Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!sun!pitstop!texsun!convex!uunet!mitel!sce!cognos!alzabo!kebera
From: kebera@alzabo.UUCP (Krishna Bera)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Ethics of crippler circuitry
Summary: OS and multiuser software vs. pricing
Message-ID: <319@alzabo.UUCP>
Date: 13 Feb 89 00:33:52 GMT
References: <36320@think.UUCP>
Reply-To: kebera@alzabo.UUCP (Krishna E. Bera)
Organization: Brian's XENIXlings, Ottawa, Canada
Lines: 34

In article <36320@think.UUCP> (Barry Margolin) writes:
>What about a related issue: OS licenses that restrict the number of
>users.  You purchase a computer and an OS, but pay different amounts
>depending on the number of users you want to allow to use it

This situation also applies to all the new network software, or
to such things as site licences.

>simultaneously, although there are no software changes other than
>changing a parameter to the routine that enforces the restriction.
>

A good piece of software may use different algorithms for dealing
with different numbers of users. These must be developed and tested.

>My feeling is that you purchase a certain amount of performance, and
>how you want to allocate it should be up to you.  If you put lots of
>users on a small machine, they'll get poor performance, so why should
>you also get charged extra?
>

I believe someone mentioned that the amount of (usually free) maintenance
required depends on the number of users. The solution would then be to
charge for each maintenance call. It seems to me that users would be
more likely to buy a system with stated performance and free maintenance.

While economies of scale do apply to large networks/machines, a piece of
software is still worth a certain amount to every user of it, and they
should pay that amount. The number of users (one criterion) establishes the 
worth of someone's software, I believe.
--
Programmer on the loose
kebera@alzabo.UUCP
uunet!mitel!sce!scs!alzabo!kebera