HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dinah@rockytop.tivoli.com (Dinah McNutt {sysadmazon})
Newsgroups: comp.software.licensing
Subject: Re: Summary from Licensing Workshop at LISA
Date: 9 Nov 92 15:50:18 GMT
Organization: TIVOLI Systems

In article <1992Nov6.182739.25765@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>, gibian@talent.ljo.dec.com (Marc S. Gibian) writes:
|> 
|> All of the replies I have seen to my posting are very well stated.  They
|> each raise important issues... let me try to discuss and address them...
|> 
|> a.  I do not know why Digital was underrepresented at the LISA licensing
|> technical talk.  I can say that we are VERY interested in participating
|> in discussions of this topic in public forums such as LISA as well as in
|> individual contact.  Please feel free to contact either Frank Elms, at
|> (508) 486-6649, or myself regarding licensing.  Any event notices would
|> be welcome.
|> 


I would like to point out that there were no software licensing vendors
precent at the workshop (to my knowledge.) The experiences and opinions
of those present were discussed and summarized. It just turned out that
most of the folks there used Highland more than any of the other products.

I wish some of the vendors had been there to hear what people were
saying, but hopefully I was able to capture the essence of it in my
summary. This may be a good topic for LISA VII. I'll discuss it with
the other program committee members.
-- 


Dinah McNutt      TIVOLI Systems, Inc.   (512)794-9070
             dinah@tivoli.com 
Newsgroups: comp.software.licensing
From: fop@teal.csn.org (J. Gabriel Foster)
Subject: Reasonable cost licensing
Summary: Looking for a reasonably priced license server
Keywords: pricing
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 15:58:20 GMT

Hello,
	I work for a small software company that would like to start using
a more flexible license management system than our current node-locked one.
We currently support 4 platforms, SGI, SUN, HP700, & IBMR6000.  All the
license software I have seen would cost about $28,000 to support those
four platforms.  That is a bit steep for the number of units we ship.  
Does anyone have information on more reasonably priced license managers?
Please reply via e-mail.

	Thanks,
		--> Gabe Foster

> J. Gabriel Foster (fop@gwha.com)
> GW Hannaway & Associates (303)440-9631
> 839 Pearl Street, Boulder, CO 80302
From: oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl)
Newsgroups: comp.software.licensing
Subject: Re: copyright and registered trademark howto
Date: 5 Nov 92 05:17:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <bhayden.720799549@teal> bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden) writes:

>>  You may call this incompetence of the patent office.  I am not so sure.
>>  Many decisions have upheld the right to both copyright and patent certain
>>  aspects of programs and their interfaces (both user and programmatic).  
>>  None of these decisions have gone to the Supreme Court as of yet, and
>>  I expect some will in the not too distant future.  Until this all gets
>>  worked out, who knows what the outcome might actually be?

>>  Jon Rosen

>I would be interested in any issued software patents that have been
>recently litigated as to validity, even in the District Courts. 
>I have been looking for them, and haven't seen any. This is different
>from appeals from the PTO to the CAFC where the proceedings are 
>entirely ex parte. The reason I ask this question is that I believe
>that many of these patents are issueing through incompetence, and
>the only test is going to be when someone actually sues for infringement.
>Don't you think that it is peculiar that IBM and the other major
>software patent players are not trying to enforce their software patents
>yet are fairly agressive enforcing their hardware patents?

See the case of Arrythmia v. Corazonix, in which a District Court
explicitly considered the validity of a software patent.


Carl Oppedahl AA2KW  (intellectual property lawyer)
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY  10112-0228
voice 212-408-2578     fax 212-765-2519
Newsgroups: comp.software.licensing
From: jfr@RedBrick.COM ()
Subject: Re: Summary from Licensing Workshop at LISA
Organization: Red Brick Systems, Los Gatos, CA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 03:41:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.204913.26697@news.arc.nasa.gov> lamaster@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Hugh LaMaster) writes:
>|> Given that any license management scheme can be subverted, what site
>|> administrators really want is a method for helping assure compliance
>|> to license agreements.  What this method looks like is up to folks like
>|> the folks who hang out on comp.software.licensing to work out.
>I agree with this completely.  The *customer* has the legal and moral
>responsibility of adhering to the software vendor's license.  And, as
>has been discussed previously, any (affordable) LM scheme CAN be
>subverted if the customer really wants to.  The point is to make it
>convenient for the customer to enforce the licensing agreement.  

  While all of the above is clearly true, there is another very 
  important reason for the vendor to have SOME kind of licensing
  management scheme.  And that is to provide evidence, in the event
  that legal action MUST be taken, that the vendor in fact took
  steps to protect their rights and that the customer must have
  taken affirmative action in order to violate the terms of the
  license.  My lawyer once told me that if you don't do anything
  to protect your software and the customer "accidently" is just
  able to use it in violation of your contract, you will have a
  hard time proving intent to violate your contract, and this
  goes to the heart of proving damages.  If you have ANY kind of
  protection scheme, even the most trivial, but it can be clearly
  shown that there is NO way the violation of the contract could
  have occurred WITHOUT some kind of intentional act by the customer,
  you have gone a long way toward winning your case and possibly
  getting damages (certainly compensatory and possibly punitive).
  All of the above suggests that mild protection schemes are the
  best because they meet the needs of both the customer (to help
  assure that their users are not accidently violating the terms
  of the contract) and the vendor (to provide proof if needed of
  the intention to violate).  

  Unfortunately, there is almost nothing you can do to prevent
  the intentional malicious breach of contract by a skilled
  software developer or administrator who is able to manipulate
  your management scheme and break it.  If they want to , they
  WILL find a way.   Sort of like locking your car.  It won't
  stop the professional thief, but it will prevent joyriding
  ("But your honor, the car was just there, open with the
    keys still in the ignition!")

  Jon Rosen
Newsgroups: comp.software.licensing
From: gibian@talent.ljo.dec.com (Marc S. Gibian)
Newsgroups: comp.software.licensing
Subject: Re: Network License Server Technical Info Sought
Date: 13 Nov 92 14:19:38 GMT
Reply-To: gibian@ljohub.enet.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


Yes, there are a number of others including Digital's LMF v1 and
Digital's new software licensing product.  As for papers, you
might want to look at the various submissions to the OSF DME that
apply to the licensing component.  The product documentation of
the Digital product as well as our competition would also be
useful.
--
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


Newsgroups: comp.software.licensing
From: elling@eng.auburn.edu (Richard Elling)
Subject: Re: Summary from Licensing Workshop at LISA
Reply-To: elling@eng.auburn.edu
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 00:27:44 GMT

In article 2181@sousa.ltn.dec.com, gibian@talent.ljo.dec.com (Marc S. Gibian) writes:
>
>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.

Digital seemed underrepresented at the LISA licensing technical talk.
Perhaps this is largely due to the history of the technical talk which
grew out of the Sun managers BOF.

>2.  The posting includes a lot of points that address the defining
>of universal licensing policies.
[stuff deleted]

These points are really the examination of the battle scars of site
administrators (the LISA conference being targeted at Large Installation
System Administration issues.)  There are many horror stories of sites
dealing with vendors' licensing policies.  For instance, the definition
of a site license may range from 1 building to every building and computer
which is funded by the organization.  The former tends to be overly
restrictive while the latter could cause the vendor to accidentally 
license every site funded by the Department of Defense.  In either case
the system administrator is typically responsible for assuring compliance
with the license agreement.  Hopefully you can see why this is a problem.

It is obvious that there will never be a "standard" site license 
definition (hurrah!)  But something should be done to try to tame the
Crazy-Eddies.  Will the vendors do this themselves?  Not likely.  So 
the burden lies with the customers.

>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.

I disagree.  The software licensing product should support the policies
of the sites they wish to sell to.  Simply, if you can't please the 
customer, you can't sell the software.  Unfortunately, the license
manager market has not matured to the point where vendors and customers
can agree on, and can implement, mutually beneficial licensing policies.

Given that any license management scheme can be subverted, what site
administrators really want is a method for helping assure compliance
to license agreements.  What this method looks like is up to folks like
the folks who hang out on comp.software.licensing to work out.

>--
>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

---
 Richard Elling                          Manager of Network Support
 Auburn University                       Engineering Administration
 richard.elling@eng.auburn.edu   KB4HB [44.100.0.72]  (205)844-2280

Newsgroups: comp.software.licensing
From: hauser@ifi.unizh.ch (Ralf Hauser)
Subject: Adresses of Highland Software (Flex/LM) (was: Summary from Licensing Workshop at LISA)
Organization: University of Zurich, Department of Computer Science
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 20:23:12 GMT


> - Highland Software's Flex/LM seems to be prevalent. A single vendor
> solution is appealing to SA's since they only have to deal with one set
> of configuration files, etc. The Highland software seems to work fairly
> well ...

This sounds interesting, does Highland Software (Flex/LM) have
an e-mail address
or a physical mail address where one could obtain more information about
the concepts of their products ?

Thanks 

	Ralf
Newsgroups: comp.software.licensing
From: bnc@portia.si.macsch.com (Brian Casey)
Subject: Re: Adresses of Highland Software (Flex/LM) (was: Summary from Licensing Workshop at LISA)
Organization: The MacNeal-Schwendler Corporation
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 19:05:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.202312.5989@ifi.unizh.ch> hauser@ifi.unizh.ch (Ralf Hauser) writes:
>
>> - Highland Software's Flex/LM seems to be prevalent. A single vendor
>> solution is appealing to SA's since they only have to deal with one set
>> of configuration files, etc. The Highland software seems to work fairly
>> well ...
>
>This sounds interesting, does Highland Software (Flex/LM) have
>an e-mail address
>or a physical mail address where one could obtain more information about
>the concepts of their products ?
>
>Thanks 
>
>	Ralf

Highland Software can be reached at:

Highland Software
1001 Elwell Court
Palo Alto, CA  94303

(415) 493-8567


A lot of people feel that the Elan License Manager is technically better
that FLEXlm.  Elan can be reached at:

Elan Computer Group
(415) 964-2200

info@elan.com

Brian Casey
bnc@macsch.com 
Xref: sparky comp.software-eng:4182 comp.sw.components:156
From: tholome@bangalore.esf.de (Eric Tholome)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng,comp.sw.components
Subject: email feed for this newsgroup?
Date: 6 Nov 92 12:25:17 GMT
Followup-To: comp.software-eng
Organization: ESF Headquarters, Berlin, FRG

I'm posting this for a friend who does not have access to the news (only email)
but would very much like to get comp.software-eng and comp.sw.components.

Does anybody know how can one get these newsgroups by email? (He already knows
how to contribute by email).

Thanks for any help!

						Eric

-- 
_____________________________________________________________________________
Eric Tholome       ESF Headquarters             internet: tholome@esf.de
                   Hohenzollerndamm 152         UUCP:     tholome@esf.uucp
                   D-1000 Berlin 33             Ph.:      +49 30 82 09 03 25
                               Germany          Fax:      +49 30 82 09 03 19
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
From: drake@Autodesk.COM (Dan Drake)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Will we keep ignoring this productivity issue?
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:32:54 GMT
Organization: Autodesk Inc., Sausalito CA, USA

hasker@cs.uiuc.edu (Rob Hasker) writes:
+ rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn) writes:
+ 
+ >>...However, it is a fairly-well-established rule of thumb that
+ >>very good programmers can be an order of magnitude or more productive than
+ >>the average and do a good job...
+ >
+ >How many software businesses can really afford to ignore such large factors
+ >in development cost?  Can they really afford (say) the difference between
+ >$150,000 and $3 million in development cost?
+ 
+ On what sorts of projects?  ...
+ (And don't most companies
+ promote the successful developers to management where they can't do
+ this sort of work?)
Yes.  And doesn't that suggest that most companies are causing
themselves a major productivity problem?  

--
Dan Drake                 In software, the *complete* design *is* the software!
drake@Autodesk.com        --Hugh Lamaster
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
From: jones@ils.nwu.edu
Subject: New Ph.D. Program
Organization: institute for the learning sciences
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:14:06 GMT

T h e   L  E  A  R  N  I  N  G    S  C  I  E  N  C  E  S    P h. D.   P r o g r
a m


Preparing individuals for productive work and a   high quality of life in
today's society is a complex  challenge for schools and corporations. To meet
this challenge, Northwestern University has established a unique Ph.D. program
in the Learning Sciences. Its purpose is to advance the research and
development of innovative educational structures and technologies.

Research in the Learning Sciences is aimed at creating environments that offer
all students a rich variety of opportunities for learning to think effectively,
both within and outside of formal learning settings. Graduate student and
faculty research efforts are supported by a multimedia, networked computing 
infrastructure and an unusual commitment to developing technologies that
function effectively within their intended settings. 

The Learning Sciences is a synthesis of computational and social science
disciplines including artificial intelligence, cognitive and developmental
psychology, educational research, linguistics, computer science, anthropology
and fields that develop strategies for teaching complex subject matter. 

Through research, field work and apprenticeships, the Ph.D. program will
prepare its graduates to assume leadership roles in advancing the scientific
understanding and systematic practices of learning and teaching.

Students are eligible for competitively-awarded multi-year funding. To qualify
for financial aid, candidates should apply by January 15, 1992. Applications
received after that date may be  considered. Individuals with relevant teaching
experience or a strong academic  background in a field related to the Learning
Sciences are encouraged to apply. For  application materials or for further
information, contact:

Professor Roy Pea
Ph.D. Program Chair 
The Learning Sciences 
Northwestern University
1890 Maple Avenue
Evanston, IL  60201
phone: 708-491-8152
fax:    708-491-5258
email: jones@ils.nwu.edu
 
Xref: sparky comp.text:1380 comp.sys.sun.apps:2439
From: lynne@mitchell.hac.com (Lynne Case)
Newsgroups: comp.text,comp.sys.sun.apps
Subject: Re: Alternatives to FrameMaker
Date: 10 Nov 92 21:50:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: hacgate.23953
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Company

In article <1992Nov7.184250.4613@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu>, rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner) writes:
|> bossert@Thalatta.COM (John Bossert) writes:
|> 
|> >We're looking for alternatives to FrameMaker that have a more
|> >realistic/aggressive pricing model.
|> 
|> >We're running Sun-4's (IPX's) and $2500 per license is unacceptable
|> >to us. (I know, run node.locked - but I thought the network was the computer)
|> >Does anyone sell this stuff to compete with Microsoft Word on a PC? (I hope
|> >I'm not struck by lightning for that one...)
|> 
|> >How does IslandWrite, et.al. stack up?  We're typically doing Requirements
|> >Documents, Project Management Plans and the like.
|> 
|> >Thanks in advance for any ideas.
|> >-- 
|> 
|> Well what is it you want?  Microsoft Word and FrameMaker are very different
|> programs oriented towards very different markets.  Word is a word processor
|> that now incorporates a few desktop publishing features.  FrameMaker is
|> a technical/scientific oriented document preparation and management system.
|> The closest thing on a PC (other than FrameMaker itself) is AmiPro.
|> 
|> If you want a word processor, you can get Word (yuck!) or WordPerfect (the
|> new 5.1 for Sun or X).  Island Write, etc., is an OK word processor that
|> integrates well with its companion paint and draw modules but less well
|> with the rest of the world.  If you want document preparation and 
|> management, FrameMaker is it.  And if you plan for max use and get
|> network floating licenses the price is considerably less than $2500/node.
|> 
|> >In-Real-Life: John Bossert, Thalatta Corporation, (+1 206.455.9838)
|> >Domain: bossert@thalatta.com   Path: ...!sun!sunup!thebes!bossert

John is correct.  When we last purchased FrameMaker, we could purchase a
floating license for $2500 per simultaneous user.  So you could have 10
nodes on your network but only 3 simultaneous users and the purchase price
would then be $7500.  If you really need licenses on all 10 machines you
could buy  ten fixed licenses at $1000 dollars.  This is what we did and
simply restricted FrameMaker use to certain machines.  I believe that 
Interleaf has the same pricing structure only it is even more expensive.
I personally think FrameMaker is worth the price, but then I also do not
like MicroSoft and WordPerfect so maybe I am too biased. 
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lynne Case                      || I generally avoid temptation unless 
Hughes Aircraft Co.             || I can't resist it.
e-mail: lynne@mitchell.hac.com  ||              --- Mae West
 phone: (703) 759-1357 or 1256  ||
   fax: (703) 438-8430          ||
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: comp.text,comp.sys.sun.apps
From: bossert@Thalatta.COM (John Bossert)
Subject: Alternatives to FrameMaker
Organization: Thalatta Corporation
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 00:24:16 GMT

We're looking for alternatives to FrameMaker that have a more
realistic/aggressive pricing model.

We're running Sun-4's (IPX's) and $2500 per license is unacceptable
to us. (I know, run node.locked - but I thought the network was the computer)
Does anyone sell this stuff to compete with Microsoft Word on a PC? (I hope
I'm not struck by lightning for that one...)

How does IslandWrite, et.al. stack up?  We're typically doing Requirements
Documents, Project Management Plans and the like.

Thanks in advance for any ideas.
-- 

In-Real-Life: John Bossert, Thalatta Corporation, (+1 206.455.9838)
Domain: bossert@thalatta.com   Path: ...!sun!sunup!thebes!bossert
Newsgroups: comp.text
From: brant@seq.uncwil.edu (AT-Dreamer)
Subject: Help setting up a elvis.rc file for IBM-PC
Keywords: elvis
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:50:33 GMT

I'm having problems with my computer not reading my elvis.rc
could someone please mail me a sample elvis.rc and the 
things I need (if any) to me added into my autoexec.bat
or config.sys

                              thanks, chuck
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Worlds may change, galaxies disintegrate /brant@seq. | "What doesn't kill us 
but a woman always remains a woman.     / uncwil.edu |    makes us stronger"    
- Kirk, "Conscience of the King,"      / "Chuck"     |    -- A.T. Dreamer         
Newsgroups: comp.text.frame
From: rohit@NeoSoft.com (Rohit Mehrotra)
Subject: Re: Frame on Microsoft Windows 3.0 - Need Help
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:25:32 GMT

In article <1390@bridge2.NSD.3Com.COM> div@NAD.3Com.COM writes:
>I am trying to install Frame on MSWindows 3.0 using a laptop with 11MB of disk
>space. Frame took almost 9+ MB of space for just the basic program and Templates.
>After installation when I invoke Frame the C drive (HardDisk) chugs along for a
>long period of time and then the ERROR message "Unrecoverable Application Error"
>shows up. After exiting Frame Windows shows up "An UAE has occured". Has anyone 
>out there installed Frame with limited disk space and been successfull ? If I
>install MSWin3.1 would my problem go away. I have not installed MSWin 3.1 as I
>read somewhere that it is a bigger Memory Hog than 3.0. Is this true ?
>
>Looking for ideas

I am about to order FRAM on MS-Windows3.1. Are there any other horror stories,
that I need to know. I am very skeptical of the MS-Windows version, however
I would be having a 486/16MB RAM/Win-3.1

Is it going to be an acceptable configuration for this application.

Is there anyone out there who is using it on this platform.
-- 
Rohit Mehrotra
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VITAL				| 	10755 Meadowglen Lane, #238
Ph: 713-781-7406		| 	Houston, TX 77042.
Newsgroups: comp.text.frame
From: ho@aslslc119.asl.dl.nec.com (C. L. Ho)
Subject: Re: Page numbering in Books
Organization: NEC America, Inc Irving TX
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:43:19 GMT

>However, on the last page of my document is the final page of a multi
>page table, so there don't seem to be any paragraphs to reference. At
>the moment I've put a spurious footnote at the end of the table, are
>there any sensible solutions?

You can created a new paragraph named as "End" or "Body".
Then you can cross-reference this paragraph's page number.

Or, you can add one more paragraph under the bottom part of your
master page. This paragraph contains one varible (pagr count) only.
Make sure this paragraph is out of the bound of the bottom column
therefore it is invisible. Then, you can cross-reference this paragraph's
text (only one variable -- page count).
-- 
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| C.L.Ho ~{:N<R@J~} | ASL, NEC America | TEL:(214)518-3619 |
| ho@asl.dl.nec.com | Irving, TX 85038 | FAX:(214)518-3645 |
+----------------------------------------------------------+