This is in response to a recent message from Brahmaji nvbr_at_iitk.ernet.in.
I agree completely with his sentiment that the handling of licenses with
Digital's systems is inadequate.
In my estimate however, the source of this problems are principally originated
by the form in which Licenses are being distributed in educational
institutions via the DECTEI - CSLG program. The program itself is very
valuable to these institutions. However, the consequences of having to manage
systems dependent on the distribution arrangements under the program is
unnecessarily difficult. In some cases, disastreous consequences may indeed
occur which may give a bad reputation to every one involved.
It would seem that since standard licensing of OSF software are otherwise
adequate, the issues relative to the CSLG licensing scheme would be better
discussed on the cslg forum. - dectei-l_at_ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu - However,
discussing the ramifications of licenses schemes, and the market share of SW
and systems with improper licensing facilities, would indeed gain adequate
perspective when discussed on this forum.
These note is being copied to both lists.
I for one would be very interested in having Digital modify the licensing
arrangements under the CSLG program.
Regards,
Carmelo Granja
Manager, Medical Computing Resource.
McGill University, Faculty of Medicine
Montreal
Carmelo_at_MEDCOR.McGill.CA
Original message from Brahmaji is below:
=============================================================================
From: IN%"nvbr_at_iitk.ernet.in" 16-JAN-1996 07:49:40.76
To: IN%"alpha-osf-managers_at_ornl.gov"
CC:
Subj: Licences on DEC OSF
Return-path: <alpha-osf-managers-relay_at_sws1.ctd.ornl.gov>
Received: from sws1.ctd.ornl.gov by medcor.mcgill.ca (PMDF V4.3-8 #7144)
id <01I02JVO0I0G9S3XGT_at_medcor.mcgill.ca>; Tue, 16 Jan 1996 07:49:27 -0500
(EST)
Received: (from daemon_at_localhost) by sws1.CTD.ORNL.GOV (8.7.1/8.7.1)
id HAA19063 for aomab; Tue, 16 Jan 1996 07:46:49 -0500
Received: from oaunx1.ctd.ornl.GOV (oaunx1.ctd.ornl.gov [128.219.128.17])
by sws1.CTD.ORNL.GOV (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id HAA19047 for
<alpha-osf-managers_at_sws1.ctd.ornl.gov>; Tue, 16 Jan 1996 07:46:36 -0500
Received: from vikram.doe.ernet.in (vikram.doe.ernet.in [202.41.100.90])
by oaunx1.ctd.ornl.GOV (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id HAA21354 for
<alpha-osf-managers_at_ornl.gov>; Tue, 16 Jan 1996 07:46:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: by doe.ernet.in (4.1/SMI-4.1-MHS-7.0) id AA03755; Tue,
16 Jan 96 18:18:59+050
Received: by iitk.ernet.in (Smail3.1.29.1 #1) id m0tcAbi-0009qkC; Tue,
16 Jan 96 18:05 GMT+5:30
Received: from csesun1 by yamuna.iitk.ernet.in with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #3)
id m0tcANZ-000JfEC; Tue, 16 Jan 96 17:50 IST(+5:30)
Received: from csesparc1.iitk.ernet.in by csesun1 (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA04265; Tue, 16 Jan 96 17:56:36 IST
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 17:56:36 +0530 (IST)
From: nvbr_at_iitk.ernet.in (NV Brahmaji Rao )
Subject: Licences on DEC OSF
Sender: alpha-osf-managers-relay_at_sws1.ctd.ornl.gov
To: alpha-osf-managers_at_ornl.gov
Reply-to: nvbr_at_iitk.ernet.in (NV Brahmaji Rao )
Message-id: <9601161226.AA04265_at_csesun1>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Precedence: bulk
Followup-to: poster
Dear Managers,
I doubt whether I am sending this mail to the correct Forum.
But I expect, many of you, like me , might have felt ( or will feel )
that the Licence business is terrible in DEC systems.
My licences get expired in April/May. I get the new licences in
Nov/Dec. All my users are denied the usage of software like PHIGS etc.
for six months for no fault of ours. This may happen in future (which
is not far , as time really flies! ) also.
The whole way of handling Licences is a big mess.
I never came across such a mess so far in my carreer.
I wish I won't have to maintain DEC systems at all!
Is there any solution?
Thanks in advance
Brahmaji
Received on Tue Jan 16 1996 - 16:26:58 NZDT