[sidjor]

Yes, but no-one does this without evidence. These terms apply even if you use any of their free stuff like acrobat reader. And even when you trial any of their apps.

Not to mention they stopped doing these kind of audits in US per my understanding. In other countries they still seem to be doing them. There is a whole set of firms to help you with these audits.

[Closi]

> Yes, but no-one does this without evidence

cough nobody mention Oracle cough

[johnebgd]

I know of zero technical and happy oracle customers. They seem to exist largely because of non technical folks forcing it into an organization due to their incredible sales teams or they have legacy usage from back when they were innovative. If it’s the latter they love to audit to extract as much cash as they can before the organization ditches them.

[aliqot]

This is lunacy. First, who signs these types of contracts without red lining that, and second, who's actually ever willingly complied with this? Allowing someone to this level of access to your "records" could cause so many more regulatory issues.

[jasode]

>First, who signs these types of contracts without red lining that, and second, who's actually ever willingly complied with this?

Companies buying software voluntarily accept license clauses about potential software audits -- because they want to use the software.

There are even niche law firms that help defend against software audits. E.g. : https://scottandscottllp.com/autodesk-audits-how-did-autodes...

The rationale for deliberately buying software where the vendor has auditing rights is that the buyer gets more value out of using AutoCAD than worrying about audits.