[comp.realtime] Wind River's recent "per project" licensing policy

dove@rocket.uucp (Webster &) (12/15/89)

I am concerned about the recent Wind River policy of licensing the
devlopment system on a "per project" basis.  I can't imaging that they
want me to buy a new copy of the development license everytime I
develop a new program.  That would be unlike any other piece of
development software I know of.  There was certainly no mention of
this policy when we bought our first licenses several years ago.

If they want to make more money of development licenses I feel they
should up the support fees.  If they want to make money off successful
developments they should up the target fees.  It is only if they want
to make money off developments that don't involve substantial targets
that they would do what they are doing (e.g. research projects
terminated projects, etc.).

Does anyone else have any comments about this?

--
		Dr. Webster Dove
		Special Computing Applications
		Advanced Technology Engineering
		Sanders Associates (a Lockheed Company)
		uunet!rocket!dove

dwells@fits.acc.Virginia.EDU (Don Wells) (12/16/89)

NRAO is a distributed organization, with facilities at seven locations
in four states. We are currently using vxWorks for two different
projects with development and debugging occurring at five of the seven
sites.  Three of the five are development labs and two are telescopes
where RT applications are being deployed for the two separate
projects.  Programmers often travel back and forth between labs and
telescopes when testing the applications.

The original WRS development license was tied to sites, which seemed
to imply a multiplier of five. That interpretation was unpleasant, of
course. So NRAO asked WRS for a ruling that our development licensing
should be on a per-project basis, i.e. with a multiplier of two.  We
accepted the implication that a new RT project, a separate telescope
or major instrument system in our case, at an existing vxWorks site
(indeed even if being done on one of the existing computers), would
imply the necessity to pay for a new development license.

Our business manager insists that we must take the terms of software
licenses seriously (I agree with him); that is why NRAO negotiated
these specific interpretations with WRS. The experience has taught me
that it is hard to find a universal licensing rule that is fair and
appropriate for all situations.

Incidentally, we are pleased with vxWorks as an RT OS. Its superb
communications capabilities are essential for our applications.

Donald C. Wells, Associate Scientist | NSFnet: dwells@nrao.edu [192.33.115.2]
National Radio Astronomy Observatory | SPAN:   NRAO::DWELLS    [6654::]
Edgemont Road                        | BITnet: DWELLS@NRAO
Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA   | UUCP:   ...!uunet!nrao.edu!dwells
+1-804-296-0277  (38:02.2N/78:31.1W) | TWX=510-587-5482, Fax=+1-804-296-0278

ckim@bambam.UUCP (Cheol Kim) (12/19/89)

From article <DOVE.89Dec14213952@peach.uucp>, by dove@rocket.uucp (Webster &):
> I am concerned about the recent Wind River policy of licensing the
> devlopment system on a "per project" basis.  I can't imaging that they
> want me to buy a new copy of the development license everytime I
> develop a new program.  That would be unlike any other piece of
            --- -------
What do you mean by "new program"? This sounds like politics. If you 
say the new program is continuation of the old program in blurred
language, the definition of "new program" is very arbitrary. This is
the first time I hear about this. Also, are they trying to sneak in
another clause into the contract they already sold a while back?

> 
> If they want to make more money of development licenses I feel they
> should up the support fees.  If they want to make money off successful
> developments they should up the target fees.  It is only if they want
> to make money off developments that don't involve substantial targets
> that they would do what they are doing (e.g. research projects
> terminated projects, etc.).

Background would be greatly appreciated since it is confusing and vague.

> --
> 		Dr. Webster Dove

If I may add, I am rather perturbed by amount of money, $2500,  one pays to 
attend their class. First of all, I may be interested in just
a few topics out of the 5-day course. Second, managers are not too keen 
on sending folks out for a week or so for such prolonged training.
Adding more real code examples in the programmer's guide would help out 
greatly for those who are starting out. Areas which could use such 
examples are; IPC, coroutine stuff, network and so on. 

cheol
	evans&sutherland

lewis@bevsun.bev.lbl.gov (Steve Lewis) (12/19/89)

I assume you are referring to their letter of November 30.  Reading it
carefully, in the text portion it refers to "...the right to develop
for a network of workstations...".  Later, it refers to "...your
project..." in several instances, but the sense seems to be that they
are one and the same.  I don't think there is any time duration in mind.

In essence, they appear to be formalizing the counting of targets, rather
than changing the basic terms.  However, I agree that the wording is
slightlyt ambiguous.

	Steve Lewis, Project Leader		SALewis@LBL.gov
	Bevalac Controls Group			Mail Stop 64-121
	Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory		415/486-5831
	Berkeley, CA 94720
--
	Steve Lewis, Project Leader		SALewis@LBL.gov
	Bevalac Controls Group			Mail Stop 64-121
	Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory		415/486-5831
	Berkeley, CA 94720