🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BsKpn5.GC3@atherton.com> dlw@atherton.com (Remo Williams) writes:
> In article <1992Aug3.135717.3766@fnbc.com> djc@fnbc.com (Dan Crimmins)  
writes:
> > i've always felt that the only acceptable form of protection is a floating  
> > network license.  we should be able to buy a license for 5 simultaneous  
users  
> > for an app, and have it available on all machines to all users.  if it  
> becomes  
> > popular enough that a 5-user license is insufficient, we'll buy more (or  
> > perhaps an unlimited site-license).
> > 
> > licensing schemes that are restricted based on username or hostid are  
> > intolerable.
> 
> What do you think of floating per user licenses?
> --
> David Williams -- dlw@atherton.com -- NeXTMail welcome
> 	          dlw@netcom.com   -- NeXTMail welcome 

it's not nearly as good.  let's take an example...how about DTW's  
EquationBuilder.  we've got a bunch of people in our department, about 40 or  
so.  some of them are mathematicians, and are dying for this sort of thing.   
others, like me, are developers who only have a passing need once every month  
or two.

if we obtain a two-user license from DTW (which i believe we have), that means  
that any two users on the net can run the app simulatneously.  for our  
situation, this is the only scheme (short of a site-license) that makes sense.   
most software simply is not used intensively enough to justify it's cost for a  
single user.  if two users proves to be insufficient, we can quickly and easily  
upgrade our license.

i agree that everyone has different needs.  a vendor should realize, though,  
that flexibility in pricing and licensing schemes has a *lot* to do with all of  
our software purchasing decisions.

---
dan crimmins
djc@fnbc.com