Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!mit-eddie!apollo!holbrook
From: holbrook@apollo.COM (Alan R. Holbrook)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apollo
Subject: Apollo's Network License System (NLS)
Message-ID: <3fccff2d.bf13@apollo.COM>
Date: 21 Nov 88 16:06:00 GMT
Organization: Apollo Computer, Chelmsford, Mass.
Lines: 85

In a recent posting, Dave Funk of the University of Iowa had the following
comments about Apollo's Network License Server.  Dave has some concerns and
some misconceptions about NLS.

 > Now if you are having a hard time swallowing that one, try this on
 > for size; At SR10.2 Apollo is talking about putting NLS (Network License Server)
 > locks in its software.

NLS is, among other things, a system for electronic enforcement of software 
license agreements, the legal documents that control how many copies of a 
software product may be made or used by a customer.  It is also a valuable
tool for system administrators to use to understand and control the use
of software in the network.  Properly used, it saves both time and money.

NLS is a product our customers have requested.  It's also one that we 
believe in, and so naturally we will use it to license some of our own software.
Contrary to Dave's statement that SR10.2 time is also NLS time for Apollo,
when we'll license our software has not yet been decided.

 > ...................... This will, along with increasing your network
 > traffic & CPU load,

Concurrent access licensing adds about 400 milliseconds of elapsed time
to the application.  The license server itself requires about 300 blocks
of disk space.  The memory requirements for the license server are directly proportional 
to the number of licenses supported by the server.  If that's more time
and memory than you can spare, note that Apollo will continue
to offer conventional node-locked licensing, for which no license
server or NCS runtime support is required.  Nodelocked licenses can also coexist 
with the concurrent-access licenses that are administered by the license server.

 > .................., require you to purchase a license for each product for
 > each node that you want to run it on. 

Dave has confused these two types of licenses--you can either purchase
"a license for each product for each node" (nodelocked type) or "increase
your network traffic" (concurrent-access type)--you are not forced to
deal with both unless you choose to.

 > The first pass will be "advisory" locking only, it will tell you "naughty" if 
 > you run an unlicensed product or too many copies of a licensed product.
 > Now your guess is as good as mine as to how long they leave it at the "advisory" level.

Advisory locking is in fact one implementation of NLS we are currently examining.
Because NLS is a new idea, we think advisory locking is an important educational 
step in the direction of our ultimate goal--an active, rather than advisory, 
enforcement policy.  If we choose to implement advisory locking, the length of
time we use this method will be determined in part by our customers.

 > NLS is an interesting system but we've been having a hard time with it.
 > It took us 3 months (and lots of phone calls) to get NLS licenses ("hooks")
 > out of Apollo that would work with the software that they sent us. (Thats 3
 > months after we paid for them, and they arn't cheap).

The University of Iowa had a problem getting NLS licenses from us.  We apologized
to them for the inconvenience.  Nevertheless, readers of this news group should keep 
in mind that the University ordered the NLS product presumably because they intend 
to use NLS to lock their OWN software.  The difficulties Dave has had have NOTHING to 
do with NLS locks on Apollo software since we don't have any locked software for
sale yet.

 > The NLS licenses are node locked to the server node that you designate. If you want 
 > to replace your server node, you have to get a whole new set of "hooks" and "keys" 
 > issued. Imagine ALL your licensed software held hostage by a few server nodes. 

Concurrent-access licenses are in fact locked to the servers you choose.  To ensure 
high availability, we recommend running multiple servers and distributing licenses 
among them.  Everyone we've talked to thinks server-administration of licenses is an 
advantage--you can run a software product from any node on the network--you needn't move to 
the node to which the product is nodelocked.  Furthermore, you don't need as many 
concurrent-access licenses as nodelocked licenses to accommodate the same number of users.

 > Hopefully Apollo can get some of these rough spots worked out before SR10.2.

Apollo realizes the scope of what we intend to do with Network Licensing.  Dave,
and anyone else contemplating buying software from Apollo, can rest assured that
we have no intention of consciously introducing "rough spots" into our base.

Are Dave's objections to NLS shared by the University of Iowa?  Since the university
has ordered NLS, it must be at least considering doing precisely what Dave finds 
objectionable--licensing its software under NLS.

    Alan Holbrook
    Program Manager
    Distributed Computing