Anybody know if the guys at Genarts are nice enough to issue a RLM license that is allowed to run on a VM? Just got the license and the log is catching my VM and will not let the daemon run. I've requested they give me one that doesn't have the VM flag on it, just curious if they will actually be nice enough to get it to me. Sent from my iPhone To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubscribe

I just refuse to pay the floating license upgrade cost... So I will never know. It pains me the amount of cash we have shelled out to that company over the years and they will not do me favor of a floating license. We spend more money with companies that do offer floating licenses since we can track usage Realtime and it prevents my phone from ringing at night asking to move the lic... Swap vlans , open firewall port, uninstall, reinstall. Blah blah I have heard all the arguments as to why the cost... I don't care. It's not worth the 500+ per license! Out of principal -S Sent from my Sprint iPhone On May 21, 2012, at 5:40 PM, Saham Ali wrote: > Anybody know if the guys at Genarts are nice enough to issue a RLM license that is allowed to run on a VM? > Just got the license and the log is catching my VM and will not let the daemon run. > I've requested they give me one that doesn't have the VM flag on it, just curious if they will actually be nice enough to get it to me. > > Sent from my iPhone > To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubscribe To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubscribe

Are you using Xen or KVM? - Brian On May 21, 2012, at 8:40 PM, Saham Ali wrote: > Anybody know if the guys at Genarts are nice enough to issue a RLM license that is allowed to run on a VM? > Just got the license and the log is catching my VM and will not let the daemon run. > I've requested they give me one that doesn't have the VM flag on it, just curious if they will actually be nice enough to get it to me. > > Sent from my iPhone > To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubscribe To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubscribe

Attaching a floating license to a temporal VM hostid has no association with the physical world. Makes it very hard to point to a piece of hardware and say 'the licenses are locked to "that"'. And believe me, sometimes it comes to that, such as when companies 'rebrand', close an office, split into multiple entities, etc. For instance, say company X spins off a division Y. Both X and Y have a copy of the VM system. Both X and Y say they own the license. It's impossible for a third party (court of law, mediator, etc) to say 'show us your hardware, whoever has the hostid burned in the ROM is the rightful owner. Or company Z is owned by partners, and the partners go their separate ways. Who has the license now? Who can prove it? Yes, you can spoof hostids, but only one physical card is going to have the hostid burned into the ROM when the card is reset, and its unique ID printed on the chip/mobo/invoice/etc. So I can see why software companies don't like the idea of locking floating licenses to vaporware IDs. You might as well not have a license system at all, and this is unreasonable to the software vendors. On 05/21/12 20:50, Jeremy Oddo wrote: > I talked to them TODAY about this very issue. The answer is still "no" but they are getting a lot of people requesting this. I recommend we make our voices heard. The lady I spoke to was very understanding so maybe, with enough voices, they'll change their position on this. > > On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Brian Krusic > wrote: > > Are you using Xen or KVM? > > - Brian > > On May 21, 2012, at 8:40 PM, Saham Ali > wrote: > > > Anybody know if the guys at Genarts are nice enough to issue a RLM license that is allowed to run on a VM? > > Just got the license and the log is catching my VM and will not let the daemon run. > > I've requested they give me one that doesn't have the VM flag on it, just curious if they will actually be nice enough to get it to me. To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubscribe

On 05/22/12 00:14, Louis Mustill wrote: > AND they also charge you to change the host ID your > floating license is registered against... I understand this too; the cost is a disincentive for companies to constantly be moving floating permanent licenses around. The concept of a floating license is a good balance for software vendors and end users; it allows a lot of flexibility in licensing for small and large numbers of licenses. But the concept only works well if the license server is locked to a physical entity, and changing the physical entity means administrative overhead for the software vendor, and can open the vendor to abuse. Granted, some vendors perhaps overly abuse their position, and that's bad too. With Rush, I try to make it easy the first few changes by offering 2 free licenses changes initially, and after that an administrative fee to make subsequent changes. I tell people the best situation is to lock their licenses to removable hardware, so that if the mobo or disk drive dies, the licenses can be moved by the admin simply by re-locating the 'golden ethernet card' (USB hub, etc) to a new machine, and restarting the license manager there. This avoids having to request a new license, paperwork, etc. This also preserves the connection to the physical world, while allowing customers to re-locate the license server at will, without contacting the vendor. For failover situations, I use a triumvirate license server arrangement, so that three machines can act as a group, so that any one box can go down, and the other two take over license management until the third can come back up using the above technique, all without contact the vendor for a re-license. IMHO this is a perfectly reasonable way to manage business with floating licenses for the admin and the vendor. VMs really are not workable from a vendor's perspective. There may be benefits for the admin, but there's huge negatives for the vendor. But there are a number of other approaches that work well for everyone. > AND they'll only give you a 30 day license at first, > and make you request a permanent one after that... The reasoning behind this (I do it too) is to ensure the admin can verify their machine works as a license server, without having to 'test' with a permanent license. You'd be surprised how often a new license server turns out to be unworkable, and a request to re-locate the license server or cancel the move happens within the first week or so of starting a move. It makes sense to issue temp licenses for a new server so the admin can debug it. Vendors don't mind reissuing temp licenses, but it's a hassle to re-license a /permanent/ license, as that often involves a special procedure (paperwork, etc). Once the admin is sure things are working, the vendor can then issue the permanent license, and usually that goes smoothly, since the box has already been verified to work. To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubscribe

On 05/22/12 01:37, Greg Ercolano wrote: > Attaching a floating license to a temporal.. Meh, s/temporal/virtual/ Been a long day. To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubscribe

I agree that there is a lot of possibility for grey area though I have found ( maybe naively ) that most companies are pretty honest about their situation. Like the foundry we have a form that studios sign when they move hardware that they agree to delete the old licenses right away, and our EULA states with reasonable notice and if we are in doubt of the situation we could request a third party inspection of the location ( this is pretty standard and I doubt we'd ever use it - only 1 company thus far has had us change it to a third party they pick ). We use virtual servers for many things including some licensing so it's hard for me to say one thing and do another - and we really want to make it as easy as possible for studios to use our software. We don't support it by default but are generally happy to provide a license to turn it on for reputable companies. Ultimately times are changing and with the advent of cloud computing we'll need to come up with different ways of handling licensing so we might as well accept the future now. I find our #1 problem with licensing is that for a lot of people running a license server and setting up a floating license is still a difficult task - everyone seems to want simpler instructions but we can't really get more simple than save file, run server, set environment variable and go! Surprisingly the stumbling block is setting environment variables. In some ways this weeds out the %80 of the 80/20 rule but we'd also like to avoid anyone feeling frustrated. Cheers On 2012-05-22, at 4:37 AM, Greg Ercolano wrote: > > Attaching a floating license to a temporal VM hostid > has no association with the physical world. Makes it > very hard to point to a piece of hardware and say > 'the licenses are locked to "that"'. > > And believe me, sometimes it comes to that, such as > when companies 'rebrand', close an office, split into > multiple entities, etc. > > For instance, say company X spins off a division Y. > Both X and Y have a copy of the VM system. > Both X and Y say they own the license. > It's impossible for a third party (court of law, > mediator, etc) to say 'show us your hardware, > whoever has the hostid burned in the ROM is the > rightful owner. > > Or company Z is owned by partners, and the partners > go their separate ways. Who has the license now? > Who can prove it? > > Yes, you can spoof hostids, but only one physical > card is going to have the hostid burned into the ROM > when the card is reset, and its unique ID printed on > the chip/mobo/invoice/etc. > > So I can see why software companies don't like the > idea of locking floating licenses to vaporware IDs. > You might as well not have a license system at all, > and this is unreasonable to the software vendors. > > > On 05/21/12 20:50, Jeremy Oddo wrote: >> I talked to them TODAY about this very issue. The answer is still "no" but they are getting a lot of people requesting this. I recommend we make our voices heard. The lady I spoke to was very understanding so maybe, with enough voices, they'll change their position on this. >> >> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Brian Krusic > wrote: >> >> Are you using Xen or KVM? >> >> - Brian >> >> On May 21, 2012, at 8:40 PM, Saham Ali > wrote: >> >>> Anybody know if the guys at Genarts are nice enough to issue a RLM license that is allowed to run on a VM? >>> Just got the license and the log is catching my VM and will not let the daemon run. >>> I've requested they give me one that doesn't have the VM flag on it, just curious if they will actually be nice enough to get it to me. > To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubscribe To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubscribe

Er, leveraging purchases that make actual sense based on principle? That sounds like spite to me. There are CERTAINLY instances whereby the cost of your salary and time to move those node-locked lics, boxes, etc around FAR outweighs the cost of the upgrade in license. Ignoring a fact like that for the ability to spite a vendor out of money that you're still costing your company is downright absurd. MPC NYC Dan Young | Systems Engineer 434 Broadway, 9th Floor, New York City, 10013 T 212.915.3120 | C 347.334.0132 www.moving-picture.com On 21/05/2012 20:57, "Saker Klippsten" wrote: >I just refuse to pay the floating license upgrade cost... So I will >never know. > >It pains me the amount of cash we have shelled out to that company over >the years and they will not do me favor of a floating license. We spend >more money with companies that do offer floating licenses since we can >track usage Realtime and it prevents my phone from ringing at night >asking to move the lic... Swap vlans , open firewall port, uninstall, >reinstall. Blah blah > >I have heard all the arguments as to why the cost... I don't care. It's >not worth the 500+ per license! Out of principal > >-S > > >Sent from my Sprint iPhone > >On May 21, 2012, at 5:40 PM, Saham Ali wrote: > >> Anybody know if the guys at Genarts are nice enough to issue a RLM >>license that is allowed to run on a VM? >> Just got the license and the log is catching my VM and will not let the >>daemon run. >> I've requested they give me one that doesn't have the VM flag on it, >>just curious if they will actually be nice enough to get it to me. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to >>mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubs >>cribe >To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to >mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubsc >ribe To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubscribe

On 22/05/2012 4:37 AM, Greg Ercolano wrote: > For instance, say company X spins off a division Y. > Both X and Y have a copy of the VM system. > Both X and Y say they own the license. Yes a company could do this but it would be clearly obvious who owns the license by following the paper work. If X spins off a division and calls it Y, X owns the license. If they give a copy to X or a copy is taken of the VM running the license services, X is in the wrong for doing so and so is Y for having it. you can't play ignorance with this stuff and a judge won't buy into it. This shit practice does nothing but cause pain for honest people and make revenue for the gouging snake eyed vendors with shifty grins. there is no other reason for it in my eyes. they can blow all the smoke up customers asses they want about the 'why', but at the end of the day its all about extra revenue. Its like a lock on the front door of your house, its there only to keep the honest people out. if a criminal wants in, he'll get it, if a comapny wants to use an illegal license, they will do so; it won't matter if the vendor offers a floating license or not. A company is not likely to be more favorable to illegal practices that could jeopardize themselves just because they are running a license server on a VM. The same person who would make that decision at a company also knows about piratebay and the likes I'd think. is there actually any products out there that do not have a liberation methods out on the net? what a customer relationship... ' we don't trust you, please continue to give us money tho.. '. how long do you think it'll be before a patch is out on the net that removes the VM traces of a VM so it becomes more difficult to determined if its in fact a VM? snakes... (!) and how was your long weekend? weather was great! haha -g To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubscribe

We do not move licenses around enough to warrant a floating license. So I am not costing the company money... It's our sanity of keeping track of rental boxes. I can call in and have them reset The serial #. They don't charge for that. I figured they would wake up to the fact that they are loosing money more than me ;) Sent from my Sprint iPhone On May 22, 2012, at 7:12 AM, Dan Young wrote: > Er, leveraging purchases that make actual sense based on principle? That > sounds like spite to me. > > There are CERTAINLY instances whereby the cost of your salary and time to > move those node-locked lics, boxes, etc around FAR outweighs the cost of > the upgrade in license. Ignoring a fact like that for the ability to spite > a vendor out of money that you're still costing your company is downright > absurd. > > MPC NYC > > Dan Young | Systems Engineer > 434 Broadway, 9th Floor, New York City, 10013 > T 212.915.3120 | C 347.334.0132 > > > www.moving-picture.com > > > > > > > > > > On 21/05/2012 20:57, "Saker Klippsten" wrote: > >> I just refuse to pay the floating license upgrade cost... So I will >> never know. >> >> It pains me the amount of cash we have shelled out to that company over >> the years and they will not do me favor of a floating license. We spend >> more money with companies that do offer floating licenses since we can >> track usage Realtime and it prevents my phone from ringing at night >> asking to move the lic... Swap vlans , open firewall port, uninstall, >> reinstall. Blah blah >> >> I have heard all the arguments as to why the cost... I don't care. It's >> not worth the 500+ per license! Out of principal >> >> -S >> >> >> Sent from my Sprint iPhone >> >> On May 21, 2012, at 5:40 PM, Saham Ali wrote: >> >>> Anybody know if the guys at Genarts are nice enough to issue a RLM >>> license that is allowed to run on a VM? >>> Just got the license and the log is catching my VM and will not let the >>> daemon run. >>> I've requested they give me one that doesn't have the VM flag on it, >>> just curious if they will actually be nice enough to get it to me. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to >>> mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubs >>> cribe >> To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to >> mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubsc >> ribe > > To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubscribe To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubscribe

Knowing vendors the way I do, expecting them to "wise up" is a classic losing game :( MPC NYC Dan Young | Systems Engineer 434 Broadway, 9th Floor, New York City, 10013 T 212.915.3120 | C 347.334.0132 www.moving-picture.com On 22/05/2012 12:09, "Saker Klippsten" wrote: >We do not move licenses around enough to warrant a floating license. So I >am not costing the company money... > >It's our sanity of keeping track of rental boxes. I can call in and have >them reset The serial #. They don't charge for that. >I figured they would wake up to the fact that they are loosing money more >than me ;) > > > > > > > > > > >Sent from my Sprint iPhone > >On May 22, 2012, at 7:12 AM, Dan Young wrote: > >> Er, leveraging purchases that make actual sense based on principle? That >> sounds like spite to me. >> >> There are CERTAINLY instances whereby the cost of your salary and time >>to >> move those node-locked lics, boxes, etc around FAR outweighs the cost of >> the upgrade in license. Ignoring a fact like that for the ability to >>spite >> a vendor out of money that you're still costing your company is >>downright >> absurd. >> >> MPC NYC >> >> Dan Young | Systems Engineer >> 434 Broadway, 9th Floor, New York City, 10013 >> T 212.915.3120 | C 347.334.0132 >> >> >> www.moving-picture.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 21/05/2012 20:57, "Saker Klippsten" wrote: >> >>> I just refuse to pay the floating license upgrade cost... So I will >>> never know. >>> >>> It pains me the amount of cash we have shelled out to that company over >>> the years and they will not do me favor of a floating license. We spend >>> more money with companies that do offer floating licenses since we can >>> track usage Realtime and it prevents my phone from ringing at night >>> asking to move the lic... Swap vlans , open firewall port, uninstall, >>> reinstall. Blah blah >>> >>> I have heard all the arguments as to why the cost... I don't care. >>>It's >>> not worth the 500+ per license! Out of principal >>> >>> -S >>> >>> >>> Sent from my Sprint iPhone >>> >>> On May 21, 2012, at 5:40 PM, Saham Ali wrote: >>> >>>> Anybody know if the guys at Genarts are nice enough to issue a RLM >>>> license that is allowed to run on a VM? >>>> Just got the license and the log is catching my VM and will not let >>>>the >>>> daemon run. >>>> I've requested they give me one that doesn't have the VM flag on it, >>>> just curious if they will actually be nice enough to get it to me. >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to >>>> >>>>mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsu >>>>bs >>>> cribe >>> To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to >>> >>>mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsub >>>sc >>> ribe >> >> To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to >>mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubs >>cribe >To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to >mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubsc >ribe To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubscribe

On 05/22/2012 11:14 AM, Greg Whynott wrote: > This shit practice does nothing but cause pain for honest people I agree completely. For us, a license server is one of the key service in the office since without it, artists can not work and renders cannot run. For that kind of service, we want to make it available as much as possible. Having 2 redundant servers running virtual machines is a really good way to do that. Forcing people to use non-vm servers, forces them to purchase another machine and have it under expensive 4 hour support. Even with that, if this server goes down, it means that there WILL be downtime as either someone will have to fix it or a service call will have to be made. In most studios this is simply unacceptable. So vendors should find a way to make their license system work with VMs. period. Francis -- Francis Provencher Directeur des Technologies/Director of Technologies Newbreed Visual Effects 390 Notre-Dame Ouest, Suite 500 Montr?al, Qu?bec H2Y 1T9 M: fprovencher@newbreedvfx.com T: 514-316-4444 C: 514-831-9433 To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubscribe

On 05/22/12 08:14, Greg Whynott wrote: > On 22/05/2012 4:37 AM, Greg Ercolano wrote: >> For instance, say company X spins off a division Y. >> Both X and Y have a copy of the VM system. >> Both X and Y say they own the license. > > Yes a company could do this but it would be clearly obvious who owns the > license by following the paper work. If X spins off a division and > calls it Y, X owns the license. If they give a copy to X or a copy > is taken of the VM running the license services, X is in the wrong for > doing so and so is Y for having it. you can't play ignorance with this > stuff and a judge won't buy into it. You want to avoid having to go to trial; it's better to keep ownership inherently obvious.. 'licenses follow the hardware' is one way to keep it clear. It's important esp. in the boundary conditions of change of ownership where the paperwork process is either informal or incomplete (company breakups often aren't pretty) and the politics can be delicate. Many software companies won't allow license transfers for this reason; they simply don't want to have to find themselves resolving disputes between entities. > This shit practice does nothing but cause pain for honest people and > make revenue for the gouging snake eyed vendors with shifty grins. > there is no other reason for it in my eyes. they can blow all the > smoke up customers asses they want about the 'why', but at the end of > the day its all about extra revenue. Some companies do gouge, or in some cases appear to gouge when they're actually trying to cover costs. Depends. I'd like to think failover licensing systems solve this, so that a box can die, and the other license server(s) take over, allowing the admin time to re-configure a new box.. similar to a raid. I could also see where a license system could fail over to a timed 30 day temp license if the license server is unreachable, so that an outage doesn't immediately cause downtime, and leaves more time to re-construct hardware. I see where admins are under pressure when a license server dies if everything stops right away, so preventing that issue is really important for the vendors to figure out, as it's a nightmare for the admins and production. I think that goal can be achieved without severing the association to hardware. Sounds like something vendors need to address and agree upon, and this might be a good forum for discussing a technical approach that works for everyone. > Its like a lock on the front door > of your house, its there only to keep the honest people out. It's true it's very much like the lock on one's front door; and I think vendors will have a hard time disconnecting with the physical license concept for the same reason we all like that lock on our front door. I think more than just keeping honest people honest, it defines a clear clear protocol; a lock on a front door forces honest people to wait until the homeowner lets them in. If it were just a latch, a large percentage of people would just undo the latch and walk in without waiting first. Locks can be a pain at times, but they seem necessary to define a protocol for doing business. VMs are a recent thing, and many software vendors aren't sure what to make of it. VMs are more of a latch. But perhaps latches are all that's needed, we'll have to see what vendors come up with. Or more precisely, what companies that make licensing systems come up with, since most software vendors use third party software to manage licensing. > how long do you think it'll be before a patch is out on the net that > removes the VM traces of a VM so it becomes more difficult to determined > if its in fact a VM? The vendors would perhaps revert to locking floating licenses to dedicated hardware like dongles. Or perhaps a single dongle with multiple cords for an auto-failover design. Bad guys could patch around that too, no lock is perfect. But hopefully that's the pathological case like a lock picker. I think primarily vendors are just trying to define a clear method for doing business. Granted, some might be abusing this for financial gains; I won't dispute that point, and customers should be frustrated and communicate that to the vendors. Charging extra for floats seems excessive. I think what's happening there is they're trying to cover the high cost of the third party licensing system they're using, as sometimes those guys charge the vendor excessively. (Charge a percentage based on the number of customers) To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubscribe

On 05/22/12 10:42, Joseph Boswell wrote: > Spoofing already defeats pretty much every license manager out there, and most of us (I would hope) have been hosting licenses on VM's for many years already... Anyone who was going to pirate the software isn't going to be stopped by RLM/FlexLM or any of the other license managers anyway so all this really does is make it harder for the folks who just want to purchase the licenses, put it on a VM that won't die and get on with our lives. > > Vendors could just give out a couple hardware dongles that would provide redundancy and still be able to be connected to VM's, problem over. Most are too busy wasting their time trying to reinvent the wheel and make their own unhackable license manager. > > License management isn't something that needs to be the beast that it is. I'd agree there. I'm trying to think if there's a way to avoid dongles, since I know many vendors find them a hassle, because they don't actually make the hardware themselves, they have to buy them and send them to the end user. And sometimes the dongles themselves have weird problems. Or so I'm told by one vendor who eventually switched away, IIRC> I've always thought locking licenses to USB ethernet devices (or other removable ethernet devices) is a good way to keep licenses moveable without contacting a vendor. To maintain uptime, mix the above with a multiple license server system (like a triumvirate) allows there to be failover so that licenses keep running 24/7. And like a raid, allows time to rebuild the failed equipment while continuing to run in a 'degraded mode'. To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubscribe

Hey Greg, Please don't take my email as an attack, i like debating and i have a sore spot for all things surrounding 'licensing'.. Your team's policy regarding 2 free moves is super and indicative of a group who has an understanding of reality in relation to sys-admin'n. with that in mind ...... > it's better to keep > ownership inherently obvious.. 'licenses follow the hardware' > is one way to keep it clear. yes that is one way, there are others. It may be better for some situations but it is far from ideal for all. If a contract is good for 99% of the rest of the world; for both the tangible and non-tangible, and for things worth much much more than a license; what makes a software license so special to require this crazy restriction? Going back to the company split up example you stated in a previous email, how does it not being on a VM make it any more or less of a mystery as to who is the rightful owner? consider: company X spins division Z off into its own entity, Z can take the license server with them and X can call the vendor and claim the server blew up and here is my new host ID, cut me a new license please... thanks! > > It's important esp. in the boundary conditions of change > of ownership where the paperwork process is either informal > or incomplete (company breakups often aren't pretty) and the > politics can be delicate. I have no census or surveys to reference, but I suspect these situations are by a huge factor far less frequent than a situation where an admin is trying to the best thing for his employer and get on with his/her day. I'd venture a guess at about 10,000 to 1. We might as well make a law prohibiting scratching your nose while in your car driving, because one person years ago caused an accident while doing so. if we made laws/policy towards all the 'might happens', it would be a crappy place to live. > > I'd like to think failover licensing systems solve this, > so that a box can die, and the other license server(s) > take over, allowing the admin time to re-configure a new box.. > similar to a raid. that would be nice/ideal, but it doesn't appear to prevalent yet. And it doesn't really address the lack of trust factor. All these software solutions can have their security circumvented by various means. so i can't run a vm and duplicate an existing license server or give my spun off division a copy of the vm - but i can go out and download a flexLM crack and be done with it. Now i can have 50 license servers handing out licenses for vendor X's product, which you probably can run on a VM too... > VMs are a recent thing, and many software vendors aren't sure what to > make of it. VMs are more of a latch. But perhaps latches are all > that's needed, we'll have to see what vendors come up with. I had a software vendor say that exact thing to me when i was whining to them why I couldn't install the license server on a VM about 10 years ago. I don't think that statement holds much water anymore. The velvet ropes set up to guide or prevent people from entering restricted areas work, and a 2 year old could circumvent them. the point here is most people are honest. for some vendors, perhaps it is a futile attempt to exert some control and/or to address sales man/accounting insecurities. make them feel good, even if its a latent sense of security - at the cost of inconvenience to those who put the food on the table of said vendor. take care, greg To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubscribe

On 22/05/2012 2:18 PM, Greg Ercolano wrote: > I'm trying to think if there's a way to avoid dongles, since I know > many vendors find them a hassle, how about some sort of two factor auth being required every 6 months or so.. where the server has to be able to 'call-home' for the duration of the authorization. license server on VM would require both a key file and the operator would have to know the assigned passcode and his PIN. might be a bit of a pain in the back side.... call home seems to be sneaking in more and more. I know of a shop who got a call very recently from 'The Foundry' claiming they were using a pirated copy of their software. thing is, the machines are all locked down so only the IT team can do installs, and the shop does not use _anything_ from that vendor. the call was something along the lines of "you have been using product X on your network, you owe us N dollars, how would you like to settle this". it was almost as if it was a dry call in an effort to drum up some dollars. the only thing we came up with was perhaps someone from outside who was onsite with a personal laptop using our guest network had something installed from them.. -g To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubscribe

On 22/05/2012 3:19 PM, Joseph Boswell wrote: > MPAA / Network "regulations." Nothing on the production network should > be able to route off that network under any circumstances wow. my last gig we dealt with PHI (patient health information), which is considered as or more secure than banking information. We had secure networks which did not have any default routes set, and had their own firewalls/policy, but we were not under a mandate like that. is there a page / url which touches on what you said about the routing? sounds like it would be a good read. -g To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubscribe

In a message from 5/22/12 11:18 AM, "Greg Ercolano" wrote: >On 05/22/12 10:42, Joseph Boswell wrote: >> Spoofing already defeats pretty much every license manager out there, >>and most of us (I would hope) have been hosting licenses on VM's for >>many years already... Anyone who was going to pirate the software isn't >>going to be stopped by RLM/FlexLM or any of the other license managers >>anyway so all this really does is make it harder for the folks who just >>want to purchase the licenses, put it on a VM that won't die and get on >>with our lives. >> >> Vendors could just give out a couple hardware dongles that would >>provide redundancy and still be able to be connected to VM's, problem >>over. Most are too busy wasting their time trying to reinvent the wheel >>and make their own unhackable license manager. >> >> License management isn't something that needs to be the beast that it >>is. > > I'd agree there. > > I'm trying to think if there's a way to avoid dongles, since > I know many vendors find them a hassle, because they don't > actually make the hardware themselves, they have to buy them > and send them to the end user. And sometimes the dongles themselves > have weird problems. Or so I'm told by one vendor who eventually > switched away, IIRC> If I was running a licensing company, I'd support VM's by offering two licensing modes. One is 'classic' floats based on a licensing server running direct on hardware. No VM support, but it doesn't need to phone home. The other is a VM appliance that phones home. You provide software vendors with a VM generator toolkit, and the result is that the customer download portal for end users offers a prebaked VM image with your licenses installed. Support VMWare, HyperV, Xen and KVM. It would be easy to make this bootable image

The problem, Greg, is that MPAA changes per-studio, per-post house. For instance, Warner Bros might be tough on you as X company on X film. Universal Studios might not give many shits as X company. It's ever-moving goal posts. MPAA audits happen on the regular, and even those of us in office branches that are strictly advertising/commercials still have to adhere to certain policies. Different for everyone, always a ballache, always necessary however. MPC NYC Dan Young | Systems Engineer 434 Broadway, 9th Floor, New York City, 10013 T 212.915.3120 | C 347.334.0132 www.moving-picture.com On 22/05/2012 15:31, "Greg Whynott" wrote: >On 22/05/2012 3:19 PM, Joseph Boswell wrote: >> MPAA / Network "regulations." Nothing on the production network should >> be able to route off that network under any circumstances > > >wow. my last gig we dealt with PHI (patient health information), which >is considered as or more secure than banking information. We had >secure networks which did not have any default routes set, and had >their own firewalls/policy, but we were not under a mandate like that. > >is there a page / url which touches on what you said about the routing? >sounds like it would be a good read. > >-g > > >To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to >mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubsc >ribe To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubscribe

The problem, Greg, is that MPAA changes per-studio, per-post house. For instance, Warner Bros might be tough on you as X company on X film. Universal Studios might not give many shits as X company. It's ever-moving goal posts. MPAA audits happen on the regular, and even those of us in office branches that are strictly advertising/commercials still have to adhere to certain policies. Different for everyone, always a ballache, always necessary however. MPC NYC Dan Young | Systems Engineer 434 Broadway, 9th Floor, New York City, 10013 T 212.915.3120 | C 347.334.0132 www.moving-picture.com On 22/05/2012 15:31, "Greg Whynott" wrote: >On 22/05/2012 3:19 PM, Joseph Boswell wrote: >> MPAA / Network "regulations." Nothing on the production network should >> be able to route off that network under any circumstances > > >wow. my last gig we dealt with PHI (patient health information), which >is considered as or more secure than banking information. We had >secure networks which did not have any default routes set, and had >their own firewalls/policy, but we were not under a mandate like that. > >is there a page / url which touches on what you said about the routing? >sounds like it would be a good read. > >-g > > >To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to >mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubsc >ribe To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubscribe

Thanks Dan, I was going to say in my last email that the MPAA sounds like a bunch of overpowered snobs and enjoy running free and wild. If they shoot from the hip and make per instance policy, that is just wrong. everyone should have to play by the same rules. are these the same tards that made blank cd/dvd's so expensive with their "you might put pirate content on there, so we have to tax you"? -g On 22/05/2012 3:35 PM, Dan Young wrote: > The problem, Greg, is that MPAA changes per-studio, per-post house. > > For instance, Warner Bros might be tough on you as X company on X film. > Universal Studios might not give many shits as X company. > > It's ever-moving goal posts. MPAA audits happen on the regular, and even > those of us in office branches that are strictly advertising/commercials > still have to adhere to certain policies. Different for everyone, always a > ballache, always necessary however. > > MPC NYC > > Dan Young | Systems Engineer > 434 Broadway, 9th Floor, New York City, 10013 > T 212.915.3120 | C 347.334.0132 > > > www.moving-picture.com > > > > > > > > > > On 22/05/2012 15:31, "Greg Whynott" wrote: > >> On 22/05/2012 3:19 PM, Joseph Boswell wrote: >>> MPAA / Network "regulations." Nothing on the production network should >>> be able to route off that network under any circumstances >> >> wow. my last gig we dealt with PHI (patient health information), which >> is considered as or more secure than banking information. We had >> secure networks which did not have any default routes set, and had >> their own firewalls/policy, but we were not under a mandate like that. >> >> is there a page / url which touches on what you said about the routing? >> sounds like it would be a good read. >> >> -g >> >> >> To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to >> mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubsc >> ribe > To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubscribe To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubscribe

One nameless company in particular comes to mind as being fairly stringent re: MPAA guidelines. I did chuckle at their insistence that all USB ports on all machines had to be physically disabled in the BIOS. I did query this with them, and they said it was an immutable rule. I was waiting for them to come and do an audit, so they could inspect one of the machines. Of course, this inspection would be somewhat impeded by the lack of a keyboard and mouse to use (no PS2 ports at all on the machines). Never materialized though :( B. On 22/05/2012 20:40, Greg Whynott wrote: > Thanks Dan, > > I was going to say in my last email that the MPAA sounds like a bunch > of overpowered snobs and enjoy running free and wild. If they shoot > from the hip and make per instance policy, that is just wrong. > everyone should have to play by the same rules. > > are these the same tards that made blank cd/dvd's so expensive with > their "you might put pirate content on there, so we have to tax you"? > > -g > > > > > On 22/05/2012 3:35 PM, Dan Young wrote: >> The problem, Greg, is that MPAA changes per-studio, per-post house. >> >> For instance, Warner Bros might be tough on you as X company on X film. >> Universal Studios might not give many shits as X company. >> >> It's ever-moving goal posts. MPAA audits happen on the regular, and even >> those of us in office branches that are strictly advertising/commercials >> still have to adhere to certain policies. Different for everyone, >> always a >> ballache, always necessary however. >> >> MPC NYC >> >> Dan Young | Systems Engineer >> 434 Broadway, 9th Floor, New York City, 10013 >> T 212.915.3120 | C 347.334.0132 >> >> >> www.moving-picture.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 22/05/2012 15:31, "Greg Whynott" wrote: >> >>> On 22/05/2012 3:19 PM, Joseph Boswell wrote: >>>> MPAA / Network "regulations." Nothing on the production network should >>>> be able to route off that network under any circumstances >>> >>> wow. my last gig we dealt with PHI (patient health information), >>> which >>> is considered as or more secure than banking information. We had >>> secure networks which did not have any default routes set, and had >>> their own firewalls/policy, but we were not under a mandate like that. >>> >>> is there a page / url which touches on what you said about the routing? >>> sounds like it would be a good read. >>> >>> -g >>> >>> >>> To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to >>> mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubsc >>> >>> ribe >> To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to >> mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubscribe > > To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to > mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubscribe > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2012.0.2171 / Virus Database: 2425/4979 - Release Date: 05/05/12 > Internal Virus Database is out of date. To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubscribe

I don't believe they consider it shooing from the hip, but different spots doing different types of work are subject to different policies. I don't know if there's any documentation on exactly how these rules are enforced or specified, what changes what, or if it truly is bespoke as it goes. I'd personally love to read some of their guidelines. I think the most incredible thing I've ever read about MPAA was; - USB blocking must be on on accessible ports - This totally made sense to me, no problem grasping that at all. Block devices clubbed before the spin up the platters, as it were. This was then modified to be; - You can turn off USB blocking, so long as you have CCTV that covers the front USB ports. This stuck me as horrified. The former meant that they had a genuine interest in stopping the leakage of frames. As I have mainly worked in advertising, if a frame leaked and someone genuinely wanted to see it, it would be the most successful viral campaign ever, naturally it's not the same to film. It can shut studios, cost millions and turn off lights. The latter however, meant that they were no longer concerned with PREVENTION, but rather with the ability to PENALISE and lay responsibility. That just boggles my mind, particularly as the former would cover the latter if it wasn't even possible to remove things. My most favourite part of this? Find me one employee with access to frames that could ever afford to repay an MPAA lawsuit if it came down to it..... ;) MPC NYC Dan Young | Systems Engineer 434 Broadway, 9th Floor, New York City, 10013 T 212.915.3120 | C 347.334.0132 www.moving-picture.com On 22/05/2012 15:40, "Greg Whynott" wrote: >Thanks Dan, > >I was going to say in my last email that the MPAA sounds like a bunch of >overpowered snobs and enjoy running free and wild. If they shoot from >the hip and make per instance policy, that is just wrong. everyone >should have to play by the same rules. > >are these the same tards that made blank cd/dvd's so expensive with >their "you might put pirate content on there, so we have to tax you"? > >-g > > > > >On 22/05/2012 3:35 PM, Dan Young wrote: >> The problem, Greg, is that MPAA changes per-studio, per-post house. >> >> For instance, Warner Bros might be tough on you as X company on X film. >> Universal Studios might not give many shits as X company. >> >> It's ever-moving goal posts. MPAA audits happen on the regular, and even >> those of us in office branches that are strictly advertising/commercials >> still have to adhere to certain policies. Different for everyone, >>always a >> ballache, always necessary however. >> >> MPC NYC >> >> Dan Young | Systems Engineer >> 434 Broadway, 9th Floor, New York City, 10013 >> T 212.915.3120 | C 347.334.0132 >> >> >> www.moving-picture.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 22/05/2012 15:31, "Greg Whynott" wrote: >> >>> On 22/05/2012 3:19 PM, Joseph Boswell wrote: >>>> MPAA / Network "regulations." Nothing on the production network should >>>> be able to route off that network under any circumstances >>> >>> wow. my last gig we dealt with PHI (patient health information), >>>which >>> is considered as or more secure than banking information. We had >>> secure networks which did not have any default routes set, and had >>> their own firewalls/policy, but we were not under a mandate like that. >>> >>> is there a page / url which touches on what you said about the routing? >>> sounds like it would be a good read. >>> >>> -g >>> >>> >>> To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to >>> >>>mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsub >>>sc >>> ribe >> To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to >>mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubs >>cribe > >To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to >mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubsc >ribe To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubscribe

On 22 May 2012 20:35, Dan Young wrote: > The problem, Greg, is that MPAA changes per-studio, per-post house. > > For instance, Warner Bros might be tough on you as X company on X film. > Universal Studios might not give many shits as X company. > > It's ever-moving goal posts. Sorry Dan, this isn't quite right although I understand why it may appear to be the case. The base MPAA security best practice guidelines are the same for everyone and are updated infrequently, most recently about a year ago. There are additional best practices for specific parts of the industry, e.g. VFX, and these are also applied consistently. The MPAA acts on behalf of its members, the six major US movie studios, and surveys (rather than audits) companies at their request. The idea is that they work with you to help ensure everyone in the industry is working to an acceptable security standard. There is no concept of pass or fail but they issue a report after a survey which is sent to all their member studios and that can have an impact on business if it highlights serious problems. In addition to the MPAA best practices, some of the studios have their own security standards that can be more stringent and they do audit their vendors, particularly around particularly high profile productions for which they may put additional rules in place. That's probably why you get the impression that there are moving goalposts. Sure, there is scope for improvement in some of the specific best practices but the MPAA security program is a good thing for the industry as it helps ensure everyone is competing on a level playing field and that the studios have confidence in the security of their assets. More information, including all the best practice documentation, is available at: http://www.fightfilmtheft.org/facility-security-program.html Cheers, Nick To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubscribe

Check and mate! Truly as a man who would know best about MPAA. MPC NYC Dan Young | Systems Engineer 434 Broadway, 9th Floor, New York City, 10013 T 212.915.3120 | C 347.334.0132 www.moving-picture.com On 23/05/2012 17:29, "Nick Cannon" wrote: >On 22 May 2012 20:35, Dan Young wrote: >> The problem, Greg, is that MPAA changes per-studio, per-post house. >> >> For instance, Warner Bros might be tough on you as X company on X film. >> Universal Studios might not give many shits as X company. >> >> It's ever-moving goal posts. > >Sorry Dan, this isn't quite right although I understand why it may >appear to be the case. > >The base MPAA security best practice guidelines are the same for >everyone and are updated infrequently, most recently about a year ago. >There are additional best practices for specific parts of the >industry, e.g. VFX, and these are also applied consistently. > >The MPAA acts on behalf of its members, the six major US movie >studios, and surveys (rather than audits) companies at their request. >The idea is that they work with you to help ensure everyone in the >industry is working to an acceptable security standard. There is no >concept of pass or fail but they issue a report after a survey which >is sent to all their member studios and that can have an impact on >business if it highlights serious problems. > >In addition to the MPAA best practices, some of the studios have their >own security standards that can be more stringent and they do audit >their vendors, particularly around particularly high profile >productions for which they may put additional rules in place. That's >probably why you get the impression that there are moving goalposts. > >Sure, there is scope for improvement in some of the specific best >practices but the MPAA security program is a good thing for the >industry as it helps ensure everyone is competing on a level playing >field and that the studios have confidence in the security of their >assets. More information, including all the best practice >documentation, is available at: > >http://www.fightfilmtheft.org/facility-security-program.html > >Cheers, > >Nick >To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to >mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubsc >ribe To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubscribe

On 23/05/2012, at 2:29 AM, Francis Provencher wrote: > On 05/22/2012 11:14 AM, Greg Whynott wrote: >> This shit practice does nothing but cause pain for honest people > > I agree completely. So do I. When will software vendors learn that license managers are there to help honest people stay honest. Dishonest people just download their software from (name your favourite illegal sharing service), license managers do not stop them at all. We use floating license managers to assist us to stay within the terms of our license agreements. With several hundred employees, we need to deploy standard images, it is impractical to individually install software apart from a few boutique applications. The license manager permits us to install the software everywhere but make sure that only the people who are meant to use the software do. Our license managers have been virtualized for years, if you need 24x7 service that really is the only way to go. Plus, we have dozens of licenses for different products, having to negotiate a new license agreement with each vendor every time our license server hardware changes would require us to take on an extra staff member just for this, to say nothing of the disruption to end users during the change-over. Thankfully, the vast majority of our software vendors ARE reasonable people and do the right thing by us regarding licensing. But there are some out there who make it so difficult that they make me want to find a de-licensed copy of their software. No, I haven't succumbed yet but I'm sure there would be many who do. End of rant. :-) Jeremy p.s. if you have more than 10 or so people in the company chances are the license manager will not be installed on the same machine as the application, and it is quite possible that the people responsible for license management know little or nothing of the product being licensed. License managers which require you to install the product in order to work also cause grief. -- Jeremy Webber Senior Systems Engineer Animal Logic Pty Ltd T: +61 2 9383 4837 F: +61 2 9383 4801 To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubscribe

On 25/05/2012 3:42 PM, Nick Allevato wrote: > > What's best for most people isn't always best for the business in > question....this includes licensing tech, limitations, VM tech, etc. > Maybe someone could explain what the vendor's hang up is with VMs in a way which makes sense, because what I've seen so far seems more like smoke and mirrors than facts or reasonable explanations. We are lead to believe it is due to the ability to give a 'copy' of the VM to another party, or run multiple instances illegally. We have demonstrated that it would be easier to run a cracked license server or the spoof MAC/hardware, and forget about the cloned VM. It would also take less time to setup, and you would get _ALL_ the features, not a sub-set you paid for on the VM host. Obviously downloading a cracked license is easier, quicker, gives you more features and is infinity easier to hand out copies to your 'spun off departments' and friends..... Do the vendors believe that a customer is more likely to partake in criminal activities because they are using a VM for a license server? It seems so. Should car dealers not be allowed to sell certain types of cars, or tell you were you can and can not drive them because there is potential for miss use/criminal activity with said vehicle? Do they install governors in them to limit how fast you can go? We explored the 'paper work /license follows the hardware' idea, which as stated previously doesn't hold water when you consider you can phone up the vendor and say ' the license server burst into flames and is dead, here is my new hostID, cut me a new license please' and they will. Now you have 2 license servers... you would end up in the same predicament if you where to clone the VM, 2 copies of the license server where you should only have 1. where is the difference? which is easier to do? which gives you more bang for your efforts? which will fit on a 1 gig UBS stick so you can give everyone you meet a copy? not the VM. they all know software gets pirated and misused. when vms came out, it appears the thinking was "hey there is an opportunity here for miss use, even tho it'll account for about less than 1% of the instances of pirating our stuff, lets prevent the use of it on a vm and piss off 50% (or more) of our customers and make life more difficult them and _not_ the bad guy." I'd be interested in known how much cloned VMs account for in terms of pirated licenses.. my opinion is the decision to restrict is based more on a poor attitude than it is business related, but i could be wrong. Why do some allow you and others not? if it was business related, you would think they would all have a common stand on it. and as a last gripe, some charge you to change your license hostID. that is bunk. you just paid lord knows how many thousands of dollars for the software, another pile of money to support, and they want to ding you when you call up with a license change request? why isnt' that part of the support? if i call up and say "this wiget in your software isnt' working, i need help", you may be on the phone for hours or days... A license change request would take about 5 minutes of effort. 5 minutes vers days of someones time.... another argument made of wet paper bags. friday rage! hahha.. have a great weekend, greg To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubscribe

Slight bit of irony that you wax poetically for free software, yet include a legal clause regarding distributing confidential email? >-----Original Message----- >From: Nick Allevato [mailto:nick@weareroyale.com] >Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 03:42 PM >To: discuss@studiosysadmins.com >Subject: Re: [SSA-Discuss] Genarts RLM > >Howdy all, > >Remember, this discussion is all in the context of private companies attempting to protect their property and protect their profit. > >While I don't disagree with this completely, I DO think that technological evolution is stifled by business interests. > >What's best for most people isn't always best for the business in question....this includes licensing tech, limitations, VM tech, etc. > >Again, I think there is a fundamental issue with licensing IN GENERAL, not just software...but DRM in content as well. > >Digital technology and the internet is considered a disrupted technology and has instigated a paradigm shift in revenue generation. > >If everything was free then we wouldn't need profit. Digital technology enables this. Instead of one company making a piece of software and only the rich ones being able to buy it and produce content we wind up where everyone can use the software and create new things for humanity as a whole. > >Idealism? Maybe. Communism? Hardly. Technologicalism? Definitely. > >-nick > > > >nick allevato >information technology > >m. 661.645.3507 >o. 323.337.9990 >im. nick@weareroyale.com > >w. www.weareroyale.com > > >This electronically transmitted message contains information that is privileged and confidential and subject to legal restrictions and penalties regarding its unauthorized disclosure or other use. You are prohibited from copying, distributing, or otherwise using this information if you are not the intended recipient. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us immediately by phone or return email and delete this e-mail and all the attachments from your system. Thank you. To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubscribe

Bawahahaashaaahaaaa. Wow, now this is funny. - Brian On May 25, 2012, at 7:26 PM, bill@yuco.com wrote: > > Slight bit of irony that you wax poetically for free software, yet include a legal clause regarding distributing confidential email? > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Nick Allevato [mailto:nick@weareroyale.com] >> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 03:42 PM >> To: discuss@studiosysadmins.com >> Subject: Re: [SSA-Discuss] Genarts RLM >> >> Howdy all, >> >> Remember, this discussion is all in the context of private companies attempting to protect their property and protect their profit. >> >> While I don't disagree with this completely, I DO think that technological evolution is stifled by business interests. >> >> What's best for most people isn't always best for the business in question....this includes licensing tech, limitations, VM tech, etc. >> >> Again, I think there is a fundamental issue with licensing IN GENERAL, not just software...but DRM in content as well. >> >> Digital technology and the internet is considered a disrupted technology and has instigated a paradigm shift in revenue generation. >> >> If everything was free then we wouldn't need profit. Digital technology enables this. Instead of one company making a piece of software and only the rich ones being able to buy it and produce content we wind up where everyone can use the software and create new things for humanity as a whole. >> >> Idealism? Maybe. Communism? Hardly. Technologicalism? Definitely. >> >> -nick >> >> >> >> nick allevato >> information technology >> >> m. 661.645.3507 >> o. 323.337.9990 >> im. nick@weareroyale.com >> >> w. www.weareroyale.com >> >> >> This electronically transmitted message contains information that is privileged and confidential and subject to legal restrictions and penalties regarding its unauthorized disclosure or other use. You are prohibited from copying, distributing, or otherwise using this information if you are not the intended recipient. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us immediately by phone or return email and delete this e-mail and all the attachments from your system. Thank you. > > > > To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubscribe To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubscribe