Conference 7.286::digital

>    Is there a policy concerning the copying of software distribution kits
>    over the E-NET? 

        Yes there is, Network Kits are issued at the discretion of
        the product development group concerned. These groups rely
        on sales of their product for their continued livelihood.
        
        A large number of the network kits now appear to have Enet
        Kits flags set in them. (Obvious, if you know what to look
        for.) If a support or even engineering group is called out
        on a problem that is found to be a Enet in customer's hands,
        You will see bolts of lightning from MLO12/1.
        
        If you have a situation that required urgent delivery of a
        kit. Then 1) Contact SDC Dispatch - they can express a replacement
        to you. 2) COntact the product manager concerned for the product,
        and get his/her approval for either a netkit or alternative.
        
>        I told the customer that I could get a copy of the kit over the E-NET,
>    install it on their machine, and return the tape to the Data Center.
>    Then the customer and Sales could work out the problem of finding their
>    actual copy. 

        That was magnamimous of you, you have no authority to do that.
        
        Let me describe for you two scenarios. 1) customer is given
        non-SDC enet kit. Paper work has Not yet been processed. Customer
        withdraws paperwork, keeps software. Digital having 'given'
        software to one customer is obliged legally to give it to all
        others. Scrap revenue for a major engineering group.
        
        2) Customer receives non-SDC kit from SW Spec. Turns out kit
        is not SDC level code. FT S/W Bug causes Customer to lose
        business. Customer sues digital (and wins) (This has already
        happened once that I am aware of).
        
        In summmary, a) you have no right to give S/W to customer,
        b) you threaten Digital's legal standing with regard to ownership
        of that S/W, c) you establish a precedent that the customer
        knows he can get 'fast' S/W delivery, d) You threaten the
        availability of Network Kits for the rest of the Enet community
        (and believe me, they are important when you are 12,000 miles
        plus from the SDC, like me.
        
        q
        

    One other nit.  THERE ARE NO PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE NOTES FILES.

    Interesting, the customer is telling you about the resources available
    to you...
    
    At least one kit has been withdrawn from network distribution just
    because of this.   Please don't do it.  Follow the channels for
    acquiring a replacement kit.

.1 >  Customer withdraws paperwork, keeps software.

    At this stage there is no paperwork to be withdrawn. All paperwork has
    been processed and the customer has taken delivery of the product. 

.2 >      One other nit.  THERE ARE NO PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE NOTES FILES.

    Publicly in the sense of the general E-NET community, i.e. announced in
    the EASYNET_CONFERENCES NOTES file, listed in the EASYNOTES.LIS
    directory listing file, and not limited to members only. 

.3 >   Interesting, the customer is telling you about the resources available
       to you...
       
    I'm not sure what is meant by this. The customer is not telling me
    about the resources available to me. 

    I can appreciate the concern about non-SDC kits. I know that certain
    kits are FT kits and are marked as such and I don't even discuss these
    with customers. I was under the assumption, wrongly now I see, that the
    other kits were the same ones that go to SDC. In this particular
    situation I am on a residency at this customer site so I will be
    working with the software daily and should be able to handle any
    problems with the software, i.e. removing it if it doesn't work. 

    I don't make it a habit of getting kits off the E-NET for customers, I
    only use this as a last resort when other avenues have been exhausted.
    This particular customer situation involves problems related to those
    other avenues which I won't go into here since they aren't pertinent to
    this discussion. 
        
    My biggest problem was my lack of knowledge about the policy. Now I
    know how it all works. 

    Thanks,
    Gaitan 
    

    Some additional information, all kits marked SDC release may not
    be (as previously noted) be in just the right format for  installation
    by the field or customer. The VMS 4.4. kit comes to mind physical
    save sets for the floppy distribution and getting a patched copy
    of loginout for the N user license key.
    
    Having worked for both the regional tbu's and SDC here is what you
    might do:
    
     1) if the office is very remote to any other (larger) dec office
        get someone in your group to be listed in the automatic 
        distribution service for high demand software (VMS,LAT and whatever
        popular compilers that you support.
    
    2)  If it is a product that is not available locally call TSC and
        have them work the issue for you.
    
    3)  If they cannot handle the request in a reasonable time AS A
        LAST RESORT, call the SDC order administration group in WMO
        and supply them with all the right part/order information and
        they may be able to do somthing.
    
        For the last however your manager shold be involved...
    
        The general rule of thumb
    
    
        {E-NET KITS ARE FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY}
    
    

    Please refrain from calling proprietary information or private property
    of Digital Equipment Corporation "public".  When you mean "limited to
    the use of Digital employees" use those words.  Use "public" specifically
    to refer to things in which Digital has no ownership interest.
    
    The only "policy" that's relevant here is how does Digital fulfill
    a purchase order for a software product.
    
    If _any_ aspect of the order, hardware or software, isn't properly
    delivered, it is a SALES responsibility to "make good delivery". The
    manner in which they do this is through their customer administration
    contacts who will track the thing all the way through to the SDC.
    
    Each person who manages internal systems ought to have SDC media
    and documentation regardless of what group they belong to.
    
    Field Service is responsible in the United States for software
    installations.  Each field service person installing software ought
    to have as a resource SDC media and documentation.
    
    Software Services, with respect to customers, has no role in getting
    in between all these other organizations with the funding, charter,
    responsibility, etc. for software order fulfillment.  Local Software
    Services management ought to support their local people by giving
    them subscriptions to media and documentation from the SDC through
    ADS (Automatic Distribution System).
    
    What does all this have to do with E-NET kits?  You tell me.  I
    thought we were trying to fill the customer's order.

    RE: All of the above.
    
    This particular situation doesn't really relate to filling an order.
    The order has been accepted, filled, delivered, received, etc. The
    real problem deals with a misplaced box of software. As I stated
    before, we in Digital all believe that the software was shipped.
    The system manager even believes that the software was received.
    The problem lies in the fact that two items were received, hardware
    and software, and only one, hardware, was delivered to his computer room.
    Sales is working this problem with the customer and our order
    processing people. Apparently this has happened before and something
    is now being done about the customer misplacing equipment once it
    is received. I have been asked to get another copy of the software
    while sales, order processing, and the customer's receiving department
    decide how they will resolve the problem of the missing software.
    
    I would love to walk into our software library and get a copy of
    the software which we've received through ADS. I would love to go
    in there and get a copy of the SPM manual when I go out to a customer
    site charging $115/hr to install and run SPM. However, someone else
    has determined that it is more cost effective to have a secretary
    in a district office make XEROX copies of the manual while I loose
    two days waiting for the copies than it is to spend the money for
    ADS or any other tools I need to do my job.
    
    I understand and accept all the proper ways of getting software,
    but this was one case where I needed something in a hurry. I didn't
    completely understand the policy an falsely thought that E-NET kits
    could be used in this circumstance. I have requested that my manager
    perform the necessary tasks to have the software shipped to me.
    I am now waiting for the mailman. In the meantime, the customer
    asks me each day about his software and the Customer Satisfaction
    Surveys come out in about a month.
    
    Gaitan

	Do YOU need the software to do your job at the customer site?
	I may be wrong (and please correct me if I am), but if you need
	the software to fullfill your commitment to the customer, you
	could get the software and install it yourself... provided that
	you remove it from their machine when you are done. In your case,
	they would probably have the kit by then.  I worked at a customer
	site for a year, and we installed CMS and MMS to serve our pur-
	poses while writing software for the customer.  Once we were done
	writing the software, we deleted the products.  Also, I believe
	we installed FMS during software development, contingent upon the
	fact that the customer would purchase it before using the software 
	we created.

    re: .8
    
    What measures did you take to prevent the customer from using the
    software themselves or copying it while it was installed on their
    system?  I'm not a lawyer, but it sounds like what you did was,
    at best, very risky unless their was a written agreement describing
    what the "temporary" software could, and could not, be used for.
    
    	- Jerry

    
    I am working on-site at a facility owned by a customer. When
    trying to get software for my own use, I was told that "if
    it will be installed on a customer machine, it must PREVIOUSLY
    have been purchased by the customer".  A bother when you want to
    get something done, but I do see the need to do it in that way.
                                        

    Two avenues are available to 'bring software on site for use by
    Digital personnel:
    
    1.	there is a Loan of Products agreement that is signed by the
    customer that provides for them to use the products on loan and
    protects our rights.  This is basically a no-charge temporary license.
    
    2.	in the SWS Custom Terms and Conditions, there is a paragraph
    covering software tools installed for us by Digital personnel only
    for which a license has not been obtained by the customer.  The
    clause clearly states that they are our property and will be removed
    by us when we are done with no copies left, etc.
    
    The Loan of Products form should be readily available in local offices
    or from your Area Law group.
    
    If you're doing a project on-site and need software to USE for the
    project and then take home, it should be covered in the t's and
    c's IF the right ones (FOR A PROJECT) are used.
    
    	-Barry-
    

RE: .9
    > What measures did you take to prevent the customer from using the
    > software themselves or copying it while it was installed on their
    > system?

I was not one of the orginal people to work on this site (hence do not know
what paper work was done), but in our case, we were the only people (DEC)
using the machine.  Yes, it was a customer machine, but DEC maintained the
machine.  The customer did not have ANY access to the machine.  They were
simply providing facility for us to develop the project.  No software became
theirs until it was released by us.  Upon release, we installed it on another
machine for their use.  In any case, I didn't think this was the issue.
As the notes since yours state, if you need to use the software for
project development, I thought you could install it, use it and delete it.
As far as copying is concerned, what's preventing people who timeshare our
machines from copying software?  What's stopping customer's from buying
1 copy of a product and generating 5 or 6 more copies for other machines?
I would think the same type of legal paper work that states that you can't
make dupes would apply to using software that you didn't buy.  You can't
STOP it from being done, but at the same time it would be illegal for them
to do so.

>I would think the same type of legal paper work that states that you can't
>make dupes would apply to using software that you didn't buy.

That's exactly what Barry Milberg said -- and he happens to know what he's
talking about.  The key is that the customer has to sign a piece of paper
agreeing to the terms of a free, temporary, no-copy-allowed license.

Do it without paper, and you've screwed up.

/john

RE: .0

The policy on E-Net distribution kits is that they are for DEC INTERNAL USE
ONLY.

The ***ONLY*** circumstances under which it is permissible to give a copy of
such a kit to a customer is if you have received permission to do so from the
development organization that made the kit available.

Engineering groups take this very seriously.  On any of the projects I have
worked for, if we ever found out that somebody had made a copy of a net kit
and given it to a customer without our permission, we would pursue the issue
until we had that employee's head on a platter.

Don't do it, if for no other reason than your own protection.  Should you get
caught, you may find some very angry people doing their best to get you fired.

--PSW

re Note 269.1 by POTARU::QUODLING:

> In summary, a) you have no right to give S/W to customer,

From the description of the case, it's obvious that the software wasn't "given"
-- the customer placed a final order for it and we apparently shipped it. Thus
the customer was licensed. 

> c) you establish a precedent that the customer knows he can get 'fast' S/W
> delivery, 

It sounds as if this was a case of avoiding especially slow delivery, not
providing fast delivery.


I just finished watching an hour-long video tape by Grace Hopper.  She must say
"it is easier to apologize than to get permission" at least 5 times in one form
or another.  The tape is introduced by Ken Olsen, so I assume he endorses the
general thrust of the message (Grace says that in almost every forum she has
spoken, so it's nothing unexpected of her). 

(Note that she says "easier", not "easy".)

Then there's always "Do the right thing".


It may be anarchy, but it has been successful so far.

Bob

    All matters of protocol and legal safety aside...
    
        E-net kits are often special kits, i.e. an E-net kit made available
        by the development group when a product is delivered to SDC may 
        contain things which are not in the SDC kit, like extras useful
        to DEC engineers or commands to send mail to the developer.
        They provide these things in the expectation that it will only
        be used in-house.

    Therefore they shouldn't be treated as if they were identical to the
    SDC kits.  Even when DEC's legal rights to sell the software aren't in
    jeapordy, bringing *these* kits to customers is *never* "the right
    thing".  It's the wrong kit. 

    				--------
    
    Question:  In this specific situation (where the customer already
    bought the license), DEC's legal right to sell the software isn't
    affected if they provide the kit on a different piece of physical
    media, right? 

    However, if a piece of software is given to one customer without paying
    for a license, then *technically, legally* DEC can no longer charge
    another customer money for that software.  Have I got this right?  Or
    does it just apply to any customer working on a federal or state
    government project (which covers many of them)? 

    How heavily is this law enforced?  (Has a case ever come to court?
    What happened?)
        
    							Ralph

PS. This topic looks like it's headed for the VIKING::LAWS conference.

        There are special conditions for special circumstances.
        
        If I get a request for software because of a foulup, I instruct
        the sales person to get in touch with the SD&D (our local SDC),
        If they haven't got it, and I have, I will duplicate a kit
        (but only with SD&D approval). I will only duplicate SDC media.
        No Net Kits or FT software! If I don't have an SDC Kit, then
        a priority order is placed on the SDC, and it should be here
        in Australia in less than 10 days. I would hazard a guess,
        that by contacting the SDC you can organize Overnight delivery
        anywhere in the U.S.
        
        
        q
        

    From the earlier discussions, the problem here started with the
    less-than-perfect handling within the customer's site. Given this,
    the best (and most likely) way to solve the problem is to have the
    *customer* solve the problem. This will put the pain and hence the
    corrective pressures in the right place.
    
    I would assume that this software is important to the project. And
    that the project is important to the customer's senior management.
    Given the re-occurance of this problem, have the customer elevate
    the issue within his own organization. If it really is an important
    project, it should only take a few days to get the receiving department
    really jumping to find the lost box. And they are unlikely to make
    the mistake again!

    Back when I was a customer we got a bad FORTRAN-10 tape from SDC,
    and were under time pressure to complete a FORTRAN based project.  
    So I called up our friendly salesman and asked him if we could install
    a kit that our crosstown friends had received.  The salesman said 
    sure, we were a licensed customer and there would be no problem.
    That worked just fine.
    
    So if the E-net is out, what about borrowing the kit from another
    customer?  Does the salesman have authority to grant such permission
    under specific circumstances?
    
      John

re .-1
        
>        Does the salesman have authority to grant such permission
>    under specific circumstances?

 
        Of course not, but that never stops them....
        
        q
        

    This might be considered a flame...  so you may want to "NEXT UNSEEN"
    here...
    
    NOTHING will stop sales (especially sales management) when it comes
    to solving customer problems (or getting specialists to solve their
    probelems). I don't mean to apply this generically to "all" sales
    people... Only a "few" that I am personally aquainted with.
    
    It is NOT unusual for Specialists in the field to copy kits across the
    net to solve customer problems. I know I used to do it. And *with* the
    sanction of management... simply because in the field it can take 2-4
    weeks to get some kits from the SDC and sometimes customers couldn't
    wait... if they had to wait it would mean loosing $$ to digital... and
    in the field it's only the $$ that count... you do what you need to
    make the $$ come in...

re:< Note 269.21 by ATPS::MALLORY "VAX SPM Engineering" >

|    NOTHING will stop sales (especially sales management) when it comes
|    to solving customer problems (or getting specialists to solve their
|    probelems). 

Are you saying that this is a bad thing? or am I misinterpreting your 
self-designated "flame"?

		Nigel

<flame on>
    
    The "right" thing to do in a situation like this is let the people
    who are supposed to handle it, handle it.  You can help by making
    the appropriate organizations aware that a problem exists, get the
    customer in contact with some one who's job it is to help them.
    The Customer Admin groups work hard to get satisfaction for the
    customer, but if no one informs them there is a problem, or that
    it is critical to the customer there is no way they can help.    
                                                                 
    We are so used to working around the process at Digital, we never
    give the process a chance to work.  I have a notebook, as does every
    manager in the field called: "US Area Post Delivery Problem Resolution
    Process Reference Manual."  Your managers should help you find
    the way to do things within the system, rather than encourage you
    to go around it and potentially get everyone in trouble.
                                        
    In the case of mis-shipped or bad software kits there is a P1 re-order
    process that can be used for by both CAS and SPS admin.  As of the
    last report I heard on this process about a month ago, SDC had shipped
    every P1 request received within 8 hours since the process was put
    in place at the end of December.

re:.23 applied to my .22

Makes sense. Let's use the system if it works. If it doesn't work,
let's fix it!


		Nigel

    re: .22-.24

    I agree, Nigel.  If it doesn't work, let's fix it.
    
    In the meantime, I typically use every means at my disposal to get
    the job done, if the official version doesn't work.
    
    I can't prove it, but I may be responsible for Grace Hopper's
    expression "It is easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission."
    The job's more important than the process in most cases.

    The point I was trying to make in .23 is that, in this case anyway,
    the system IS fixed.  But if you assume it is broken and don't try
    to use it you'll never know.
    
    SDC was confused that what had been touted as such a large problem,
    that is the mis-shipment of SW kits, had resulted in such a small
    response to their "new" P1 procedure.  They were convinced that
    once people in the field understood that the system was working
    again, the volume would pick up.
    
    I think we are all in agreement here.  Do what you need to do for
    the customer.  But at the same time, you have to put enough heat
    into the system to get the problems fixed, otherwise you are just
    hiding the problems from anyone who can fix them.  Once the problem
    is fixed you can get the best, (in this case fastest and legal),
    results through the system.

    IF it's only been in place since December, then that is why I don't
    know about it since I left the field in November.
    
    Len: has there been some kind of "update" to the SPS and SWS management
    about this?  Before I left I saw nothing...
    
    Just wonderin'
    
    Kevin

>   Has there been some kind of "update" to the SPS and SWS management
>   about this?  Before I left I saw nothing...

    I know SPS management has been infromed about the procedures, required
    approvals etc.  I doubt SWS got much information since SPS is now
    part of Field Service.  SWS should know, however, that Field Service
    is now responsible.
                                                    
    Perhaps we should move continued discussion of how to handle bad SW
    shipments to the Integrated Service Delivery Program
    conference: USMRW7::ISD_PROGRAM. 

	Just tried to access the ISD conference and got a "Invalid login 
information..." error.  Do we need some "username password" stuff in the node 
name?  Is it restricted?

	Or maybe you give a capsule sumary of ISD, as this is the first I have 
heard of it.  "Integrated Service Delivery" sort of sounds like what we had 
before Field Service took the cash cow away from SWS!

    Sorry about that, I got the node name wrong.  It should be:
    USMRW6::ISD_PROGRAM.
         ^ 

    Part of the ISD Program is the transition of the SPS business, (the
    cash cow you refer to), to Field Service.  The rest of the program is
    involved with improvements to how we service "Systems" rather than
    Hardware and Software.  More information on the program can be found in
    the conference. 

    Two weeks ago in 269.6 I mentioned that Field Service is responsible,
    but who pays attention to what I'm writing anyway?

    I'm strongly tempted to start pushing for the Easynet kits to
    be identifiable as such.  The recognized way of doing so is
    an image ident that starts with E instead of V.  Maybe this would
    reduce the temptation to take network kits and give them to
    customers.
    					Steve

        From my experience, a number of Enet kits are already quite
        readily identifiable as such. I can't think of specific
        circumstances, but one struck me a few months ago as being
        significantly different from an SDC kit.(I think I was checking
        out an un-labelled tape at the time...)
        
        q
        

RE: "doing the right thing" and maximizing $$

	In the past, bootleg software kits have lost the corporation a lot
	of time, money, future revenue, and customer goodwill.  What looks
	like a reasonable thing to do to prevent a lost sale right now may
	come back to haunt you (or more usually, somebody else and DEC as
	a whole) in the future.  I know of several cases where the end result
	of a bootleg distribution was an incredible maintenance headache
	for software services and engineering.  There have even been cases
	where experimental features enabled on the EasyNet kit got in customer
	hands, and generated a lot of ill will when later the customer found
	out that the features weren't and never would be available in the SDC
	version.  The cost to DEC in these cases far exceeded the revenue
	that was gained by the original circumvention of normal order
	processing.

	This is why Engineering is so adamantly against giving EasyNet
	kits to customers.  Sales is very narrowly focused on the short-term
	gain.  Engineering and SWS have to live with the long-term loss.


RE: Grace Hopper quote

	Yes, sometimes "it's easier to ask for foregiveness later than to ask
	permission," but remember that sometimes, forgiveness is not
	forthcoming.  Giving an EasyNet kit out to customers may wind up
	costing you your job or your career future at DEC, if you get caught.
	It's certainly one of the best ways I know to assure that the affected
	Engineering group never lifts a finger to help you again.  Those who
	insist on going ahead with giving out EasyNet kits should be aware of
	the risk.

--PSW

I should point out that there *IS* one legitimate means for giving an
EasyNet kit to a customer.  The Engineering group that made the kit available
has the authority to permit this.  If you really are in an emergency situation,
and you're contemplating giving the customer an EasyNet kit, *ASK THE
DEVELOPMENT GROUP FIRST*.  The developers know what differences (if any)
exist between the EasyNet kit and the SDC version, and what the long-term
impact of releasing the EasyNet kit to the customer is likely to be.  The
development group also generates the master kit from which the SDC manufactures
its copies.  Having them make a copy for you and sending it via Federal
Express is also an option.  Engineering can be very cooperative, if we're
asked.

--PSW

>The development group also generates the master kit from which the SDC
>manufactures its copies.  Having them make a copy for you and sending it
>via Federal Express is also an option.  Engineering can be very cooperative,
>if we're asked.

If asked, engineering could even put the save sets for the SDC kit up on the
network so you could copy them rather then Federal Expressing them.

But favors like this should be reserved for *really* critical situations.
Save this sort of request for the true life and death situation so that
engineering doesn't get so many of these requests that they have to be stopped.

/john