cck@CUNIXC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Charlie C. Kim) (09/18/87)
Well folks, Here is the official Apple C. position on using AppleShare client software with Aufs: When using AUFS you must purchase AppleShare in order to use the AppleShare client software. The client software may be duplicated for up to 50 clients per AUFS server. If you are using more than one AUFS server or the number of clients per server exceeds 50 you must purchase additional copies of AppleShare. This applies to both educational and non-educational sites. I am in the process of verifying whether "Aufs server" means a single machine or each "Aufs server" process. If you have problems/comments about this policy, please send me mail stating: Name: Title: AppleLink address: <if any> Organization: Problems/Comments: and I will forward these on to Apple. Charlie C. Kim User Services Columbia University
Ravinder.Chandhok@CS.CMU.EDU (09/18/87)
>Here is the official Apple C. position on using AppleShare client >software with Aufs: > > When using AUFS you must purchase AppleShare in > order to use the AppleShare client software. The > client software may be duplicated for up to 50 > clients per AUFS server. If you are using more > than one AUFS server or the number of clients per > server exceeds 50 you must purchase additional > copies of AppleShare. > >This applies to both educational and non-educational sites. I am in >the process of verifying whether "Aufs server" means a single machine >or each "Aufs server" process. Ok, here it is. Name: Ravinder Chandhok Title: Project Manager AppleLink address: A14 Organization: Computer Science Department, Carnegie Mellon University Problems/Comments: My main problem with this agreement is that Apple is now reducing the state of AppleShare to that of a seperate add-on, not system software. If anything, it seems to me that the AppleShare client code should be part of the system by default. That would encourage a standard for all Mac users and developers, and also ensure that the Finder would deal appropriately with all file servers, from Apple or third parties. I certainly do not understand that decision in the context of making "HyperCard" be advertised as system software. For institutions with a desire to support campus-wide file service there is no easy metric to count the number of client code copies you need. For example, the CS department is responsible for teaching a course to most freshman. About 700 a semester. We have a lab with 50 Macs, a dedicated facility. The students BRING THEIR OWN BOOT DISKS. It doesn't make sense for me to buy enough copies of AppleShare for 700 students, when only 50 of those copies would be in use at any given time. The current policy seems to be that I can give them all MultiFinder, but not AppleShare client code. Up until now, I have assumed that I would recommend to CMU (and have been doing so) that the RIGHT WAY to hook the Macs to our campus file system is to use AppleShare client code and CAP. If this means we have to buy enough copies of AppleShare for 6000 students (which is 120 copies of AppleShare which will cost at least $24,000), then I would have to recommend switching to a solution from a vendor that understands the meaning of a site license. The only other alternative is for universities to try and build an appleshare client themselves. It can be done, but it certainly will be a TOTAL WASTE OF EFFORT REINVENTING IT! Apple and the universities would be better off thinking of new and interesting ways to use AppleShare (Our group, for example, is writing new software in Macapp to facilitate electronic submission of assignments and exams). I would like to hear a statement from Apple as to which part of the code is part of the system, and what is not. Is the XPP driver system code ? Or AppleShare ?
jww@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (Joel West) (09/19/87)
Clearly it's in Apple's interest to work out some sort of
licensing policy for large sites, particularly universities.
Apple has an evangelist who's role is to make sure the company's
policies are appropriate for the 'higher education' market.
If you (or any other school) feels that it has a better way that
Apple should handle system software for universities, you should
let the evangelist know.
It would appear, however, that Apple intends to sell the client software,
so a reasonable approach is to negotiate the cost of the software
(particularly on a per-Mac basis, instead of a per-disk basis)
rather than to try to push to get it free.
--
Joel West (c/o UCSD)
Palomar Software, Inc., P.O. Box 2635, Vista, CA 92083
{ucbvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!jww jww@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu
or ihnp4!crash!palomar!joel joel@palomar.cts.comcck@cunixc.columbia.edu (Charlie C. Kim) (09/19/87)
In article <3904@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU> jww@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (Joel West) writes: >Clearly it's in Apple's interest to work out some sort of >licensing policy for large sites, particularly universities. This is a possiblity. > ... >Apple should handle system software for universities, you should >let the evangelist know. Maybe I should have stated this explicitly, but this is one of the reason I posted the policy note: to get responses to send back to Bud Colligan's group which is responsible for Higher Education Marketing. They have been very responsive, however, they need input from us. >It would appear, however, that Apple intends to sell the client software, >so a reasonable approach is to negotiate the cost of the software >(particularly on a per-Mac basis, instead of a per-disk basis) >rather than to try to push to get it free. I disagree, the reasonable approach in this case is to attempt to work out a solution that attempts to maximize the benefit that all parties receive. Obviously, this may result in sub-optimial result for one of the parties in certain areas; however, the gains in other areas may well make up for it (good will, standardization, future economic benefits, etc). For instance, Apple could gain a significant benefit by being able to state that they consider it important to bundle the client network software with their systems (unlike certain other companies). Assuming a priori that there is no basis for discussion is wrong. Apple's policies are not written in stone. There are problems for at least CMU and Columbia with either the per-Mac or per disk basis. To follow Rob's suggestion, we simply need to show Apple that it is to their benefit to bundle the AppleShare client as part of their system software. By the way, one of my basic objections to this policy is that it makes us pay the price for the AppleShare server software as well as the client software. I have no objections to paying a resonable cost for the client software - I just consider the cost they are asking us to pay too high. Site licensing is always problematic, because different sites have different needs. Universities are not a homogenous marketplace like many people have assumed in the past (and have run up against much to their dismay). AUC meetings with Apple in past ignored this basic point resulting in massive confusion about what people wanted. In addition, the cost of such a thing would have to be very cheap given the relatively "simple" software we are talking about. It is my attitude, that unlike other software like the AppleShare server, MacWrite, etc, the AppleShare client is simple enough that it is feasible to do it again. It's hard to evaluate the cut-off point where it would be cheaper to buy it, but I would place it about $40,000 (worst case). (This assumes 6 months work full time @ $25.00/hour). I doubt that it would take this long or cost so much. A more realistic estimate would be in the $5,000-$15,000 range. The AppleShare client from Apple is quite reliable and very well done. There are problems: there is no way to hook into some of the features easily, there is no way to add functionality, etc., but they are relatively minor problems. But as Rob says, it would be waste of time redoing this (also it would be a major pain since Apple hasn't documented all the HFS dispatch calls that are used by the client), however it is a (basically) undesirable, but realistic option in light of the stated policy. Rob's major points are reasonable and well-founded. I wish I had thought to pursue the idea of "AppleShare" client as basic system software too. There is a precedent for this too: Apple doesn't charge for the LaserWriter or AppleTalk ImageWriter client software. Charlie C. Kim User Services Columbia University