Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucsd!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!humu!pegasus!richard
From: richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386
Subject: Re: Interactive and me - An open letter to ISC.
Message-ID: <1990Jul17.003323.29143@pegasus.com>
Date: 17 Jul 90 00:33:23 GMT
References: <3126@rsiatl.UUCP> <1611@ssbn.WLK.COM>
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Lines: 21
X-Local-Date: 16 Jul 90 17:33:23 PDT

>>>Wait a minute!  The AT&T license fee has been paid, we gotta send in original
>>>boot/install diskettes, Everex could legally upgrade us just like SCO and ISC
>>>did when Microport hit the wall.  I'm interested, is Everex interested?
>
>Charles Hedrick wrote me and reminded me that ownership of a license isn't
>entitlement to an upgrade.  If the vendor chooses to ugrade you, AT&T gets the
>same royalty as if you were a brand new customer.  OK, so much for that
>theory and thanks to Charles for pointing this out.
>

I don't know what AT&T's current policy on upgrades is but if you are
simply going from one vendor to another with the same AT&T version of
Unix then I would think there is a definite possibility that the first
license would be sufficient.  I think that's what happened with the
Microport business.

And, although I don't think it applys here anyway, I'm not so sure about
AT&T demanding the same royalty for an upgrade as for a new purchase.

-- 
Richard Foulk		richard@pegasus.com