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.