Via:      UK.AC.OX.VAX;  4 JAN 93 17:27:22 GMT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cdromlan
Date:         Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:28:20 GMT
              <CDROMLAN@IDBSU.BITNET>
From:         RGLYNN@VAX.OXFORD.AC.UK
Subject:      OED2 and networking

Re:  OED2 and networks

Having read through the various contributions on networking
with particular reference to the OED2, I have the following
comments:

Scott Barker, in his message of 18 December, makes several
erroneous assumptions about the OED2 on CD-ROM, with particular
reference to OUP's licensing policy and pricing.  What he said
has been accepted as correct in subsequent contributions, e.g.
Nick Carter's & Jennifer Heise's, so the record needs to
be set straight.  (Apologies for not doing this sooner -- I've
been away.)

The first point I should like to make is that OUP does
consider individual needs in the use of our software products.  If,
for example, your CD drive can ONLY be accessed by one PC on the
network and multi-user access is NOT possible, then your use of the
standalone version in such a configuration does not contravene the
terms of the licence.  We have already approved such use by a few
customers (in the UK).  What we appreciated was that these customers
bothered to ask -- after all, it is only the cost of a phone call.
However much you research the market, you can never predict every
type of configuration possible and necessarily have to make some
decisions on an individual basis once the product has been published.
In one case here in the UK, we even provided an individual version of
the software for a user with an unusual configuration.  We simply ask
that users contact us direct if they have enquiries of this nature,
rather than complain on a List that such-and-such an arrangement is
not possible when they haven't bothered to find out.  This is just
the type of customer-publisher relationship that Dan Lester advocates
(point 4, email of 21 Dec.).

So far as the network version is concerned, we are -- exceptionally,
I believe -- developing a bespoke network version.  We have put time and
resources into designing a network application that exploits what is
offered by networks, rather than abdicating this responsibility to
the end user, as so many other CD-ROM software houses have done.  We
could have not bothered to develop a true network application and simply
distributed the standalone version, charging more to those who put it on a
network and solving any problems reported on the fly.  But we chose not
to do this.  We believe that network use is different and that it makes
additional demands of an application, particularly when accessing a CD-ROM.
The network version of the OED2 software is being optimized to support
multi-user access and its performance runs at 5 (five) times that of the
standalone version.  The network version will also allow downloading of the
data file from the CD-ROM onto a hard disk of sufficient capacity (minimum
650 Mb free contiguous disk space) for even better performance.  In the
first instance we are targeting Novell networks.

The network pricing structure is NOT based on multiples of the
standalone version's price: for 2-5 users the cost is 995 pounds; 6-10 users,
1250 pounds; 11-15 users, 1500 pounds; 16-20 users, 1750 pounds; 21-25
users, 2000 pounds ... (sorry, dollar prices not to hand, but you can
work it out roughly).

The network licence does NOT operate on the POTENTIAL number of users but on
the ACTUAL number accessing the software.

On the availability of the network version, to Jennifer Heise (via Dan Lester,
email 23 December) I point out that the standalone version has not been out
for 'a year'.  It was published in the UK on 25 June and in the USA in the
middle of July.  As to our 'not bother[ing] ... to put out ... the network
version', the principal delay in the preparation of the network version lay
with Novell:  our developers had to wait five months for the necessary
technical information on Netware 386 to be supplied to them.  Back in May we
took the decision to publish the standalone version as soon as we could,
rather than hang onto it until the network version was ready (at the time
we thought we could publish the network version in Autumn).  This was surely
the right decision.  I can't imagine the weight of criticism we'd have come
in for had we made everyone wait six months simply because the network version
wasn't available.  The provision of a network version was in our Statement
of Requirements written for the developers; to get this out is our highest
priority, but we must be sure that it is fully functioning and adequately
tested before releasing it.  If this testing takes another 4-6 weeks, so be
it.

On policing use of software, it is perhaps worth mentioning that in some
companies (among them, OUP) it is an instantly dismissible offence to have
an illegal copy of a software package on your PC, whether that be a pirated
copy from outside the company or a second copy of a package purchased singly.
The threat of losing your job is one of the best deterrents to illegal use
of software that I know of.

On a lighter note, I read with a smile the prediction from Alasdair Grant in
Cambridge that someone else may publish an English dictionary to rival the
OED.  I guess if some other publisher has the editorial and lexicographical
capacity to devote 100s of man years and tens of millions of pounds to
spend on doing it, yes I suppose it is possible.  Maybe Cambridge University
Press has something up its sleeve ...

Ruth Glynn (RGLYNN@UK.AC.OXFORD.VAX)
CD-ROM Project Manager, OUP
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU