Client Licenses

[Opus4]

Didn't anyone read where I acknowledged that it was a bit of an absurd comparison? I know the difference between physical goods and software... but intellectual property is still property, whether there is a reproduction cost or not. With that in mind... You paid for 1 car. You paid for 1 client. The fact that you don't happen to have a Star Trek-like replicator to make an exact copy of the car at no cost to the manufacturer doesn't matter.

And, of course the liecense could be handled differently & often are by other companies -- which is why I tacked on that comment about submitting a request that they consider changing their license structure. Frey can choose not to do so, but unless people make themselves heard, what incentive do they have to consider it?

I kind of like the idea of having a server be able to connect to N number of clients at one time.

My only real point is: There is a license to deal with now that says you are allowed to install it on 1 computer. I guess it is up to you to abide by it or not. Contact Frey if you want clarifications about it or changes made to it.

- Andy

[ptaylor]

You know, after having given it some thought, the server should include one client license, but the server itself should be considered an active client when someone is viewing...

That way, people who decide to put a few tuners in one machine and watch it from another aren't penalized, and those of us who would like to be able to watch one remote client while no one is using the server would also be able to do what we wish without paying extra...

The current licensing scheme leaves a bit to be desired... Why just limit the licensing based on the remote clients? Why not license it on a per-tuner basis too?? After all, if you have more tuners, you are getting more out of the product..

Paul

[ptaylor]

Originally posted by Opus4
With that in mind... You paid for 1 car. You paid for 1 client.

Not yet, I haven't.. But I probably will.

Originally posted by Opus4
And, of course the liecense could be handled differently & often are by other companies -- which is why I tacked on that comment about submitting a request that they consider changing their license structure. Frey can choose not to do so, but unless people make themselves heard, what incentive do they have to consider it?

Which is why I'm posting... I imagine we are heard more in this forum that if I, alone, sent an email to Frey about it.

I'm not attacking you or anything - I was originally just curious about how the system worked... (I'm a programmer, specifically working with routers, switches, and network management, so I like to know how "network" things work.) But, I do believe that this conversation has brought out some good ideas about the way licensing could be handled for version 3... Or if they really like the ideas, perhaps version 2.1.

Paul

[ptaylor]

Ok - One more comment - not really related to anything.. Just read it and thought it to be funny:

Originally posted by Opus4
And, of course the liecense could be handled differently & often are by other companies

There's no lie in the license!

Paul

[Opus4]

Originally posted by ptaylor
I imagine we are heard more in this forum that if I, alone, sent an email to Frey about it.

Actually, that isn't always true. I believe that, technically, this is considerd to be a 'users' forum. During the beta test, they always said to submit bug reports directly to them, not to just post them on the forums where they might get missed by Frey. In fact, towards the end of the beta test, I submitted a few that were mentioned online quite a while beforehand & hadn't been fixed yet. It turns out that everyone thought that someone else submitted the bug, since it got discussed so much, but in fact no one did.

You could write up a suggestion & link to this thread, though.

I've been meaning to ask for clarification about the licensing issue of using a client on the server PC, so maybe I ought to send that in too.

Oh -- and I know no one is getting attacked. I've seen the argument that physical items can't be compared to software, but that ignores the fact that they are both property... so I couldn't resist that one either. Another example: I'm a photographer & many people don't see why they don't have a right to copy portraits themselves instead of paying the photographer... it is a little thing called a "copyright". Intellectual property.

- Andy

[Opus4]

Originally posted by ptaylor
There's no lie in the license!

heh... you should see how many times I've caught myself mistyping LiveTV as LieTV! And -- I've even got a spell-checker plugin for IE, but I'm often too lazy to use it. Oh well.

- Andy

[ptaylor]

Originally posted by Opus4
I've been meaning to ask for clarification about the licensing issue of using a client on the server PC, so maybe I ought to send that in too.

Running a client on the server?? I guess I don't quite understand why (how?) you'd do that... Under what circumstance would you want to?

Paul

[Opus4]

Originally posted by ptaylor
Running a client on the server?? I guess I don't quite understand why (how?) you'd do that... Under what circumstance would you want to?

For a very recent thread about it, see: SageTV with Terminal Services. For one thing, it separates the recording server from the UI-displaying client, so if the UI bombs out, the recordings continue.

That reminds me that someone else said they were going to ask about the license issue in that case...

- Andy

[ptaylor]

Ok - I can see how that would be useful if Sage was running as a service...

It just seems like you'd need a beefier machine to do the same tasks... My Sage server is a lowly Pentium III - 500, but overclocked to 733. I don't really want to put it under any more stress than I have to..

As for my client plans (not that anyone asked), I have an old ATI 8500DV (not currently used) and a nVidia 5200FX that's currently in my server... I'm thinking of putting the ATI back in my server machine (since I can't really tell a visual quality difference on video playback) and putting the nVidia in my wife's machine (a Celeron 533, overclocked to 800)... The last time I tried to view MPEG video across the LAN to her machine, it was not pretty, but I think that the hardware accelleration of the nVidia would help. If the trial of the client works well on her machine, I'll probably buy it within a few weeks or so. She seemed to like the idea of being able to watch programs recorded downstairs on a machine upstairs when I originally tried it.

Of course, when I do that, I'll almost *HAVE* to buy another tuner so that we don't step on each other if we both want to view live TV at the same time... Unfortunately, then I'll probably have to upgrade the server machine... It's just an endless cycle, isn't it....

Paul

[Opus4]

If my p2-400 can handle 2 tuners, your p3-500 can too. (I have an Xcard for decoding, so encoding & decoding both take very little cpu effort... but that's another thred.)

- Andy

[txstar58]

Well guys, I just ordered my Sage2 plus multiple client licenses.

One quick question, how long do keys usually take to come from pcalchemy.com?

Thanks for everything

[ptaylor]

When I ordered mine, it was about 15-20 minutes, probably..

[txstar58]

Got them just now.

[broderp]

Just my two cents worth,

I use sage via my wireless network on my DELL laptop, with a Linksys wireless network.

My Server is hooked to my router via wired cable (100MBS) and of course the DELL is wireless at 54MBS.

Full screen video of live TV is FINE, if not a bit pixelly (due to laptop video) smooth and with no problems. I'm actually quite pleased.


I'm not sure why people seem to have issues with wireless networks.

My DELL is an Inspiron 8500, with 256M RAM, 15.4 widescreen at 2.2 GHz , NVidia 64M graphics card, not a speed demon by any means.

[txstar58]

no problems here with wireless g either. i love this.