🚀 go-pugleaf

phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes:

>And you have a better idea? I won't ask you to give MS credit for at
>least trying to address an issue few other companies show concern for,
>since you seem to hate them so much.

Yeah, I've got a better idea. Its called spelling out the terms of usage
in the "license agreement" and leaving it at that.

All this little "pass" does is reduce programmers to children. I, for one,
find it insulting.

>If you have two users and one license, you have to coordinate usage somehow.

If I have twenty users, I have to coordinate usage somehow. With or without
the little piece of paper which says "pass", I cannot (nor can Microsoft)
insure that the software will only be used by one person at a time. Even
otherwise "honest" companies can screw up.

>The license agreement, which you apparently haven't bothered to read,
>but are happy to flame about, allows for this. The full license defines
>two types of use, DEDICATED and TRANSITORY.

>In DEDICATED use, you basically load the SW on one and only one machine and
>anyone is allowed to use it. In addition, if there is one user who uses the
>machine more than 80% of the time, he/she is also allowed to use the SW
>on a portable or home machine.

So I must now purchase a single 1.2 gig hard drive system so each programmer
can take "turns" compiling their program? What next, a ticket machine and
a "Now Serving #" sign out front?

>If Joe wants to use your machine while you are out to lunch, this is fine.

Sorry, Joe can't copy his 15 megs of source code onto a floppy, stick it in
my PC, compile it, and then offload the object deck to his floppy for
transport back to his machine.

>In TRANSITORY use, every user is required to have a license card in their
>physical possession.

Which is the incredible puerile, assinine thing that I object to.

>I don't think it's asking too much for you to leave your license card
>on your desk when you go out to lunch in case someone else wants it.

But, people often forget to do things. What happens if I take the card
home so I can use the package on my portable, but then get very sick the
next day and can't come into work? Does that mean the rest of the staff
can't use the package because I, attempting to comply with the stupid
terms of the license agreement, have the card?

>I guess they are relying on the honor system, for which they seem to
>draw your contempt. What's your alternative, Mr. Smart Guy?

They are not relying on the "honor system". If they were, there wouldn't
be a little pass. They would only state "only used this software on one
machine at a time". Instead, they decide to reduce programmers to 
children.

>And what is your point? Some companies do use such schemes and I think
>they are horrible. MS doesn't, and you think they stink. I wonder if
>they could do anything that would meet with your approval?

Point is, if they TRUELY wanted to enforce the terms of their license
agreement, they would provide a means where only a single user could be
using the package at a time. One of the parallel port plugs would accomplish
exactly that.

However, in doing this, there are a great number of people, who would return
the software, as they do not purchase copy protected software.

MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / They're not "bombs". 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  They're "gifts".
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   "Gifts From Above".
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /