>[...previous excellent discussion snipped...]
>
>I'd like to make an observation that we appear to be implicitly saying
>but not stating directly.  The pricing variables we have discussed thus
>far are based on:
>
>   * CPU horsepower (tier-based),
>   * Number of users supported (system user-based)
>
>but to some extent ignoring:
>
>   * Concurrent users of the product
>
>It is my opinion that tier-based pricing is archaic.  If you buy Win95
>for your 4Mb 386/25 [not recommended] you pay the same as the user with
>the 64Mb 200Mhz Pentium Pro.  Same argument for a 25-user license of
>Netware, or a 5-user server copy of Reflection.  This is fair.  This is
>also *NOT* happening with MPE.  Even the "user-based" pricings are
>themselves often tied to tiers.
>
>Furthermore, MPE "user-based" pricing is system-wide.
>
>Can't we get a 8-user COBOL license for our developers and a 256-user
>license for MPE/IMAGE?
>
>Can't I get a single-user license for Glance, since I'm the only one who
>will use it?  For that matter, why must I pay to find out what my system
>is doing anyway (isn't that an expected OS service?).
>
>The "finer" points of licensing are debateable with tools such as
>Glance, or a 3rd-party spooler [license for 'x' printers?], or a
>disc defragmentation tool [license for 'x' Gb?], or database tools,
>etc.  The more obvious "user-based per product" issues involved with
>compilers, databases, etc. should be clear.
>
>Jeff Kell <[log in to unmask]>
>

Here Here!!  And it would seem to me that HP could add something to the
operating system that would make it easier for vendors to implement a
concurrent user license.
Gary Jackson
Nevada CSOS
(916) 478-6407 - voice
(916) 478-6410 - fax