[p4] read-only licenses for purposes of software distribution

[Glenn Kasten]

Our company sells source code. We would be interested in distributing our
products via Perforce. There are numerous advantages to this over the way we
distribute now. However, the cost of a Perforce license for each of our
customers would be prohibitive, even if we passed it on to the customer.
Perforce does support the special "remote" user which doesn't need a license,
but it doesn't allow us to control access among different customers.

I have submitted the following proposal to Perforce technical support.
Essentially, they said "the current simple licensing scheme works just fine"
and suggested that if I had something different to offer, that
I show it to the user's list for comment.
Therefore, I would appreciate your review and discussion of this proposal:

The license key would include 2 user counts:
# of users licensed for write access
# of users licensed for read-only access

A current license for N users would be converted to N writers + 0 readers.
Perforce customers could purchase additional read-only licenses on behalf of
their indirect customers, presumably at a reduced cost compared to writable
licenses.

In addition to being useful for software distribution, such read-only
licenses would be attractive for internal users in tech support, QA, management,
etc.

Although this would seem to decrease the revenue to Perforce in the short term,
since it would allow read-only users to pay less for their licenses, in the long
term I believe it would increase revenue for Perforce due to more total users.

Please respond to the user's list with your comments.

Thanks,
Glenn

[j***@db.com]

Just an idea, I've never tried it:

Why not install a CVS server using the Perforce repository directly? As I understand, both products use standard rcs files as base and neither product should care about the additional files it does not understand (db.* files vs. CVS/* directories). CVS has a strong support for distribution over the web, as a single inconvenience it may not access the Perforce change comments, since Perforce stors them in their db.* files and not within the rcs files.

Personally I would appreciate if Perforce would publish a free read-only client, but as long they insist on their current license policy, they might force customers switching totally to CVS ...

Greetings,
Jörg


---------------------------------------- Message History ----------------------------------------


From: ***@peerless.com on 04/05/2000 23:52

To: perforce-***@perforce.com
cc:
Subject: [p4] read-only licenses for purposes of software distribution

[Gregg G. Wonderly]

Post by Glenn Kasten
Our company sells source code. We would be interested in distributing our
products via Perforce. There are numerous advantages to this over the way we
distribute now. However, the cost of a Perforce license for each of our
customers would be prohibitive.
Although this would seem to decrease the revenue to Perforce in the short

term,

Post by Glenn Kasten
since it would allow read-only users to pay less for their licenses, in the >

long, term I believe it would increase revenue for Perforce due to more total

Post by Glenn Kasten
users.

We are purposely extracting files and packaging them separately because we
do not want to pay the per seat price for these kinds of simple distributions.

I think perforce could increase their revenue substantially just by cutting the
initial year price in half! I know we would be buying more seats...

-----
***@c2-tech.com (C2 Technologies Inc)

[Yariv Sheizaf]

Glenn,

I agree with you . Can be a good tool - both for us (customers who want to
distribute via P4)
and perforce (as marketing tool !).

Yariv

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Fri, May 05, 2000 1:52 AM
Subject: [p4] read-only licenses for purposes of software
distribution
Our company sells source code. We would be interested in distributing our
products via Perforce. There are numerous advantages to this over the way
we
distribute now. However, the cost of a Perforce license for each of our
customers would be prohibitive, even if we passed it on to the customer.
Perforce does support the special "remote" user which doesn't need a
license,
but it doesn't allow us to control access among different customers.
I have submitted the following proposal to Perforce technical support.
Essentially, they said "the current simple licensing scheme works just
fine"
and suggested that if I had something different to offer, that
I show it to the user's list for comment.
# of users licensed for write access
# of users licensed for read-only access
A current license for N users would be converted to N writers + 0 readers.
Perforce customers could purchase additional read-only licenses on behalf
of
their indirect customers, presumably at a reduced cost compared to
writable
licenses.
In addition to being useful for software distribution, such read-only
licenses would be attractive for internal users in tech support, QA,
management,
etc.
Although this would seem to decrease the revenue to Perforce in the short
term,
since it would allow read-only users to pay less for their licenses, in
the long
term I believe it would increase revenue for Perforce due to more total
users.
Please respond to the user's list with your comments.
Thanks,
Glenn
_______________________________________________
http://maillist.perforce.com/mailman/listinfo/perforce-user