Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!snorkelwacker!bu.edu!bu-pub.bu.edu
From: j...@bu-pub.bu.edu (Jason Heirtzler)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.ultrix
Subject: license restriction: a real pain
Message-ID: <58806@bu.edu.bu.edu>
Date: 14 Jun 90 17:11:56 GMT
Sender: n...@bu.edu.bu.edu
Organization: Boston University Information Technology
Lines: 17
Posted: Thu Jun 14 18:11:56 1990
When I installed a 16-user license on our DEC-3100 (Ultrix 3.1)
with /etc/install_upgrade(?), all goes well, and when the machine
reboots it says "16 user license", but the old 2-user license
is still being enforced..
Since it's the same /upgrade file on all of the DEC-3100s, and
some of them work fine, it's pretty odd. A few machines cross
mount /usr and perhaps this is breaking things?
Now, before I ftp to uu.uu.net and just drop in the BSD telnetd
and rlogind, and say "to heck" with the whole silly license business,
can someone comment on what's going on with the license code to
cause this to happen?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Heirtzler (617) 353-2780 j...@bu-pub.bu.edu
Information Technology Boston University ..!bu.edu!bu-pub!jdh
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!sunic!uupsi!rpi!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rutgers!
cbmvax!grr
From: g...@cbmvax.commodore.com (George Robbins)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.ultrix
Subject: Re: license restriction: a real pain
Message-ID: <12744@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Date: 15 Jun 90 07:25:00 GMT
References: <58806@bu.edu.bu.edu>
Reply-To: grr@cbmvax (George Robbins)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA
Lines: 18
Posted: Fri Jun 15 08:25:00 1990
In article <58...@bu.edu.bu.edu> j...@bu-pub.bu.edu (Jason Heirtzler) writes:
> When I installed a 16-user license on our DEC-3100 (Ultrix 3.1)
> with /etc/install_upgrade(?), all goes well, and when the machine
> reboots it says "16 user license", but the old 2-user license
> is still being enforced..
Check that your have "options QUOTA" in your config file - this is neccessary
for the license stuff to work correctly - silly, but true...
It is worth noting that the "maxusers" parameter in the config file has no
direct effect on the user limit, although it should be larger than the max
expected number of users to insure adequate allocations for various system
resources.
--
George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr
but no way officially representing: domain: g...@cbmvax.commodore.com
Commodore, Engineering Department phone: 215-431-9349 (only by moonlite)
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!snorkelwacker!bu.edu!
bu-pub!jdh
From: j...@bu-pub.bu.edu (Jason Heirtzler)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.ultrix
Subject: Re: license restriction: a real pain
Message-ID: <59043@bu.edu.bu.edu>
Date: 18 Jun 90 22:58:17 GMT
References: <58806@bu-pub.bu.edu>
Sender: n...@bu.edu.bu.edu
Reply-To: j...@bu-pub.bu.edu (Jason Heirtzler)
Organization: Boston University
Lines: 29
Posted: Mon Jun 18 23:58:17 1990
In article <58...@bu-pub.bu.edu>, I wrote:
|> When I installed a 16-user license on our DEC-3100 (Ultrix 3.1)
|> with /etc/install_upgrade(?), all goes well, and when the machine
|> reboots it says "16 user license", but the old 2-user license
|> is still being enforced..
|>
|> Since it's the same /upgrade file on all of the DEC-3100s, and
|> some of them work fine, it's pretty odd. A few machines cross
|> mount /usr and perhaps this is breaking things?
|>
Several people responded to me and said "make sure you have the
QUOTA option set in your config file." The option was set; in fact
all the workstations are running the same kernel (those that work and
those that say they do, but still enforce the 2-user restriction.)
So, my problem still exists. The /bin/login program is looking
even more attractive for replacement now.
Maybe the DEC people who decided to include this license code in
Ultrix will understand why people dislike it so. It's not because we
don't want to pay for what we use, it's because it creates needless
problems and aggravates your customers. Sun and SGI don't do this.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Heirtzler (617) 353-2780 j...@bu-pub.bu.edu
Information Technology Boston University ..!bu.edu!bu-pub!jdh
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!
decwrl!bacchus.pa.dec.com!wsl.dec.com!hall
From: h...@wsl.dec.com (Jon "Maddog" Hall)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.ultrix
Subject: Re: license restriction: a real pain
Message-ID: <1990Jun19.001330.22794@wrl.dec.com>
Date: 19 Jun 90 00:13:30 GMT
References: <58806@bu-pub.bu.edu> <59043@bu.edu.bu.edu>
Sender: n...@wrl.dec.com (News)
Reply-To: h...@wsl.dec.com (Jon "Maddog" Hall)
Organization: DEC Western Software Laboratory
Lines: 51
Posted: Tue Jun 19 01:13:30 1990
In article <59...@bu.edu.bu.edu>, j...@bu-pub.bu.edu (Jason Heirtzler) writes:
|> In article <58...@bu-pub.bu.edu>, I wrote:
|>
|> |> When I installed a 16-user license on our DEC-3100 (Ultrix 3.1)
|> |> with /etc/install_upgrade(?), all goes well, and when the machine
|> |> reboots it says "16 user license", but the old 2-user license
|> |> is still being enforced..
|> |>
|> |> Since it's the same /upgrade file on all of the DEC-3100s, and
|> |> some of them work fine, it's pretty odd. A few machines cross
|> |> mount /usr and perhaps this is breaking things?
|> |>
|>
|> Several people responded to me and said "make sure you have the
|> QUOTA option set in your config file." The option was set; in fact
|> all the workstations are running the same kernel (those that work and
|> those that say they do, but still enforce the 2-user restriction.)
|>
|> So, my problem still exists. The /bin/login program is looking
|> even more attractive for replacement now.
|>
|> Maybe the DEC people who decided to include this license code in
|> Ultrix will understand why people dislike it so. It's not because we
|> don't want to pay for what we use, it's because it creates needless
|> problems and aggravates your customers. Sun and SGI don't do this.
|>
|>
|> -------------------------------------------------------------------
|> Jason Heirtzler (617) 353-2780 j...@bu-pub.bu.edu
|> Information Technology Boston University ..!bu.edu!bu-pub!jdh
If SUN and SGI do not include code like this, then they either have a different
licensing situation than DEC does or they are in violation of their AT&T
contract.
Our AT&T contract requires us to restrict users based on number of
logins. The login
levels are 2, 8, 16, 32, 64 and "unlimited". DEC pays royalties to AT&T
based on the
keys and licenses it sells to end customers.
The last time I looked at SUN's licensing they did indeed have a "two
user" system, with
a single upgrade to "unlimited".
If AT&T relaxed out licensing situation I would definitely champion
getting rid of the
current key situation. The alternative is charging a significantly
greater licensing fee.
md
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!bu.edu!bu-pub!jdh
From: j...@bu-pub.bu.edu (Jason Heirtzler)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.ultrix
Subject: Re: license restriction: a real pain -- SOLVED!
Message-ID: <59171@bu.edu.bu.edu>
Date: 20 Jun 90 21:08:52 GMT
References: <58806@bu-pub.bu.edu> <59043@bu.edu.bu.edu>
Sender: n...@bu.edu.bu.edu
Reply-To: j...@bu-pub.bu.edu (Jason Heirtzler)
Organization: Boston University
Lines: 28
Posted: Wed Jun 20 22:08:52 1990
Thanks go to Martyn Johnson <m...@computer-lab.cambridge.ac.uk> who
provided the missing piece of info.
The /etc/license program reads the /upgrade file but doesn't seem to do
anything except print a message on the console ("xx user license"); the
program which is responsible for poking the vaule into the kernel is
really /etc/init (surprise!)
We have our own init program (BSD 4.3 + sunos "secure" ttys stuff) and
it didn't have the necessary code in it. Once I knew this, it was a quick
fix to init and a reboot and the license stuff worked properly. It
would be inappropriate to post the code to the net, so I won't.
In regards to my previous message:
|> Maybe the DEC people who decided to include this license code in
|> Ultrix will understand why people dislike it so. It's not because we
|> don't want to pay for what we use, it's because it creates needless
|> problems and aggravates your customers. Sun and SGI don't do this.
Yes, Sun (SGI is probably similar) has a (2, 16, ..) user license, but
it's not enforced in the software at all. You sign an agreement and they
trust that you will abide by it. There's a difference.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Heirtzler (617) 353-2780 j...@bu-pub.bu.edu
Information Technology Boston University ..!bu.edu!bu-pub!jdh
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!decwrl!bacchus.pa.dec.com!wsl.dec.com!hall
From: h...@wsl.dec.com (Jon "Maddog" Hall)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.ultrix
Subject: Re: license restriction: a real pain -- SOLVED!
Message-ID: <1990Jun21.043812.10897@wrl.dec.com>
Date: 21 Jun 90 04:38:12 GMT
References: <58806@bu-pub.bu.edu> <59043@bu.edu.bu.edu> <59171@bu.edu.bu.edu>
Sender: n...@wrl.dec.com (News)
Reply-To: h...@wsl.dec.com (Jon "Maddog" Hall)
Organization: DEC Western Software Laboratory
Lines: 38
Posted: Thu Jun 21 05:38:12 1990
In article <59...@bu.edu.bu.edu>, j...@bu-pub.bu.edu (Jason Heirtzler) writes:
|>
|> In regards to my previous message:
|>
|> |> Maybe the DEC people who decided to include this license code in
|> |> Ultrix will understand why people dislike it so. It's not because we
|> |> don't want to pay for what we use, it's because it creates needless
|> |> problems and aggravates your customers. Sun and SGI don't do this.
|>
|> Yes, Sun (SGI is probably similar) has a (2, 16, ..) user license, but
|> it's not enforced in the software at all. You sign an agreement and they
|> trust that you will abide by it. There's a difference.
|>
|>
You bet there is a difference. When we started ULTRIX years ago we took
the part of
our contract of "reasonable measures" very seriously. We designed the
key sequence,
showed it to AT&T, got their approval. Do you think we did it for FUN?
Sorry, I have
better things to do with my engineer's time.
Obviously our method is not foolproof. One could get around it
(surprise, surprise!!)
but it would take an act of knowledgable wrongdoing, not just a mistake
in having too
many people log in. This DEC (and AT&T) considered "reasonable measures".
Digital too "trusts" our customers, but we also wanted to to do the
right thing by our
vendors.
Apparently AT&T treats all licensees equal, it is just that some are
treated more equally
than others.
maddog (with an apology to George Orwell)
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!decwrl!bacchus.pa.dec.com!wsl.dec.com!hall
From: h...@wsl.dec.com (Jon "Maddog" Hall)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.ultrix
Subject: Re: license restriction: a real pain
Message-ID: <1990Jun22.222227.2358@wrl.dec.com>
Date: 22 Jun 90 22:22:27 GMT
References: <58806@bu-pub.bu.edu> <59043@bu.edu.bu.edu> <22585@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Sender: n...@wrl.dec.com (News)
Reply-To: h...@wsl.dec.com (Jon "Maddog" Hall)
Organization: DEC Western Software Laboratory
Lines: 30
Posted: Fri Jun 22 23:22:27 1990
Periodically I ask our licensing guru (and believe me, that is the
proper term when
it comes to licensing) to interpret our AT&T contract again and get
clarification on this.
His clarification so far is that if a person has to go through a login
procedure
where you have to give a login name and password (or the same mechanism
where you would
have to do this unless you had a .rhosts entry set up), you must be
counted as a "user".
The reasoning (I think) behind this is that you could telnet from some
other OS to a UNIX
machine and be logged into a UNIX system without having to pay a
royalty. An "rsh", on
the other hand, is used more when people are already logged in, and have
paid their
pound of flesh.
(Sigh), I will ask for clarification again.
md
P.S. Why are licensing people like GURUS? They are normally
inaccessible, you go to them,
they speak in platitudes, tell you no useful information, and then
expect you to be able
to get down the mountain in one piece. (Dave, I am only kidding....)