chinn@osf.osf.org (David Chinn) (02/16/90)
In article <927@pan.UUCP>, jw@pan.UUCP (Jamie Watson) writes: >- - There are two different support contracts. true. > . "Technology", cost $1500/yr, includes updates only - no direct > contact with anyone at OSF for bug reporting or fixes. $1500/yr (the technology update service) does not preclude one from reporting bugs. One may report bugs without a support contract of any type. As far as "direct contact" we request that our full service customers submit bug reports via electronic mail as well, but we don't require it. > . "Full Service", cost $2500/yr, includes updates *and* direct > contact with people at OSF for bug reporting and fixes. $2500/yr (full service) provides you with an engineer who can help you to isolate a fault, answer your questions regarding how to use stuff, help ferret out problems in the motif code. (we still request that you submit the bug electronically, but do not require it). Additionally, this service gives you the right to escalate an issue. If you have a problem, and we tell you that it will be fixed in some future release, and this is not acceptable to you, we will work with you to try to get you a solution in a time frame which *is* acceptable to you. >- - The Motif bugs mailing list, which I believe has previously been > available to anyone with a Motif license, will only by available > to those with "Full Service" contracts. There has never been a bugs mailing list for OSF/Motif. There exists an address 'motif-defects' (which is aliased to a person) to which anybody can e-mail bug reports. >- - These contract only include updates to the particular release that > you have licensed from OSF - that is currently 1.0; so they would > include future equivalents to the 1.0.1 and 1.0.A updates, which > I received *without* such a contract. They do *NOT* include major > new releases, such as the (rumored) upcoming 1.1 (V11R4 compatible) > release. Major new releases will have to be relicensed, at whatever > the normal price is (i.e. $1000 if they don't raise the price). In terms of updates, 1.1 will be included, as well as 1.2 and any other 1.X which comes out withing the term of the agreement. Don't forget the patch releases and other bug fixes (as they come available) as well. >I find this to be a very surprising policy. First, the cost of these >support contracts relative to the original cost of the product seems >quite high to me. Second, limiting membership on the bug mailing list >to those who have support contracts seems rather unreasonable. Third, >and most important, charging such high fees and then *not* providing >major new releases seems absolutely ridiculous. 1) I don't believe the fees are high at all. This, however is an opinion (the only opinion expressed in this missive). 2) see above 3) ditto >By the way, there was some discussion in this group a while ago about >the OSF actively discouraging people from reporting bugs and fixes to >Motif code here. I wonder if that is related at all to this support >policy; perhaps they want to prevent people from helping each other >in a free forum such as this, to try to force them to pay for support >from OSF? The reason we discourage people from reporting bugs and fixes in this public forum is that OSF/Motif is not public domain software. Our lawyers inform us that, should source to Motif appear in public forums, Motif will move (against our will) into the public domain. thanks very much UUCP: ...uunet!osf.org!chinn david m chinn ARPA: chinn@osf.org Open Software Foundation DISCLAIMER: I'm not even sure I agree with my *own* opinions!
bob@odi.COM (Bob Miner) (02/17/90)
>By the way, there was some discussion in this group a while ago about >the OSF actively discouraging people from reporting bugs and fixes to >Motif code here. I wonder if that is related at all to this support >policy; perhaps they want to prevent people from helping each other >in a free forum such as this, to try to force them to pay for support >from OSF? The reason we discourage people from reporting bugs and fixes in this public forum is that OSF/Motif is not public domain software. Our lawyers inform us that, should source to Motif appear in public forums, Motif will move (against our will) into the public domain. thanks very much UUCP: ...uunet!osf.org!chinn david m chinn ARPA: chinn@osf.org Open Software Foundation DISCLAIMER: I'm not even sure I agree with my *own* opinions! Personally, I find this very sad. Is the minimal amount of revenue OSF receives for Motif (it can't be more than several hundred thousand dollars per year) worth the bad feelings generated by the above policy? Contrast this with the X Consortium which, to the extent I understand it, is supported solely by Consortium members but distributes its software for a nominal amount and actively encourages public discussion of problems and fixes. After all, what is the primary goal of OSF - to create and support standards or to directly generate profits? I'd suggest that OSF members (DEC, HP, IBM and others) are taking a short-term view if they believe OSF should be generating profits. As someone else said, if Motif weren't the only game in town, it'd be time to look elsewhere. It sure makes Sun and XView look good. Of course, all this is my personal opinion, for what it's worth... (probably not much). Bob Miner ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ OOOOOOO ~ Bob Miner OOOO OOOO ~ 1 New England Executive Park OOOOO OOOOO ~ Burlington, MA 01803 USA OOOO OOOO ~ (617) 270-9797 OOOOOOO bject Design Inc. ~ bob@odi.com or uunet!odi!bob ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) (02/19/90)
In article <3780@paperboy.OSF.ORG> chinn@osf.osf.org (David Chinn) writes: >There has never been a bugs mailing list for OSF/Motif. There exists >an address 'motif-defects' (which is aliased to a person) to which >anybody can e-mail bug reports. Why isn't there? As a user of the toolkit it would help me a lot to know what bugs other people are experiencing, and how they worked around them. Mind you, I don't expect it to happen, I spent 5 years trying to get Apollo to do it while I was on the inside and nothing happened, but one can always hope. >The reason we discourage people from reporting bugs and fixes in this >public forum is that OSF/Motif is not public domain software. Our >lawyers inform us that, should source to Motif appear in public >forums, Motif will move (against our will) into the public domain. That strikes me as strange. Patch tapes have been sent around the net for years without anyone getting too upset. Those may be questionable since they contain some context, but telling someone to make a change on a particular line, or not to use an option on some widget is hardly going to upset your copyright. Let's put this in another light. Ask your lawyer what they'll do if someone *else* starts a Motif bug list. If they think they can sue, then perhaps there is something to what they are saying, otherwise it sounds like an overly cautious lawyer (is there any other kind?). -kee -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Alphalpha Software, Inc. | Voice/Fax: 617/646-7703 | Home: 617/641-3805 | | 148 Scituate St. | Smart fax, dial number. | BBS: 617/641-3722 | | Arlington, MA 02174 | Dumb fax, dial number, | | | nazgul@alphalpha.com | wait for ring, press 3. | BBS line is still dead | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+