On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 2:49 PM, R.S. <[email protected]> wrote:
> My observations: > Rules created by lawyers are complex and impractical. > Rules created by technicians are simple and easy to use. > > IMHO: optimal solution: > A product is able to run for limited period (a week) and new key is then > delivered in case of real disaster. > For DR drills grace period is long enough to make key ordering process > optional (just to test the process). > > Or IBM approach: no keys at all. > > -- > Radoslaw Skorupka > Lodz, Poland > > I hate license keys. But I understand the unfortunate necessity. I am sure that there are companies who would abuse a vendor's trust. That is, they would upgrade an system to be more powerful without paying any MSU charges (another hatred of mine); or they would just not pay the "run time" license cost; or some "fool" would tell another "fool" == "great product, here give it a try. Just don't call the vendor." These things are why I use GNU/Linux. All the software that I run on it is cost-free licensed. From "Public Domain" to "GPL" to "run for free with no formal support without a support contract". Of course, it is very difficult to make a living that way. I guess that RedHat shows that it is possible in some cases. Don't run a restaurant that way! -- "Irrigation of the land with seawater desalinated by fusion power is ancient. It's called 'rain'." -- Michael McClary, in alt.fusion Maranatha! <>< John McKown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
