Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!usc!cs.utexas.edu!pp!pink!rfg
From: rfg@pink.ACA.MCC.COM (Ron Guilmette)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C++ 2.0 pricing and licensing policy
Message-ID: <272@pink.ACA.MCC.COM>
Date: 6 Jul 89 21:08:00 GMT
References: <1989Jun30.074346.15350@lth.se> <264@pink.ACA.MCC.COM> <8723@thorin.cs.unc.edu>
Reply-To: rfg@pink.aca.mcc.com.UUCP (Ron Guilmette)
Organization: MCC  Austin, Texas
Lines: 47

In article <8723@thorin.cs.unc.edu> tuck@jason.UUCP (Russ Tuck) writes:
>A practical alternative (already used by a few applications) is to pay
>per simultaneous user (not per CPU, or per potential user).  You pay for
>the right to use up to N copies at a time, and have a license server with
>N "keys" (maybe encrypted numbers obtained from the vendor at license 
>purchase).  When run, the application gets a key from the server, or exits
>if no keys are available.  

That seems reasonable.  Let's see if AT&T will apply this idea to cfront 2.0.

>I think AT&T is hurting themselves and C++ by pricing it so high.  Instead
>of everyone migrating quickly to 2.0, the new well-documented and supported
>standard language, many users will be forced to continue using 1.2 or to
>use GNU's g++.  Since g++ has some of its own unique features, this means
>3 different languages in use.  This language fragmentation will slow C++'s
>adoption by users, software and hardware vendors, book publishers, ...
>It's the same kind of fragmentation that continues to plague UNIX.

I fully agree that this fragmentation is bad for all users (but not necessarily
for the vendors).  I hope to do my part to help minimize this problem (see my
test suite announcement).

Regarding this issue, user's on the GNU tools should be aware of the -pedantic
switch for GCC & G++ which is *supposed* to cause warnings for non-standard
usage.  This mostly work for GCC (although I have told Richard Stallman that
I believe that ERROR rather than warnings are called for) but there is more work
to be done on the G++ compiler before the -pedantic switch can be used as a
means of filtering out GNU-specific extensions.

>I think AT&T is shooting themselves (oh, well) and C++ (ouch!) in the foot.
>
>They would be wise to license C++ 2.0 very reasonably and get it widely
>adopted and firmly established.  If they're patient, they'd even get larger
>profits by eventually raising prices modestly in a much larger market.

I think that AT&T has correctly realized (unfortunately for us) that C++
will become widely adopted and firmly established no mater what they do
(within limits).  What other direction can all us C programmers go in?
Is any C programmer going to switch to Ada?  Not likely.  The culture gap
is too big and the goals of C vs. Ada are too different.


-- 
// Ron Guilmette  -  MCC  -  Experimental Systems Kit Project
// 3500 West Balcones Center Drive,  Austin, TX  78759  -  (512)338-3740
// ARPA: rfg@mcc.com
// UUCP: {rutgers,uunet,gatech,ames,pyramid}!cs.utexas.edu!pp!rfg