Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!strath-cs!jim From: jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid) Newsgroups: comp.sys.sequent Subject: Re: Dynix licensing Keywords: license, user-limits Message-ID: <294@baird.cs.strath.ac.uk> Date: 30 Sep 89 19:39:33 GMT References: <6006@wolfen.cc.uow.oz> Sender: news@cs.strath.ac.uk Reply-To: jim@cs.strath.ac.uk Organization: Comp. Sci. Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Scotland. Lines: 24 In article <6006@wolfen.cc.uow.oz> steve@wolfen.cc.uow.oz (Steve Cliffe) writes: >Can someone please tell me why Sequent persists with the user-limit >concept. This is because UNIX is ultimately licensed by AT&T. Sequent's agreement with AT&T means that they have to pay AT&T royalties based on the number of users of each system they sell. The N-user AT&T licences mean Sequent supply N-user limited systems. I find it distasteful that this policy means that university departments like ours have to pay enormous sums for a Sequent UNIX distribution that's binary only. It is all the more galling when AT&T will gladly let us have a source licence for the same machine for a few hundred dollars. [OK, AT&T don't provide Sequent source code, but Sequent could supply this for a nominal sum to people who had the right piece of paper from AT&T.] A better deal for academic DYNIX licensing is needed. How about it? Jim PS: I know Sequent will release source, but the price is not all that nominal. I suspect that the current conditions mean that a hefty sum for the N-user licence would still have to be paid on top.