[Bush2000]

Admittedly, people make this mistake all the time. The owner implies in the article I posted that he actually did grant permission (against the advice of his attorney), but without further details that's just speculation.

He's complaining about a lack of notice -- and yet, when confronted by the audit, he willingly and knowingly lets them in against the adivce of his attorney?!? Anybody else see any inconsistency here?!?

[justlurking]

He's complaining about a lack of notice -- and yet, when confronted by the audit, he willingly and knowingly lets them in against the adivce of his attorney?!? Anybody else see any inconsistency here?!?

Only if you think he believed he had a problem. Quoting from the article:

And one day I got a call that there were armed marshals at my door talking about software license compliance...I thought I was OK; I buy computers with licensed software. But my lawyer told me it could be pretty bad.

As I said, it was speculation. "Permission to enter" and "Involuntary software audit" are contradictory, so it's probably not an issue. But, he also said:

Call me first if you think we have a compliance issue. Let's do a voluntary audit and see what's there.

It appears he he would have cooperated with a voluntary audit, if he had been given the opportunity. But, I don't know if the BSA's process would have done so. Do you?