HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cdromlan
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 13:47:00 LCL
              <CDROMLAN@IDBSU.BITNET>
From:         "Barker, Scott" <BARKER.ILS@MHS.UNC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: OED/Licensing

Ed Perry suggested that some CD-ROM vendors still view their products
with a "book" mind set and aren't aware of the difference between books
and electronic sources....

Actually, the "book" anology isn't so bad.  What is bad is that some
vendors are much more restrictive of their electronic products than they
would ever think of being with a book.

Take the OED on CD-ROM (there are many other examples as well) where you
are in flat violation of the license agreement if you use the product on
a network, even with just one user.  To me that is like saying to people
who purchase the print version - you can read this book only while
sitting at a round table in room xyz - square tables or reading in any
other room is forbidden.

I make that analogy because with the CD-ROM on a network and a single
user - they are in essense saying you can use it from computer X that has
a certain characteristic (a local CD-ROM drive), but not from computer Y
with a different characteristic (a network CD-ROM drive).  How different
is that from saying you can read their book at a round table but not a
square one, or use the CD on a blue computer but not a white one?
Remember, the license isn't addressing multiple use at all - only the
kind of computer you can install the product on.

If the license followed the book analogy they would be saying you can
have one person "read" the book/cd at a time.  If you have more users
than that, you need extra copies.  (The Borland "use it like a book"
philosophy.)  Who cares where the person is while they read the book/cd
or how they get it?  What is important is the number of people who are
using it at that moment.

Carrying the traditional book analogy farther - you don't purchase 23,000
copies of a book just because your library serves 23,000 patrons.
Instead you buy as many copies as will be needed for "reasonable" use by
your patrons.  If you have a heavy demand item you might buy 5 copies,
with less demand 1 copy.  Sometimes all the copies will be checked out -
in which case you can think about purchasing more.  If you don't you may
have upset patrons, if you do - you fork ever the $$$ for another copy.

Same should go for CD-ROM software.  CD-ROM vendors shouldn't be saying
to us that we need to buy 100 copies because we have 100 users on our
network.  They should be saying we need to buy as many copies as we'll
have simultaneous users.  As I said in my last post,  the VAST majority
of successful software vendors have moved to simultaneous use licensing
in the last couple years.

If some publishers were just as resonable with their electronic use
policies as they are with print policies, we'd all be much better off.

Scott Barker
School of Information and Library Science
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
eMail: barker@ils.unc.edu, Phone: (919) 962-8366
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CDROMLAN@IDBSU.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CDROMLAN@IDBSU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cdromlan
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 10:44:00 EST
              <CDROMLAN@IDBSU.BITNET>
From:         00twparsons@BSUVAX1.BITNET
Subject:      Shareware/Freeware Timeout Progs

        Does anyone know of any shareware/freeware timeout programs; i.e.
programs that will return a station back to a menu after a certain period?
Our current menu system has no such facility, and I've heard there may be
third-party/*ware programs out there.  Thanks.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cdromlan
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 13:38:53 MST
              <CDROMLAN@IDBSU.BITNET>
From:         Dan Lester <ALILESTE@IDBSU.BITNET>
Subject:      license agreements

I'm back from two eye surgeries, though still recuperating at home.  Now
that I've read the flames between OEDII and some others, I'd like to offer
a few added comments, in general, and NOT related just to OEDII.

1. The vendor has the right to put any 'sensible' or 'stupid' terms
in the license agreement that they wish.

2. Any customer (library or other) has the right to NOT buy the product
because of said terms in the agreement.

3. Upon purchase, the customer is morally bound to follow said agreement.
I do NOT say legally bound, as the status of 'shrinkwrap agreements'
is hazy at best.  If it is a mutually signed agreement, as a separate
document, then there is a legal contract that must be observed as well.

4. The customer may wish to negotiate with the vendor.  If such negotiations
reach some mutually agreeable conclusion, both parties should obtain written
copies of such a signed agreement, and then abide by it.

5. In my opinion, it is reasonable for a vendor to charge some extra amount
for a single-user network license, as compared to a standalone license.
Usually the vendor has some extra costs in providing the networkable
software, as well as extra costs in supporting it in a more complex
environment.  In addition, there are potential losses in sales in some
situations.  If the extra amount is a surcharge of more than 25% I would
consider it excessive and would likely not sign such a contract.

6. It is also reasonable for a vendor to have additional levels of surcharge
for various levels of network simultaneous access, such as 2-4 users, 5-8
users, or whatever.  Whatever is paid for by the library should be
scrupulously observed in the operation of the network.  A variety of software
solutions to such monitoring and control have been discussed on this list
in the past.

7. A vendor who develops his/her own limiting/controlling software to
make sure the library does not violate the agreement is ignorant, regressive,
and out of touch with the mainstream of the current state of CDROM networking.
Such a vendor is also out of touch with the current state of general PC
software networking as well.  Such vendor developed software provides a
multitude of potential problems for the library networker, and I would probably
not use such software for that reason.


Happy holidays to all.

dan

*****************************************************************************
* Dan Lester                          Bitnet:   alileste@idbsu              *
* Associate University Librarian      Internet: alileste@idbsu.idbsu.edu    *
* Boise State University                                                    *
* Boise, Idaho  83725                 BSU and I have a deal: I don't speak  *
* 208-385-1234                        for them and they don't speak for me. *
*****************************************************************************
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cdromlan
Date:         Thu, 24 Dec 1992 12:44:22 CST
              <CDROMLAN@IDBSU.BITNET>
From:         "Ed Perry, Regina, Canada" <PERRYEDW@MAX.CC.UREGINA.CA>
Subject:      networking

Well, the last few days have certainly given us all something to chew over duri
ng the Christmas break, in re networking and site licencing of
CDROM products.  This is really only part of a larger problem, which now includ
es the loading of tapes [ commercial or otherwise ] to mainframe systems such a
s Notis' MDAS. I'm glad I don't have to figure out how to set up the controls
on 4-5 mainframed databases, each with different site licence requirements.
Maybe what we need are some joint user/producer sessions at BROAD exposure nati
onal conferences like ALA, CLA, SLA to explore the questions raised over the la
st little while on CDROMLAN. Anybody out there know whether such a thing is in
the works for 1993 ?

Right now, it's 1 PM in Regina,the temperature is about minus 15 celsius and dr
opping faster than the Canadian dollar, the wind is blowing 40 MPH, and the lea
ding edge of a 400 mile long blizzard is just passing through. So I'm going to
call it quits for the day, get my white cane, and try feeling my way across 20
or so miles of whited-out prairie to get back home for xmas.  Best wishes to
everybody for a happy holiday season , and " see " you next year.  Bye!  Ed
Perry.
          PERRYEDW@MAX.CC.UREGINA.CA
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <CVRARHI@TECHNION>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cdromlan
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 13:27:44 IST
              <CDROMLAN@IDBSU.BITNET>
From:         Hillel Arkin <CVRARHI@TECHNION.BITNET>
Subject:      CD_ROM for CE dept. Library

Subject:       CD-ROM for CE Library
We are trying to decide about a CD-ROM for our library, at the National
Institute for Building Research, Israel.  This is a scientific library,
serving some 100 researchers in the fields mentioned below.  We prefer
that the Databases will include mainly (though not only) English
written articles in scientific or scientific-popular periodicals or in
scientific books.  It should cover the following topics:

1.  BUILDING MATERIALS AND TECHNOLOGY;
2.  CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS;
3.  PHYSICAL PERFORMANCE OF BUILDINGS;
4.  BUILDING SERVICE SYSTEMS (HVAC; PLUMBING; ELECTRICITY; ELEVATORS
    ETC.);
5.  STRUCTURES.

   Any assistance in locating the appropriate CD-ROMs, adresses,
information etc. will be greatly appreciated.  We seek help from
engineering libraries, particularly, but not only in the field of CE,
but anyone else that may provide us with relevant information will
be acknowledged.

               Dr. H. Arkin
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cdromlan
Date:         Thu, 31 Dec 1992 07:55:37 CST
              <CDROMLAN@IDBSU.BITNET>
From:         "Gerald A. Smith" <gsmith@GUNTER-EMH.AF.MIL>
Subject:      Re: OED/Licensing
              "gregb@AMAZON.SANDIEGO.NCR.COM" at Dec 24, 92 10:32 am

I thought I'd throw my 2 cents ($1.98 after inflation) into the foray
 concerninglicensing.
I agree that it can be expensive. I don't like paying $500 for something I think
 is only worth 1/10th the price. Nonetheless, we have the moral obligation of
 obeying the law and not ripping off the companies that have worked hard to make
 a profit. The per
son or group that buys one copy of a program, then distributes it to everyone
 else, is breaking the law. There is no rationale for their actions. The
 argument that they are charging too much for their product, so it is
 distributed to save an organization
money, is lame. That is like purchasing one expensive car (say $50,000) and you
 personally think it is only worth $15,000 so you have your friends drive
 another 2 or 3 off the lot while they aren't looking. It works the same way,
 only it is harder to get
caught stealing software.
In fact, if fewer people would steal software, I'm sure the prices would drop.
 It is estimated that there are thousands of illegal copies of Wordperfect,
 Novell, Microsoft and Lotus products made every week!  Microsoft recently
 caught a company that
 was illegally making copies of MS-DOS for their machines. It is estimated that
 this company, which sold computers, actually stole hundreds of   thousands of
 potential dollars from Microsoft.  This could easily cause some smaller
 companies to go out of bu
siness, or raise their prices.
So if you are "stealing" products, you are part of the problem, not part of the
 solution.
Gerald Smith
gsmith@gunter-emh.af.mil
h
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cdromlan
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:54:36 EST
              <CDROMLAN@IDBSU.BITNET>
From:         James Jay Morgan <MORGANJ@UCS.INDIANA.EDU>
Subject:      RE: Bindery stats (CDPLus)

Since my last comment I've used bindview to generate a list of user
logins, or more exactly, a list of users and the number of times each
has logged in.  I'll comment some more on that tomorrow.

Meanwhile, what is the bindery?  I don't know exactly, so I looked it
up in the Bindview manual.  It says

"Conceptually, the bindery is a special purpose database used by Netware
to maintain information about objects, or named entities, known to a
particular file server.  Every file server has its own unique bindery
database."  This is getting too long to type in, so I'll summarize here:

Novell maintains a lot of data on the server.  Much of it you can view
with Novell's own programs for system administration, such as Syscon
and Fconsole.  If you activate the Novell accounting system, it will
store even more data.  However Novell only produces very primitive
mechanisms for reporting this data.  Thus third parties produce
add-on report report writers that get at this data.

For example, if you have accounting activated, the Novell program
PAUDIT will produce a dump of every login and logout.  That's it.
Bindview will go through the stored data and summarize the number
of logins for each user.  It comes with a numberof canned reports that
do things like security audits, and the producers are developing a
new program that will do what bindview does, and do an inventory of
equipment on your network.  Bindview also lets you design your own
reports, so I've now produced 2 of my own, one summarizing the
number ofminutes each user  uses, and one counting how many times
people have logged in.  I can in addition modify these reports to
do them for any time period.

I should mention that accounting is only one of the areas of bindview
reports.  When I get time I'll explore the other reports that monitor
server activity, security, etc.  But the accounting was most important
for us.

It is produced by the LAN Support Group, (713) 789-0882,
2425 Fountainview, Suite 390, Houston, TX, 77057, USA.  Cost is $399 &
there's a small academic discount.

There are a number of other products, but Bindview received very
favorable reviews, and seemed to be the only product that specifically
said it could report from the accounting module.

Jim Morgan
MORGANJ@INDYVAX.BITNET  MORGANJ@INDYVAX.IUPUI.EDU
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CDROMLAN@IDBSU.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CDROMLAN@IDBSU.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cdromlan
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 12:07:00 EST
              <CDROMLAN@IDBSU.BITNET>
From:         "D.E. 'Dave' Bloomberg" <BLOOMBER@FAUVAX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: CDPlus

    Annanaomi Sams mentioned PLUSNET1 statistics module for Novell.
    What exactly is it??  Could you please provide some details for
    us (me)??

    We are looking at gathering stats on our cdromlan but don't
    really want to drop big bux to do this.

    THANKS !!

    Dave Bloomberg
    BLOOMBER@FAUVAX
    BLOOMBER@ACC.FAU.EDU
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cdromlan
Date:         Tue, 29 Dec 1992 11:33:32 -0500
Reply-To:     "Christine A. Dziedzina" <ak547@cleveland.Freenet.Edu>
              <CDROMLAN@IDBSU.BITNET>
From:         "Christine A. Dziedzina" <ak547@CLEVELAND.FREENET.EDU>
Subject:      Statistics

We have a CD Plus 200 workstation and access to MEDLINE and CINAHL on CD-ROM.
Since April we have been using a software program called GUS (Guardian
Utilization Statistics).  GUS enables us to register users and will produce
reports and graphs on utilization (number of accesses), purpose of use, appli-
cations, peak usage times, etc.  It also has a announcement board and a time
out feature.  All of this can be customized.  So far we've been happy with the
software and the support people have been very helpful.  We have had to change
our way of looking at statistics -- from the idea of completed subject or
"intellectual" searches to the number of accesses -- but at least we have some
idea of how our workstation is being used.

For more information about GUS contact:

GUS
CEO Software, Inc.
2231 Indian Ruins Rd., Suite 5
Tucson, AZ  85715
(602) 296-7577


--
Christine Dziedzina, Chief Librarian
Brittingham Memorial Library, MetroHealth Medical Center
2500 MetroHealth Drive, Cleveland, Ohio 44109-1998
ak547@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-ccMail-Date: 12/22/92 5:06PM
X-Envelope-to: CDROMLAN@idbsu.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cdromlan
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:47:00 PST
              <CDROMLAN@IDBSU.BITNET>
From:         Nick G Carter <ng_carter@CCMAIL.PNL.GOV>
Subject:      OECD/licensing

     I have to add my brief comments to this discussion:  I agree that the
     type of license that OECD and some other unenlightened CD-ROM vendors
     (as well as other network-able, non-CD products, such as ISI's Current
     Contents) try to pawn off on users smacks of the dark ages of PC
     computing when nearly all software was copy protected.  The same type
     of user action that caused software vendors to do away with that
     idiocy will work with network products:  DON'T BUY THEM!  My policy is
     to 1)not buy products from vendors with ridiculously high prices for a
     product, standalone, or network; 2) buy standalone versions if the
     product is felt to be essential, but the network price is more than
     the multi-use license cost does not conform to its likely use; 3) not
     buy ANYTHING from producers whose philosophy is such that I am going
     to 'rip them off' by allowing greater access to their product than I
     am permitted to grant (especially when they go to silly extremes to
     guarantee this won't happen, like putting their own counting mechanism
     in the CD software; 4) support the vendors who HAVE rational
     networking policies buy buying their products.

     Think about it... just how much will it hurt any of us to apply a
     little market pressure to these Neanderthal-like companies by not
     buying their products?  Just because product X is now available in
     CD-ROM format, is is essential we have it?  It wasn't 2 or 3 years
     ago.  This may be a facile argument for universities, but in our
     corporate environment, a department is asked to buy its own CD-ROMs if
     the demand for the subject matter in it is primarily useful to that
     group of people.

     Sorry, this message wasn't as brief as I expected it would be, but I
     think we really have to act together on this one.  After all,
     licensing of multi-user CDs, and other network software, is probably
     going to have a very large impact on all of our budgets, and it
     behooves us to send the producers a LOUD message.

     Nick Carter
     ng_carter@pnl.gov

     P.S.  I send and receive CDROMLAN communications through e-mail.
     Consequently, the return address is never the person who sent it to
     the LIST, rather the node that it goes through (Princeton in my case).
     May I request that everyone end their messages with their name and
     network address?  Thanks!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CDROM@idbsu.bitnet, CDROMLAN@idbsu.bitnet
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cdromlan
Date:         Tue, 29 Dec 1992 13:59:43 -0600
              <CDROMLAN@IDBSU.BITNET>
From:         Gloria McClanahan <mcclan@TENET.EDU>
Subject:      Network license agreements

Has anyone besides me had major problems with networking McGraw-Hill
Science and Technical Reference Set? Besides being upset about its
contents (only two dictionaries), I am upset because I paid for a network
license and after months of trying to set it up, the tech support people
said they don't know how to do it.

I am using a CBIS tower attached to a network with a server running Novell
Netware 2.2

Has anyone install the McGraw-Hill thing?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: jahb@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JENNIFER A. HEISE)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cdromlan
Subject: Re: OED/Licensing
Date: 23 Dec 92 20:12:54 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <A6C7713D045F9E90@UK.AC.CAMBRIDGE.PHOENIX>, AG129@PHOENIX.CAMBRIDGE.A
C.UK (A Grant) writes:
>> If some publishers were just as resonable with their electronic use
>> policies as they are with print policies, we'd all be much better off.
>
>The tragedy is that commercial software vendors have learnt, by bitter
>experience, that the less professional (i.e. staffed by academics rather
>than career systems programmers) parts of the academic computer user
>community are not always honest when it comes to licensing; this has long

The computer world is going to have to learn someday that the answer is not to
make things more difficult to copy, but make them easier to buy.  When
academics were expected to cough up $500 for a piece of software, they could
not justify being honest and ripped-off (Microsoft ain't in danger of failing,
kids; neither is Ashton-Tate.  Profits are being made.)  Fewer illegal copies
were made when cheaper "academic" versions came out; fewer still when site
licenses came out.  I can justify paying $75 for my copy of Microsoft Word for
the Mac, but $450 is almost 1/3 the price of my computer-- and more expensive
than a cheap word processor.
One of the simple rules of intellectual property is that the price of
producing it is fixed, no matter how many copies there are made (plus a teeny
markup for copying & distribution).  The more copies you sell, the cheaper the
per-copy production costs become.  If more people will buy at a lower price,
you can work it out so that your profits are ABOUT the same. Plus, you can
charge high prices to interpret your cruddy documentation (see DBASE), and
make a bundle.

Libraries, however, are in an all-the-market-will-bear situation, since there
are a limited number of libraries, especially libraries with CD systems. (So
what else is new? Never bend over at a publisher's convention.)
-- 
Jennifer Heise                           Net: jahb@lehigh.edu
Reference Dept.,                         Phone: (215) 758-3072
Fairchild-Martindale Libraries #8A,  Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA 18015
My opinions are my own. No one else would HAVE them anyway.

"The toad beneath the harrow knows
Exactly where each tooth-point goes;
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Via:         UK.AC.CAM.PHX; 22 DEC 92 10:38:22 GMT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cdromlan
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 10:38:31 GMT
              <CDROMLAN@IDBSU.BITNET>
From:         A Grant <AG129@PHOENIX.CAMBRIDGE.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: OED/Licensing

> If some publishers were just as resonable with their electronic use
> policies as they are with print policies, we'd all be much better off.

As soon as you put a CD-ROM on a network, it becomes _possible_ to have
multiple use; a site could easily "forget" to install launch control or
some other single-use serialisation mechanism.

The tragedy is that commercial software vendors have learnt, by bitter
experience, that the less professional (i.e. staffed by academics rather
than career systems programmers) parts of the academic computer user
community are not always honest when it comes to licensing; this has long
applied to microcomputer software (and many other things; sheet music,
for example), and there is no reason vendors should expect it to be
different for CD-ROMs. If the academic world wants 'reasonable' licensing
policies, it had better convince vendors that it will adhere to licences.
The way forward is authentication standards and more secure LAN and PC
operating systems, but these are some way off, partly because the academic
world itself has traditionally looked down its nose at such things.