"The press never gave Corel credit for user-friendly licensing provisions ... and played right into Microsoft's oligopolistic practices."
Nathan L. Maryn, former director, IS Division, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
A Force For Change
Brad Shimmin's "A New High in Underhanded Licensing" reminded me how unfortunate it is that the trade press never gives companies like Corel credit for user-friendly licensing provisions. This lack of publicity effectively lessened any competitive force Corel's licensing system may have had and played right into Microsoft's oligopolistic practices.
Corel explicitly allowed its software to be loaded on up to three PCs simultaneously, theorizing that the office, home and portable machines used by the licensee/user would not normally be used simultaneously (except perhaps for file syncing). Thus, only one PC was being used under the single-user license at a time. I found out about this provision when I was the software buyer for a bureau in the U.S. Department of Commerce. This was, in part, the reason I selected Corel as our supported office software suite for many years.
Perhaps Shimmin's article, and others touting the license provisions of vendors that actually let users employ their licenses in reasonable ways, may have some effect on the marketplace.
Obviously, we cannot rely on Attorney General John Ashcroft, who caved in on the Microsoft antitrust suit, to change Microsoft licensing policies. The marketplace will have to force it, and the trade press is the only stimulus to let the marketplace know other license options are available. Since 98 percent of software functionality can be met by any competing products, it would be nice if we could depend on the trade press to alert us to any user-friendly licenses from vendors other than Microsoft.
Nathan L. Maryn
Former Director, Information Systems Division
Economic Development Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
Washington, D.C. nmaryn@comcast.net
Process Makes Perfect
In response to Dave Molta's "Budget Management 101": Hear! Hear! I couldn't agree more. I have been in the technology industry for 15 years and really do enjoy it, but some things absolutely must change. I work for a company that spends countless millions of dollars on technology and never once have I seen an ROI evaluation.
The part of the equation Molta failed to mention is how money is spent on technology when it should be spent on core-process improvement. Management seems to think the money spent on technology is somehow a substitute for money it would have normally spent on process improvement. In essence, management believes technology improvement is synonymous with process improvement.
I have some doubts about how much value three-quarters of my systems actually provide to the organization. I think most of these systems are implemented as a workaround for flawed business practices. Consequently, management just laid off half the IT staff, placed a moratorium on all IT projects and hired business-process consultants to solve the real business problems. The old adage still applies: Garbage in, garbage out.
Eating Darwin's Apples
Regarding your streaming-video article in the March 18 issue ("Hardware or Software? Wading the Video Stream,"), is Darrin Woods sure Apple's Darwin Streaming Server is free? I looked at Apple's license, and it seems to me the Darwin server is free only for personal use. Go to www.darwin.org/apsl/ and check out sections 1.8 and 2.1.
David Alten
Senior Network Administrator
Petris Technology alten@petris.com
Darrin Woods responds: Apple's licensing agreements have been points of contention in the open-source community for some time. The online license to which you point is part of the Darwin source code that includes, in part, Darwin Streaming Server.
I believe the point of this license text is to cover the code itself, not the compiled application. Everything looks standard, including, "You can change the code for any purpose, including personal or R&D use. However, if you deploy (i.e. distribute) the changed code for other than personal or R&D use, you have to post back your changes to the community. You can't distribute the code without including the Apple license agreement and retaining all copyright info in the code." The source code includes the same text, along with the standard "you can't compile and sell this as your own product." Apple has several high-profile companies using Darwin or QuickTime, yet the company has never asked to be paid a fee for their use.
Security Numbers do a Disappearing Act
A problem with the new four-digit verification codes mentioned in "New Credit Card Verification Woes" (February 18, page 82) is that over time the number will wear off, just as it does on a check card or other form of debit card. Eventually, the last three digits practically disappear--they become unreadable. If a merchant needed those numbers on my card, I would have to abandon the transaction and subsequently look for another vendor for that product.
Jason Grider
IS Manager
Home Leisure
jgrider@fiskars.com
REPORTS
Analyize In-Line NAC strategies and products.
ANALYTICS Plan and design your enterprise blade server deployments
InformationWeek U.S. IT Salary Survey 2008
Salaries for business technology professionals are falling. Here's what you need to know in order to make good hiring decisions and personal career choices. Purchase Today: $299
REPORTS
ANALYTICS
Follow 
