Well, just connect them! That's a small price to pay for ensuring
compliance with vendors' licenses!

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Edward Gould <[email protected]>
wrote:

> > On Apr 21, 2017, at 9:20 AM, Wendell Lovewell <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > I work for a vendor, so I understand the necessity of making sure that
> licensed products are used properly.  But I also understand the
> inconvenience for both the customer and the vendor of managing software
> keys.
> >
> > I’m wondering what the list’s response would be toward implementing a
> system that automatically managed the keys by allowing the software to
> “phone home” to update them.  My thoughts are that each time the software
> was started, and perhaps periodically, it would report its own key (to
> identify the customer), CPU id, MSU and/or whatever licensing metric was
> used.  If a verification response could not be obtained, either because of
> license expiration or communication errors, a grace period of “n” days
> would be allowed.
> >
> > There would obviously be encryption, high availability, and possibly
> even customer firewall considerations.  But it seems like a fair trade to
> me.  Opinions?
>
> None of our systems are connected to the Internet.
>
> Ed
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
>



-- 
zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it"

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Reply via email to