🚀 go-pugleaf

A few comments on Dinah McNutt's posting on this workshop:

1.  Digital is a software licensing product vendor, with probably
the largest number of licenses in use today, and more to come.

2.  The posting includes a lot of points that address the defining
of universal licensing policies.  Any time such definitions are
produced, they are actually defining the bounds off the business
practices of software producers.  For example, when the posting states 
that "what is meant by a site license" needs to be defined, my response
is YES, each customer should be sure they understand what a given
vendor means by "site license".  But it goes too far when you try
to dictate to all vendors what their "site license" terms and
conditions must be... This is how the marketplace works.  Let
the customers select products that meet their needs.  When a
software customer, then pick products that not only do what you
want, but are available under business terms and conditions that
meet your needs.  When a software vendor, select a software licensing
product that allows you to sell your products under the terms and
conditions you choose.  While these statements may seem obvious,
much of the posting is in direct opposition to them.

3.  A software licensing product should only support/enforce the terms and 
conditions a vendor may wish to use as their business model.  Just as
trying to standardize terms and conditions is inhibiting to the conduct
of business by vendors, so too would a software licensing product that
forces a fixed model, or set of models, on a vendor.
--
Marc S. Gibian			email: gibian@talent.ljo.dec.com
Principal Software Engineer	phone: (508) 486-6598
Digital Equipment Corporation	fax:   (508) 486-6648  or (508) 486-6100