phew!

[Doug Mohney]

In article <2834 at rodan.acs.syr.edu>, amichiel at rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) writes:
> 
>   Sorry, I sorta disagree strongly.  I see what you are trying to say, etc,
>but there are other considerations.  I see & talk to every day many many
>individuals & companies from all walks of life, that think nothing of the
>value of software products.  They don't even think twice before stealing 
>software for anything from anyone.  The roll over & die or scream & whine 
>like a stuck pig when they hear the price of software products.  It seems
>the more something costs the more willing they are to steal it.

I don't suppose you have scientific numbers on the thieves vs legitimate
owners? If you have 20-30% of the folks out there in The Real World who are
thieves, then you're screwed 70-80% of the legitimate purchasers who have to
deal with LMF. 

>    The real problem compounds from here.  If I make a good software product,
>and intend to charge a reasonable price for it, so that I can provide support
>etc.  I have to have every system that runs it, pay for it.  If I have
>stolen software, I have to charge more to every honest person to pay for
>the stolen copies.

False. You don't provide support to those people who have ripped you off.
Period. You buy a legitimate copy of a product, you pay for the distribution
and a license to use it. With Digital, you pay ADDITIONAL money for support (ie:
telephone hotline).

Digital's developmental costs are the same for quantity 1 or quantity
30,000.  

>   I am not saying that you are a crook, the I recognize the fact that many 
>many many people are.  I see system after system that the people are kinda
>stuck at old system versions because all the software they have is stolen.
>(& the new systems have license managers)  These same people are the ones that
>are always calling me with stupid questions that would, could, & should be
>answered quite quickly just by cracking the stupid manual.  Since the software
>is stolen of course the manuals don't exist.

So don't answer their questions. Encourage them to legitimately purchase
an upgrade and support. You are helping perpetrate piracy through aiding 
someone who has a "hot" copy.

>   While I dislike some of the features of the current generation of dec 
>license managers, it does accomplish it's job fairly well.  I have spent less
>than an hour total in over a year using it.  This is on a academic system that
>has had several generations of temp paks, variance paks, & permament paks for
>many different software products from several different vendors. 

Glad to hear it. I came into a situtation under VMS where the previous
system manager hadn't "followed the book" in using LMF, so I had to scramble
around for a day and a half to figure out what had been done. That also assumes
that you "know" and understand LMF. This costs time. Time is money. I don't
think DEC is going to reemburse me for the headaches I spent having to learn
their system. 

>  When the license manager keeps you from running your stupid bits of
>code, either it's a very temporary situation (my experiences are that dec is
>very helpful with pak #'s via phone as are all better vendors), or your system
>manager needs replacing, else you are trying to steal software.  If you have
>problem a. a little patience is all that's required, 

I guess you never have to deal with users face-to-face. "WHY CAN'T WE RUN
THIS NOW?" 

>if it problem b. you have
>a employee problem & shouldn't blame your software vendor, 

I should blame me for artificial constraints placed upon our system by
the LMF? Or my lack of understand of their way of using copy protection? 

>   I for one applaud DEC and all other software vendors that provide trouble
>free theft protection for their products.  In my experience, dec's license 
>manager does just that.  This is akin to copy protection, companies that used
>schemes that worked well (that didn't require constant stupid key disks or
>limit the number or backups etc.) survived that holocaust well.

As I understand it, Sun has managed quite well with granting unlimited
OS licenses with no copy protection. Not that Digital would want to copy
their policies.

In the microcomputer/PC world, the vast majority of companies which sell
software don't resort to such silly schemes today, having been pressured
to drop any semblance of protection. People who make a profit or do useful
work when using a particular software package find that it is much easier
to pay for the package (to get the documentation) and support, than to 
stay in the black hole of hotware. 

Besides, if you get caught, you'll get sued from here to tomorrow and
you WILL pay much much more in lawyer's fees than you would have in
purchasing legitimate copies of software.