lauren@RAND-UNIX.ARPA (06/16/84)
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX.ARPA> I've had IBM reps tell me repeatedly that the binary in PC/IX is licensed from AT&T as a single-user binary, with the only exception being uucp dialup usage. If the IX license agreement isn't spelling this out, then something must be confused. This might be a point to clarify as quickly as possible, given that AT&T is very serious about violations of the single-user/multi-user aspects of their licenses. --Lauren--
mats@dual.UUCP (Mats Wichmann) (06/27/84)
AT&T is indeed serious about crossing the boundaries between number of
users. However, arguments can be made, which they might accept (at least
this used to be the case), that a system is EFFECTIVELY no more than a
single-user machine, even though it is physically possible to
connect more than one terminal to the machine. Usually, the lack
of an MMU (necessity of memory copying on context switch) will be
sufficient. Barring such a loophole, the software vendor is *REQUIRED*
to insure that a user in the field cannot exceed the number of users
the system is licensed for. The wording from the AT&T System V license
(admittedly a lot clearer than anything they had before) is as follows:
1. "User" means a terminal for entry of information and display
or printing of information, such terminal being serviced on a
time-sharing basis by an end-user CPU running a sublicensed
product based on UNIX System V, Release 2.0. An end-user must
not be given the ability to increase the number of users supported
by a sublicensed product.
2. The number of users supported by a sublicensed product may be
increased from a lower number to a higher number on payment of
the difference between the fee stated for the lower number and
the fee stated for the higher number.
Conclusion: this is Interactive Systems and IBM's responsibility, not the
end-user's (else they have violated part 1). You can be sure that they
would not goof on something like this, so whatever you can use the
machine for should be okay. In any rate, as an end-user, all you could
be held liable for if there WAS a violation, would be the payment of
an upgrade fee to cover the increased license cost.
Mats Wichmann
Dual Systems Corp.
...{ucbvax,amd70,ihnp4,cbosgd,decwrl,fortune}!dual!mats