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