FACULTY SENATE UNIVERSITY COMPUTER AND ELECTRONIC
                       COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE

                      Thursday, December 14, 1995
                              3:00 p.m.
                        Room 907, Campus Center

AGENDA

1. Approval of the Minutes for the November 16 Meeting.

2. Old Business
       2.1  Computer Lease Purchase Report  (Botch)
       2.2  Dial Up Lines Update  (Abbott or Designee)
       2.3  Report on Cost and Policy Implications of Analog
             Phone Lines to Departments  (Abbott or Designee)

3. New Business
       3.1  Software License Support [See Stanek Memo below]  (Chesley)
       3.2  Meeting Times for Next Semester
             <BRING YOUR CALENDAR>
=============================================================================
[Stanek Memo]


Date:  October 27, 1995 
To:    David Hosmer, Member University Computer Committee
>From   Ed Stanek

       I am writing concerning an area that I think should be raised to the
University Computer Committee.  The issue is software licensing.  I don't feel
it is being properly handled by the PC support group.  They have a policy that
for most software licenses each machine as a stand alone machine.  The purpose
of the pricing is to meet the licensing fee. 
 
       There are several problems.  One problem relates to what the "purpose"
of the pricing is. I feel that there should be some guidelines for what 
software the University "supports", and whatsoftware the University sells.  
Right now, it seems to "sell" all PC software, and support all mainframe
software.  I think this is a policy issue for the committee.  Some guidelines
should be established. 
 
       A second issue is who pays for the people who "sell" PC software?  Does 
the University cover the cost of employees at PC support who duplicate and 
"sell" the software?  This issue related to the first and determines what goes
into the "sale" price of the software? 
 
       A third issue is what is the rate structure?  Are there different types
of users, and hence different rate structures?  Right now, the different rate
structures only apply to SAS for PC Labs. Should rate structures be different
for student labs, faculty, individual students, and/or funded research 
projects.  I would argue that they should.  I would encourage the committee to 
develop guidelines for this. 
 
       I believe the current system is outdated and encourages illegal copies, 
and abuse.  I would appreciate the committee looking into this. 
 

                                   Edward Stanek, Ph.D 
                                   Dept. of Biostatistics & Epidemiology 
                                   School of Public Health & Health Sciences