Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!iuvax!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!tank!mimsy!mojo!SYSMGR@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU
From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.ultrix
Subject: Re: License Management Facility (LMF)
Message-ID: <009350C2.E02D2940@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU>
Date: 11 Apr 90 18:45:49 GMT
References: <54695@bbn.COM> <1040@fiver.UUCP>,<54736@bbn.COM>
Sender: news@eng.umd.edu (The News System)
Reply-To: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney)
Organization: The U. of MD, CP, CAD lab
Lines: 16

In article <54736@bbn.COM>, fkittred@bbn.com (Fletcher Kittredge) writes:
>
>No, no, no!  My complaint is with LMF, not DEC's networks.  Presently, LMF
>is only of use on DEC systems.  In a distributed, heterogeneous environment,
>this greatly reduces the usefulness of LMF. 

Useful? <supressive comments on>

> If DEC decides to develop a
>product for this environment, either they will have to produce an LMF for
>each of their competitors systems, or they will have to adhere to some
>standard for network licensing.  

DEC to develop a product which doesn't run on DEC-stamped hardware? Mmmmmm.
Everyone is going to do their "own thing" in network licensing, unless
OSF or someone else develops A Standard.