rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) (05/29/88)
..In fact, I would love to see someone independent of the vendors ..perform a study of the AT&T license, and compare it to the mechanisms ..which make up the OSF, and report their findings to this conference. > Doug Gwyn >I did this, and as previously noted there is nothing particularly >obnoxious about AT&T's UNIX licensing terms. In fact the per-CPU >binary sublicensing fees under SVR3 are much less expensive than before. There are many people who strongly disagree with you on this, including several prominent universities, and and some companies whose commitment to open standards is a hallmark among the *investment community.* Two quick examples are MIT and HP. I don't like calling Doug out by name, but it sounded like he's trying to reassure people that the new license is okay, when many folks with extensive legal staffs believe otherwise. /r$ -- Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rsalz@uunet.uu.net.
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (05/30/88)
In article <859@fig.bbn.com> rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes:
-..In fact, I would love to see someone independent of the vendors
-..perform a study of the AT&T license, and compare it to the mechanisms
-..which make up the OSF, and report their findings to this conference.
-> Doug Gwyn
->I did this, and as previously noted there is nothing particularly
->obnoxious about AT&T's UNIX licensing terms. In fact the per-CPU
->binary sublicensing fees under SVR3 are much less expensive than before.
-There are many people who strongly disagree with you on this, including
-several prominent universities, and and some companies whose commitment
-to open standards is a hallmark among the *investment community.* Two
-quick examples are MIT and HP.
-I don't like calling Doug out by name, but it sounded like he's trying
-to reassure people that the new license is okay, when many folks with
-extensive legal staffs believe otherwise.
I have the disadvantage of having had to deal directly with AT&T
licensing myself. I suppose that disqualifies me. Ok, then, at
least READ the license/schedule rather than parroting what other
people misstate about it.
I'm surrounded with SVR3 ports here, on a variety of systems from
several different vendors, and our local gurus made no special
effort to select SVR3-based systems (in fact, they are biased
toward 4.3BSD). These systems were acquired on the basis of best
performance per cost, which tells you something about the vendors
who ARE shipping SVR3. I can only conclude that a sufficient
number of system vendors' lawyers came to the same conclusions
that I did about the terms of the SVR3 license, and that it has
not been a significant hindrance for many companies on the leading
edge of technology. Problems that other companies have I frankly
don't much care about, since we don't buy their systems. (But we
do occasionally have to port software to them, which is why I am
concerned about porting applications to those systems. A small
difference in the support environment has a disproportionate
effect on our software development resources.)
By the way, I thought H-P had signed the SVR3 license.rwood@ic.uucp (Richard Wood - DEC software) (06/02/88)
In article <7989@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes: >I have the disadvantage of having had to deal directly with AT&T >licensing myself. I suppose that disqualifies me. Ok, then, at >least READ the license/schedule rather than parroting what other >people misstate about it. As I understand it, the licensing agreements are somewhat negotiable on each contract. Although I would guess that the majority of licenses are mostly identical, it probably doesn't mean they are all the same. I doubt that you've seen the Terms and Conditions that AT&T imposed before DEC, IBM, Apollo or HP, for instance. I've even heard rumor that the content of the license is subject to a non-disclosure agreement. Is this true, and if so: why? One major change that occurred between Release 2 and 3 is the renewal option on the contract. Many of the pre-3 contracts were perpetual. I know IBM and DEC received these for Ultrix and AIX; thus DEC or IBM can continue to sell products based on their current offerings (or anything up to and including SVr2) without renegotiating. On the other hand, for Release 3, AT&T is insisting on periodic renewal. That would mean that AT&T, at the time of renewal, could yank the licensee's right to sell any software based on (or derived from) that version. Let's pose a little scenario here: DEC signs the SysVr3 agreement, and a six months later introduces a product based on it that has some added feature or gimmick that some huge customer is drooling over. AT&T realizes they could duplicate the function in a few months, but how can they hold DEC back? Oh: simple! Six months later, simply revoke the license. DEC signed the contract, after all, right? My personal opinion is that AT&T wouldn't do such a thing: it would be silly in today's legalistic society. On the other hand, I also don't think DEC's lawyers would ever approve such a contract in the first place. But that's what's in the contract, and is one of the prime reasons that DEC (et al?) refuse to license SysVr3. =========================================================================== Unix is a registered trademark of AT&T. AIX is a trademark of IBM. Ultrix is a trademark of Digital Equipment Corporation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- It should go without saying that I'm not speaking as an official representative of DEC --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Wood|Software Services, San Francisco|Digital Equipment Corporation =========================================================================== =========================================================================== Unix is a registered trademark of AT&T. AIX is a trademark of IBM. Ultrix is a trademark of Digital Equipment Corporation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- It should go without saying that I'm not speaking as an official representative of DEC --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Wood|Software Services, San Francisco|Digital Equipment Corporation ===========================================================================
karl@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (06/03/88)
rml@hpfcdc.hp.com writes:
[various comments about difficulties with the V.3 license.]
It is very difficult for a large corporation to commit
a large portion of its business to such uncertainty.
Jeesh! You're complaining about `not being able to commit to
uncertainty' when your company just helped create one of the most
successful uncertainty-generating organizations ever seen in our
industry? In the words of Bill Gates, as quoted in the Wall Street
Journal of 18 May, "This means at least several years of confusion."
Trite 19th-century comments about the pot calling the kettle black
come to mind.
Just how much `commitment to uncertainty' can you expect from
everybody else now? If you're concerned about uncertainty from ONE
other vendor, think of thousands of us customers who now have to cope
with SEVEN of you. At least I think I can see where Sun and AT&T are
going.
Stepping off the soapbox from
this one permanently now,
--Karl