HP3000-L Archives

January 1997, Week 4

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Michael L Gueterman <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Michael L Gueterman <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 25 Jan 1997 23:36:47 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (28 lines)
  It's human nature (and good business) to want something of value
for as little outlay as possible.  Given that, I think we can all agree
that some software (QueryCalc is probably a good example) cannot
be accurately priced on a per user basis for the relative value it
delivers for the company as a whole.  For that "type" of software,
a tiered policy may be applicable and desirable for both the vendor
and the customer.  On the other hand, tying a compiler to the size
of the machine on which it is used (especially if there is no distinction
between a development and production system) is equally unfair.
There must exist some level of 'trust' between a vendor and their
clients.  If you price something on a per user basis, but cannot
adequately validate that the client is within their license, you have
to trust them.  Has everyone got so paranoid that they have forgotten
how to trust?  The client has a stake in the vendors success, and if
that vendor goes under because their clients chose to ignore their
license, then both sides are losers.  I'm not naive, but can we not
get back to a point where things are done "because they make sense",
and not because "everyone else does it"?

Regards,
Michael (I own the company, and I make my own rules!) Gueterman
Easy Does It Technologies
email: [log in to unmask]
http://www.editcorp.com
voice: (509) 943-5108
fax:   (509) 946-1170
--

ATOM RSS1 RSS2