Sorry, I found out that the quote is not on by default (the hard way :)) and also that I have to click on it BEFORE I enter any data.
I was answering a response that stated that if a site has a site license, that there should be no constraints on the code, but I wanted to point out that not all sites license the code for the entire site (some is for a single CPU or LPAR), and that there is no protection against the software becoming part of some systems programmer's goodie bag when he/she moves to the next site. You can limit by date, that also doesn't provide proper protections. I had wanted to point out that people lock their cars, even when they have the only key. There are people that even lock their car in their own garage. It's more work to unlock the car, but they do it anyway. If you take your car to the shop to be worked on and park it in their lot, do you lock it? Do they lock it when they are done? When you take your key out of the ignition, the steering wheel locks in place. You can't turn the wheel without inserting your key, some people see that as a safety feature, others as a anti-theft feature, some people break the inter-lock that controls that "feature". The safety and anti-theft parts have long since been rendered useless because of the technology in the cars computer circuitry, but if a car was shipped without the "feature" most people would see that as a defect and take it back to be fixed. Actually reading back on the previous paragraph, it gets more away from the point than I wanted to be, but I'll leave it anyway because (while really tangential), it makes a point that I wanted to get to which is that the extra work required for something, in this case the maintenance of the keys for software at the site, is a bummer, but is also necessary because there are some sites (and some people) who will just not follow directions or abide by the rules and you cannot reasonably expect the vendor to take all the risk. Small vendors might know all of their clients personally and know if they can trust them with their code, frankly, if they do then they probably don't have very many clients. A company like IBM or CA, who makes billions a year, can afford to be lax on control of their software (although CA isn't really that lax), and they up the price to everyone to make up for the "possibility" that someone isn't paying. The software has long since paid for itself and in many cases, there is other software that is better and cheaper, but people still see them as the first choice. I'm not sure why, maybe it's like with a car, you wouldn't buy a car from Chevrolet and get the doors from Ford, even if Ford has a better door that fits perfectly. It probably has nothing to do with that, but I honestly don't know why it is. Our automation software is years ahead of IBM and CA's, and theirs cost 90 to 95% more, but they still have the biggest market shares in automation software. I don't know why, marketing might have something to do with it, but it's not like you see big marketing pushes for their automation software anywhere so I just don't know why it is. The one thing I do know is that vendors have the right to protect their software and as long as it's reasonable protection, I don't see why a site would complain about it. Most sites do not complain, but obviously some do, that's what started the thread after the person who entered the original request asked for comments. Brian On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 15:02:14 +0000, Pommier, Rex R. <[email protected]> wrote: >Brian, > >I see your point, but have a request for you. Don't get quite so aggressive >with the electronic scissors on snipping away the context. The beginning of >your comment below says it all - "That works...". What's "that"? Since there >have been several comments/points of view made, it would be much easier to >leave the comment you are replying to in your reply. > >Not trying to be flippant, mind you. :-) > >Rex > >-----Original Message----- >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >Brian Westerman >Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 8:02 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: cpu / machine identification > >That works for a site license and I agree with it for that type of license, >but what about sites that purchase a single processor license and have 4 >processors, or a systems programmer that decides that he can fix his "friends" >problem by sending a copy of the code to them, or the one that decides to post >the code on facebook. (I reaching with the facebook thing, but hopefully you >see my point). > >Brian > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > >The information contained in this e-mail may contain confidential and/or >privileged information and is intended for the sole use of the intended >recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that >any unauthorized use, disclosure, distribution or copying of this >communication is strictly prohibited and that you will be held responsible for >any such unauthorized activity, including liability for any resulting damages. >As appropriate, such incident(s) may also be reported to law enforcement. If >you received this e-mail in error, please reply to sender and destroy or >delete the message and any attachments. Thank you. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
