Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!columbia!cunixc!cck
From: cck@cunixc.columbia.edu (Charlie C. Kim)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.appletalk
Subject: Re: AppleShare client availablity
Message-ID: <140@cunixc.columbia.edu>
Date: Sat, 19-Sep-87 12:49:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: cunixc.140
Posted: Sat Sep 19 12:49:34 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 20-Sep-87 15:49:01 EDT
References: <8709181321.AA27274@columbia.edu> <1987.9.18.15.39.36.Ravinder.Chandhok@gnome.cs.cmu.edu> <3904@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU>
Reply-To: cck@cunixc.columbia.edu (Charlie C. Kim)
Organization: Columbia University
Lines: 72

In article <3904@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU> jww@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (Joel West) writes:
>Clearly it's in Apple's interest to work out some sort of
>licensing policy for large sites, particularly universities.
This is a possiblity.

> ...
>Apple should handle system software for universities, you should 
>let the evangelist know.

Maybe I should have stated this explicitly, but this is one of the
reason I posted the policy note: to get responses to send back to Bud
Colligan's group which is responsible for Higher Education Marketing.
They have been very responsive, however, they need input from us.

>It would appear, however, that Apple intends to sell the client software,
>so a reasonable approach is to negotiate the cost of the software
>(particularly on a per-Mac basis, instead of a per-disk basis)
>rather than to try to push to get it free.

I disagree, the reasonable approach in this case is to attempt to work
out a solution that attempts to maximize the benefit that all parties
receive.  Obviously, this may result in sub-optimial result for one of
the parties in certain areas; however, the gains in other areas may
well make up for it (good will, standardization, future economic
benefits, etc).  For instance, Apple could gain a significant benefit
by being able to state that they consider it important to bundle the
client network software with their systems (unlike certain other
companies).  Assuming a priori that there is no basis for discussion
is wrong.  Apple's policies are not written in stone.

There are problems for at least CMU and Columbia with either the
per-Mac or per disk basis.  To follow Rob's suggestion, we simply need
to show Apple that it is to their benefit to bundle the AppleShare
client as part of their system software.  By the way, one of my basic
objections to this policy is that it makes us pay the price for the
AppleShare server software as well as the client software.  I have no
objections to paying a resonable cost for the client software - I just
consider the cost they are asking us to pay too high.

Site licensing is always problematic, because different sites have
different needs.  Universities are not a homogenous marketplace like
many people have assumed in the past (and have run up against much to
their dismay). AUC meetings with Apple in past ignored this basic
point resulting in massive confusion about what people wanted.  In
addition, the cost of such a thing would have to be very cheap given
the relatively "simple" software we are talking about.

It is my attitude, that unlike other software like the AppleShare
server, MacWrite, etc, the AppleShare client is simple enough that it
is feasible to do it again.  It's hard to evaluate the cut-off point
where it would be cheaper to buy it, but I would place it about
$40,000 (worst case).  (This assumes 6 months work full time @
$25.00/hour).  I doubt that it would take this long or cost so much.
A more realistic estimate would be in the $5,000-$15,000 range.

The AppleShare client from Apple is quite reliable and very well done.
There are problems: there is no way to hook into some of the features
easily, there is no way to add functionality, etc., but they are
relatively minor problems.  But as Rob says, it would be waste of time
redoing this (also it would be a major pain since Apple hasn't
documented all the HFS dispatch calls that are used by the client),
however it is a (basically) undesirable, but realistic option in light
of the stated policy.

Rob's major points are reasonable and well-founded.  I wish I had
thought to pursue the idea of "AppleShare" client as basic system
software too.  There is a precedent for this too: Apple doesn't charge
for the LaserWriter or AppleTalk ImageWriter client software.

Charlie C. Kim
User Services
Columbia University