Chuck,

        It's not futile if the vendors are in the list (which they are) and we can
come up with a number that they feel they can meet.  Granted, the vendors my
look at what we consider reasonable and either not accept it or not be able
to meet it, but at least we will have a number to start from.

Thanx,
        Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: OpenMPE Support Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
Chuck Ryan
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 11:13 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [OPENMPE] MPE Licensing


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Klein [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 10:02 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: MPE Licensing
>
>
> On 6 Dec 2002 at 9:41, Chuck Ryan wrote:
>
> > Ah, the old foot in the door method.
> >
> > If we get everyone to discuss what the fee should be they are less
> > likely to question the fee itself.
>
> As has been stated before, there are pieces of MPE (and in some
> cases, very integral pieces like Mentat Streams [internal IPC] code)
> that are licensed from 3rd party vendors and are part of the core OS.
> I sincerely doubt that we will be able to get them to give away
> licenses for free.
>
> So, please, let's not focus on "the fee itself" and spend some time
> trying to ascertain what might be considered a reasonable fee as I
> think was Jon's intent.
>
>

Then it is an exercise in futility.

The fee will not be determined by what we consider reasonable, but by what
these vendors will accept as a licensing fee.

Comments are my own, not my employer's... etc.