you better pricing.

Point/Counterpoint: Click-through licenses–Ignore them or take them seriously?

  1. I’ve heard that CTL terms and conditions are rarely enforced.  Is this true?
  2. Is a school ever liable for CTL terms and conditions accepted by an individual faculty, staff or student?
  3. Are audits specified in the agreements enforceable?
  4. How are faculty staff and students to know if CTL terms and conditions have been mitigated by and institutional agreement?
  5. Does it matter if lack of compliance with CTL terms and conditions is not willful?
  6. Is there any reason to be concerned about consequences of accepting CTL terms and conditions without reading them?
  7. What about products like Turbo Tax, you know the personal software that faculty/staff bring on campus, how can we be held liable for that?
  8. Should schools even care?  Copyright law has a lot of exemptions for state institutions/schools…
  9. What if a license is silent of virtualization or some other use?
  10. Do schools’ license administrators bear any special liability?
  11. What about CTL terms and conditions in shareware and freeware like WinZip and Adobe Reader?
  12. What if there isn’t a CTL – is intellectual property protected anyway?

For the purposes of this session, click through licensing was defined as a license that requires a use to take action (e.g. click something) before proceeding.  Many more people have not read, than read, click through licenses.

To start this session, a print out of a two click through licenses was taped onto a flip chart and rolled out…several feet along the floor.

Vendors have every right to protect their intellectual property.  However, for institutions, there is an astronomical amount of legal oversight associated with click through licenses.  Many people at the institutions may be clicking through licenses, or signing for licenses, without any legal authority to do so for the institution.

Some click through licenses require end users to go to an website (outside of the click through agreement) to see the terms of the license. In some cases, the license indicates that the terms and conditions of the license are subject to change and it is the responsibility of the end user to check the website for updates.  There needs to be a more fair and balanced approach.  With click through licenses, the end user, or even the institution, does not have an opportunity to negotiate.

Are CTLs enforced?  Yes.  No.  No civil liabilities have come forward.   Since 2005, statutory damages were paid only for a breach of a license associated with content.  Licensing is rarely enforced by the vendor.  Universities enforce terms and conditions for our users.  What legal case(s) should universities turn to as a back up our enforcement activities?

Is an institution technically liable for the behavior of faculty, staff and students?  Click through agreements are a reminder of larger agreements?   Is it OK to speed?  Is it OK to run a stop sign?  At what point is enforcement required and does enforcement induce good behavior?

The University of North Carolina Greensboro takes CTLs very seriously. Licenses might be approved by general counsel or the Chancellor’s office.   See:  http://www.uncg.edu/ucn/clickwraps/approved_clickwraps.html

As a university employee, will the university stand behind me if I do something inappropriate?  How will I know it is inappropriate?   If a serious approach is taken, how long will it take before a software tools is approved?  It is much more likely that a company and/or law enforcement would cite a university, rather than an individual, for a breach of contract.  An exception is the RIAA, however, it is hard for the RIAA to cite that music is a part of the business practice of a university.

For iPad or other mobile device use, personally bought software is often place don university-owned systems.  And sometimes, particularly for iPads, software must be aligned with an individual account in order to install applications on the device….even if the applications are purchased by the university.  How does the university ensure that its investment stays at the institution when an employee leaves?

Who has signature authority for a click through license?

Panel Discussion:  Current practices, challenges and future goals for software license management

Compliance and Tracking Tools:

  • Altiris
  • SofTrack
  • Microsoft SMS

Software Maintenance Record-Keeping:

  • Most use spreadsheets

Authorized Signatures:

  • VP for Finance
  • Purchasing
  • Legal

Positives from panel discussion:



Positive Directions Compliance/Tracking from the end user

Training on software compliance

  1. New employee hiring
  2. Current hires
  3. Training for students

The industry is moving away from perpetual licensing; moving to term licenses or subscription.  Upgrades are a problem with perpetual licenses—what does maintenance agreement give you?  May not include upgrades.

Licenses are the property of the university.  Faculty leaving must negotiate with new university—cannot transfer ownership.

Breakout Session:  What are the best practices for vendor negotiation and relationships?

  • Everything is NEGOTIABLE
  • Compete when possible.
  • Investigate open source as an alternative.  (Open office /  R )  Or free services (google apps).
  • Can we eliminate the public/private consortium and combine all non-profit edu’s?

Vendor Negotiations / Relationships

  • Building relationships with vendors while keeping them honest and verify they are providing a high level of partnership year after year.
  • Small Women and Minority Owned business
  • Trust relationship between the vendor and the institution.  Does the vendor understand your climate/business model and clientele?  Does the university understand the vendor’s needs?  Do you trust these people.  How are they to work with?  How is after sale support?  Don’t accept a higher tier just because you get a big discount.
  • Have a cooling off period.    Record everything.


  • Students and faculty love it.
  • Providers are starting to listen.
  • Be persistent.
  • Target on need access—do not open up globally
  • Lack of understanding /clarity
  • What software do they want to use?
  • How to get access to software
  • Simplicity—affordable
  • Actual usage not potential usage


Action Items/Summit Discussion:

  • Refer issue of software licensing to CIO organizations and ACCS
  • Look at other, successful state models (Ohio)
  • Look at model institutions in Virginia and VIVA models

Is there, in VIVA, a model or a venue for license negotiation?  Templates, other information can be shared with the software licensing group.  VIVA pays JMU to act in the role of procurer

Establish a formal and continuing group.  Address common issues.  VT, JMU  happy to provide assistance, especially if everyone accepts a role.

Significant dollars spent in Virginia on mini-tab.  How best negotiate.  VASCUPP?

What is the process or statewide negotations?

What is our scope?

What software is being used at institutions and what do we pay?  Can we come together and then go to software providers to negotiate?

Ultimately, we recommend that a working group be established out of HECIO group for further action.

2011 Virginia Software Summit FAQ

Summit Location:
Zehmer Hall Conference Center Auditorium, University of Virginia.
104 Midmont Lane
Charlottesville, VA. 22903
(434) 982-5252

Summit Cost:
There is no charge to attend, but registration is required.


Planning Committee Members:

Patty Branscome
Director, Information Technology Contract Management
Information Technology Acquisitions
Virginia Tech

Millie Carroll
Administrative Assistant, DoIT Operations
George Mason University

Drew Davis
Director, IT Computing Support
James Madison University

Sharon Pitt
Executive Director, Division of Instructional Technology
George Mason University

Joe Simard
Technology Coordinator
University of Virginia

Jerry Slezak
Director, IT Support Services
University of Mary Washington

Tony Townsend
Chief Technology Analyst, ITS
University of Virginia