Dear Computing Reps, The Wolfram lawyers are being wholly unreasonable and so Jo asked me if we could possibly do without any Wolfram products in the department. I replied that whilst this would be fine for me (I have access via CERN) I suspect that many would not be able to work effectively without it. I did however, say that I would ask this group in case I was wrong. So, was I wrong? All the best, david
Hi David, As far as I'm aware SPAT does not use any Wolfram software - so no problem as far as SPAT's concerned. Rich -----Original Message----- From: physics-departmental-computing-bounces@imperial.ac.uk [mailto:physics-departmental-computing-bounces@imperial.ac.uk] On Behalf Of David Colling Sent: 13 April 2011 13:29 To: physics-departmental-computing Subject: [Physics-Departmental-Computing] Can we do without Wolfram?, Dear Computing Reps, The Wolfram lawyers are being wholly unreasonable and so Jo asked me if we could possibly do without any Wolfram products in the department. I replied that whilst this would be fine for me (I have access via CERN) I suspect that many would not be able to work effectively without it. I did however, say that I would ask this group in case I was wrong. So, was I wrong? All the best, david _______________________________________________ Physics-Departmental-Computing mailing list Physics-Departmental-Computing@imperial.ac.uk https://mailman.ic.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/physics-departmental-computing
Dear Dave It is an essential tool for a number of people in the theory group, I don't think we can do without it. Did Jo give any details? Carlo On 13/04/2011 13:29, David Colling wrote:
Dear Computing Reps,
The Wolfram lawyers are being wholly unreasonable and so Jo asked me if we could possibly do without any Wolfram products in the department. I replied that whilst this would be fine for me (I have access via CERN) I suspect that many would not be able to work effectively without it. I did however, say that I would ask this group in case I was wrong. So, was I wrong?
All the best, david
_______________________________________________ Physics-Departmental-Computing mailing list Physics-Departmental-Computing@imperial.ac.uk https://mailman.ic.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/physics-departmental-computing
Hi Carlo, Yes, she enclosed a copy of the lawyers letter. Wolfram are pushing usto get a site license at ~£30K/year and to back date it to 2003 for all the illegal use that has happened in physics. Jo's questions was, I think, more on the wishful thinking lines that it would be nice if we could tell them that we were never using their product again and instead were going to use product X instead. Actually, does anybody know of a feasible alternative, even if it is more expensive? I seem to remember using something called Reduce on the old CERN IBM mainframe many (almost 20) years ago - although I suspect that development stopped on that as Mathematica became available. All the best, david On 13/04/2011 13:40, Carlo Contaldi wrote:
Dear Dave
It is an essential tool for a number of people in the theory group, I don't think we can do without it. Did Jo give any details?
Carlo
On 13/04/2011 13:29, David Colling wrote:
Dear Computing Reps,
The Wolfram lawyers are being wholly unreasonable and so Jo asked me if we could possibly do without any Wolfram products in the department. I replied that whilst this would be fine for me (I have access via CERN) I suspect that many would not be able to work effectively without it. I did however, say that I would ask this group in case I was wrong. So, was I wrong?
All the best, david
_______________________________________________ Physics-Departmental-Computing mailing list Physics-Departmental-Computing@imperial.ac.uk https://mailman.ic.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/physics-departmental-computing
Hi Dave, The department already has a license for Maple, which (at least according to the notes on the Software Shop website) is offered as a replacement to Mathematica. I have been working with a tricky differential equation recently and have just tested that Mathematica and Maple can both solve it. This was the first time I've used Maple though, so I don't know how it compares beyond this. I am also aware of the Maxima and SAGE packages (both open source) but I've no experience with either. Best wishes, --James On 13 Apr 2011, at 14:09, David Colling wrote:
Hi Carlo,
Yes, she enclosed a copy of the lawyers letter. Wolfram are pushing usto get a site license at ~£30K/year and to back date it to 2003 for all the illegal use that has happened in physics. Jo's questions was, I think, more on the wishful thinking lines that it would be nice if we could tell them that we were never using their product again and instead were going to use product X instead.
Actually, does anybody know of a feasible alternative, even if it is more expensive? I seem to remember using something called Reduce on the old CERN IBM mainframe many (almost 20) years ago - although I suspect that development stopped on that as Mathematica became available.
All the best, david
On 13/04/2011 13:40, Carlo Contaldi wrote:
Dear Dave
It is an essential tool for a number of people in the theory group, I don't think we can do without it. Did Jo give any details?
Carlo
On 13/04/2011 13:29, David Colling wrote:
Dear Computing Reps,
The Wolfram lawyers are being wholly unreasonable and so Jo asked me if we could possibly do without any Wolfram products in the department. I replied that whilst this would be fine for me (I have access via CERN) I suspect that many would not be able to work effectively without it. I did however, say that I would ask this group in case I was wrong. So, was I wrong?
All the best, david
_______________________________________________ Physics-Departmental-Computing mailing list Physics-Departmental-Computing@imperial.ac.uk https://mailman.ic.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/physics-departmental-computing
_______________________________________________ Physics-Departmental-Computing mailing list Physics-Departmental-Computing@imperial.ac.uk https://mailman.ic.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/physics-departmental-computing
-- James Spencer Computational Science Support Specialist Thomas Young Centre/Condensed Matter Theory Imperial College http://www.cmth.ph.ic.ac.uk/people/j.spencer/
Carlo, Does anybody in theory use/have experience of Maple? All the best, david On 13/04/2011 14:21, James Spencer wrote:
Hi Dave,
The department already has a license for Maple, which (at least according to the notes on the Software Shop website) is offered as a replacement to Mathematica. I have been working with a tricky differential equation recently and have just tested that Mathematica and Maple can both solve it. This was the first time I've used Maple though, so I don't know how it compares beyond this.
I am also aware of the Maxima and SAGE packages (both open source) but I've no experience with either.
Best wishes,
--James
On 13 Apr 2011, at 14:09, David Colling wrote:
Hi Carlo,
Yes, she enclosed a copy of the lawyers letter. Wolfram are pushing usto get a site license at ~£30K/year and to back date it to 2003 for all the illegal use that has happened in physics. Jo's questions was, I think, more on the wishful thinking lines that it would be nice if we could tell them that we were never using their product again and instead were going to use product X instead.
Actually, does anybody know of a feasible alternative, even if it is more expensive? I seem to remember using something called Reduce on the old CERN IBM mainframe many (almost 20) years ago - although I suspect that development stopped on that as Mathematica became available.
All the best, david
On 13/04/2011 13:40, Carlo Contaldi wrote:
Dear Dave
It is an essential tool for a number of people in the theory group, I don't think we can do without it. Did Jo give any details?
Carlo
On 13/04/2011 13:29, David Colling wrote:
Dear Computing Reps,
The Wolfram lawyers are being wholly unreasonable and so Jo asked me if we could possibly do without any Wolfram products in the department. I replied that whilst this would be fine for me (I have access via CERN) I suspect that many would not be able to work effectively without it. I did however, say that I would ask this group in case I was wrong. So, was I wrong?
All the best, david
_______________________________________________ Physics-Departmental-Computing mailing list Physics-Departmental-Computing@imperial.ac.uk https://mailman.ic.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/physics-departmental-computing
_______________________________________________ Physics-Departmental-Computing mailing list Physics-Departmental-Computing@imperial.ac.uk https://mailman.ic.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/physics-departmental-computing
-- James Spencer Computational Science Support Specialist Thomas Young Centre/Condensed Matter Theory Imperial College http://www.cmth.ph.ic.ac.uk/people/j.spencer/
Its use is limited in the theory group from what I know but that may change if we get rid of Mathematica. I have used Maple in the past but I have regressed to Mathematica. Carlo On 13/04/2011 14:26, David Colling wrote:
Carlo,
Does anybody in theory use/have experience of Maple?
All the best, david
On 13/04/2011 14:21, James Spencer wrote:
Hi Dave,
The department already has a license for Maple, which (at least according to the notes on the Software Shop website) is offered as a replacement to Mathematica. I have been working with a tricky differential equation recently and have just tested that Mathematica and Maple can both solve it. This was the first time I've used Maple though, so I don't know how it compares beyond this.
I am also aware of the Maxima and SAGE packages (both open source) but I've no experience with either.
Best wishes,
--James
On 13 Apr 2011, at 14:09, David Colling wrote:
Hi Carlo,
Yes, she enclosed a copy of the lawyers letter. Wolfram are pushing usto get a site license at ~£30K/year and to back date it to 2003 for all the illegal use that has happened in physics. Jo's questions was, I think, more on the wishful thinking lines that it would be nice if we could tell them that we were never using their product again and instead were going to use product X instead.
Actually, does anybody know of a feasible alternative, even if it is more expensive? I seem to remember using something called Reduce on the old CERN IBM mainframe many (almost 20) years ago - although I suspect that development stopped on that as Mathematica became available.
All the best, david
On 13/04/2011 13:40, Carlo Contaldi wrote:
Dear Dave
It is an essential tool for a number of people in the theory group, I don't think we can do without it. Did Jo give any details?
Carlo
On 13/04/2011 13:29, David Colling wrote:
Dear Computing Reps,
The Wolfram lawyers are being wholly unreasonable and so Jo asked me if we could possibly do without any Wolfram products in the department. I replied that whilst this would be fine for me (I have access via CERN) I suspect that many would not be able to work effectively without it. I did however, say that I would ask this group in case I was wrong. So, was I wrong?
All the best, david
_______________________________________________ Physics-Departmental-Computing mailing list Physics-Departmental-Computing@imperial.ac.uk https://mailman.ic.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/physics-departmental-computing
_______________________________________________ Physics-Departmental-Computing mailing list Physics-Departmental-Computing@imperial.ac.uk https://mailman.ic.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/physics-departmental-computing
-- James Spencer Computational Science Support Specialist Thomas Young Centre/Condensed Matter Theory Imperial College http://www.cmth.ph.ic.ac.uk/people/j.spencer/
_______________________________________________ Physics-Departmental-Computing mailing list Physics-Departmental-Computing@imperial.ac.uk https://mailman.ic.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/physics-departmental-computing
There's no use of Wolfram within 1st year lab. I do know some of my colleagues in Astro do/have used it, but we bought a specific copy of Mathematica for that so are legal and have not gone through a site licensing approach. I wonder if Wolfram might be put off if we were to say publicly that Imperial College was thinking of dropping them because of their intransigence? Dave On 13 Apr 2011, at 13:29, David Colling wrote:
Dear Computing Reps,
The Wolfram lawyers are being wholly unreasonable and so Jo asked me if we could possibly do without any Wolfram products in the department. I replied that whilst this would be fine for me (I have access via CERN) I suspect that many would not be able to work effectively without it. I did however, say that I would ask this group in case I was wrong. So, was I wrong?
All the best, david
_______________________________________________ Physics-Departmental-Computing mailing list Physics-Departmental-Computing@imperial.ac.uk https://mailman.ic.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/physics-departmental-computing
Let me correct what I just wrote... I just checked with Andrew Jaffe who is our only user in astro. He *does* require it for his work and has got it through the college subscription. Dave On 13 Apr 2011, at 13:29, David Colling wrote:
Dear Computing Reps,
The Wolfram lawyers are being wholly unreasonable and so Jo asked me if we could possibly do without any Wolfram products in the department. I replied that whilst this would be fine for me (I have access via CERN) I suspect that many would not be able to work effectively without it. I did however, say that I would ask this group in case I was wrong. So, was I wrong?
All the best, david
_______________________________________________ Physics-Departmental-Computing mailing list Physics-Departmental-Computing@imperial.ac.uk https://mailman.ic.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/physics-departmental-computing
David, Mathematica is absolutely essential for parts of QOLS, particularly the Centre for Cold Matter. They would get very angry, indeed, if anyone would try to stop them using it. Stefan Dr Stefan Scheel Reader in Quantum Optics Blackett Laboratory Imperial College London Prince Consort Road London SW7 2AZ United Kingdom phone: +44(0)20 7594 7720 On 13/04/11 13:29, David Colling wrote:
Dear Computing Reps,
The Wolfram lawyers are being wholly unreasonable and so Jo asked me if we could possibly do without any Wolfram products in the department. I replied that whilst this would be fine for me (I have access via CERN) I suspect that many would not be able to work effectively without it. I did however, say that I would ask this group in case I was wrong. So, was I wrong?
All the best, david
_______________________________________________ Physics-Departmental-Computing mailing list Physics-Departmental-Computing@imperial.ac.uk https://mailman.ic.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/physics-departmental-computing
Not many people use it in PHOT. I've just sent out a request asking the views of any that do. Stefan, angry enough to stump up £30,000pa X 8years = £240,000 ? Carl On 13/04/11 14:31, Stefan Scheel wrote:
David,
Mathematica is absolutely essential for parts of QOLS, particularly the Centre for Cold Matter. They would get very angry, indeed, if anyone would try to stop them using it.
Stefan
Dr Stefan Scheel Reader in Quantum Optics Blackett Laboratory Imperial College London Prince Consort Road London SW7 2AZ United Kingdom
phone: +44(0)20 7594 7720
On 13/04/11 13:29, David Colling wrote:
Dear Computing Reps,
The Wolfram lawyers are being wholly unreasonable and so Jo asked me if we could possibly do without any Wolfram products in the department. I replied that whilst this would be fine for me (I have access via CERN) I suspect that many would not be able to work effectively without it. I did however, say that I would ask this group in case I was wrong. So, was I wrong?
All the best, david
_______________________________________________ Physics-Departmental-Computing mailing list Physics-Departmental-Computing@imperial.ac.uk https://mailman.ic.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/physics-departmental-computing
-- Carl Paterson The Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College, London SW7 2BW, UK. email: carl.paterson@imperial.ac.uk tel: +44 (0)20 75947737 fax: +44 (0)20 75947714 http://www.imperial.ac.uk/research/photonics
There are at least 5 people in PHOT using Mathematica. Best wishes Peter On 13 Apr 2011, at 14:53, "Paterson, Carl" <carl.paterson@imperial.ac.uk> wrote:
Not many people use it in PHOT. I've just sent out a request asking the views of any that do.
Stefan, angry enough to stump up £30,000pa X 8years = £240,000 ?
Carl
On 13/04/11 14:31, Stefan Scheel wrote:
David,
Mathematica is absolutely essential for parts of QOLS, particularly the Centre for Cold Matter. They would get very angry, indeed, if anyone would try to stop them using it.
Stefan
Dr Stefan Scheel Reader in Quantum Optics Blackett Laboratory Imperial College London Prince Consort Road London SW7 2AZ United Kingdom
phone: +44(0)20 7594 7720
On 13/04/11 13:29, David Colling wrote:
Dear Computing Reps,
The Wolfram lawyers are being wholly unreasonable and so Jo asked me if we could possibly do without any Wolfram products in the department. I replied that whilst this would be fine for me (I have access via CERN) I suspect that many would not be able to work effectively without it. I did however, say that I would ask this group in case I was wrong. So, was I wrong?
All the best, david
_______________________________________________ Physics-Departmental-Computing mailing list Physics-Departmental-Computing@imperial.ac.uk https://mailman.ic.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/physics-departmental-computing
-- Carl Paterson The Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College, London SW7 2BW, UK. email: carl.paterson@imperial.ac.uk tel: +44 (0)20 75947737 fax: +44 (0)20 75947714 http://www.imperial.ac.uk/research/photonics
_______________________________________________ Physics-Departmental-Computing mailing list Physics-Departmental-Computing@imperial.ac.uk https://mailman.ic.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/physics-departmental-computing
I've tracked down 2 people in PLASMA who have ICT/college Mathematica licenses. Only half of plasma are around today so let's say we have 4 licenses through college. These people use Mathematica now and again; not having it would be an inconvenience but would not compromise their research too much (i.e. they would have to learn how to rewrite their script/algorithm in, e.g., Maple). 2 people have private licenses on their own personal machines. Best wishes, Robert On 13 Apr 2011, at 15:00, Török, Peter wrote:
There are at least 5 people in PHOT using Mathematica.
Best wishes
Peter
On 13 Apr 2011, at 14:53, "Paterson, Carl" <carl.paterson@imperial.ac.uk> wrote:
Not many people use it in PHOT. I've just sent out a request asking the views of any that do.
Stefan, angry enough to stump up £30,000pa X 8years = £240,000 ?
Carl
On 13/04/11 14:31, Stefan Scheel wrote:
David,
Mathematica is absolutely essential for parts of QOLS, particularly the Centre for Cold Matter. They would get very angry, indeed, if anyone would try to stop them using it.
Stefan
Dr Stefan Scheel Reader in Quantum Optics Blackett Laboratory Imperial College London Prince Consort Road London SW7 2AZ United Kingdom
phone: +44(0)20 7594 7720
On 13/04/11 13:29, David Colling wrote:
Dear Computing Reps,
The Wolfram lawyers are being wholly unreasonable and so Jo asked me if we could possibly do without any Wolfram products in the department. I replied that whilst this would be fine for me (I have access via CERN) I suspect that many would not be able to work effectively without it. I did however, say that I would ask this group in case I was wrong. So, was I wrong?
All the best, david
_______________________________________________ Physics-Departmental-Computing mailing list Physics-Departmental-Computing@imperial.ac.uk https://mailman.ic.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/physics-departmental-computing
-- Carl Paterson The Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College, London SW7 2BW, UK. email: carl.paterson@imperial.ac.uk tel: +44 (0)20 75947737 fax: +44 (0)20 75947714 http://www.imperial.ac.uk/research/photonics
_______________________________________________ Physics-Departmental-Computing mailing list Physics-Departmental-Computing@imperial.ac.uk https://mailman.ic.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/physics-departmental-computing
Physics-Departmental-Computing mailing list Physics-Departmental-Computing@imperial.ac.uk https://mailman.ic.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/physics-departmental-computing
-- ============================================================================= Dr Robert J. Kingham -------------------- Plasma Physics Group, Tel: +44 (0)207-5947637 Room 724, Blackett Laboratory, Fax: +44 (0)207-5947658 Imperial College London, E-mail: rj.kingham@imperial.ac.uk London SW7 2AZ, UK. Web: www3.imperial.ac.uk/people/rj.kingham =============================================================================
Hi David and Carl, well, this is what Jony Hudson from CCM has to say about that: ---- On the other hand, cutting off Mathematica would have a very serious impact on CCM's operations. At the moment it is used by almost all members of the group. I've searched a number of times, most recently about a month back, for a comparable alternative and have been unable to find one. That said, it would not be impossible to make do without it, using a variety of other tools (Matlab, Maple and Scientific Word for instance). But there'd be a very serious productivity hit in the short term, and on technical grounds I'd say that these other tools are not as good, so this wouldn't be a viable long term solution either. I don't know what the right thing to do is. I guess making it clear now to Wolfram that we won't renew in September might be a good idea. Then at least there's a chance that we'll get what we want before it comes to the crunch. But if it does come to the crunch then I'd say the bottom line - given that we need to get science done first and foremost - is that CCM wouldn't be willing to refuse to use Mathematica. ---- Regards, Stefan Dr Stefan Scheel Reader in Quantum Optics Blackett Laboratory Imperial College London Prince Consort Road London SW7 2AZ United Kingdom phone: +44(0)20 7594 7720 On 13/04/11 14:53, Paterson, Carl wrote:
Not many people use it in PHOT. I've just sent out a request asking the views of any that do.
Stefan, angry enough to stump up £30,000pa X 8years = £240,000 ?
Carl
On 13/04/11 14:31, Stefan Scheel wrote:
David,
Mathematica is absolutely essential for parts of QOLS, particularly the Centre for Cold Matter. They would get very angry, indeed, if anyone would try to stop them using it.
Stefan
Dr Stefan Scheel Reader in Quantum Optics Blackett Laboratory Imperial College London Prince Consort Road London SW7 2AZ United Kingdom
phone: +44(0)20 7594 7720
On 13/04/11 13:29, David Colling wrote:
Dear Computing Reps,
The Wolfram lawyers are being wholly unreasonable and so Jo asked me if we could possibly do without any Wolfram products in the department. I replied that whilst this would be fine for me (I have access via CERN) I suspect that many would not be able to work effectively without it. I did however, say that I would ask this group in case I was wrong. So, was I wrong?
All the best, david
_______________________________________________ Physics-Departmental-Computing mailing list Physics-Departmental-Computing@imperial.ac.uk https://mailman.ic.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/physics-departmental-computing
Even if college pay the debts Mathematica may refuse to sell us licenses other than a site license at £30K/year - the vast majority of which would fall on physics. On 13/04/2011 16:23, Stefan Scheel wrote:
Hi David and Carl,
well, this is what Jony Hudson from CCM has to say about that:
----
On the other hand, cutting off Mathematica would have a very serious impact on CCM's operations. At the moment it is used by almost all members of the group. I've searched a number of times, most recently about a month back, for a comparable alternative and have been unable to find one. That said, it would not be impossible to make do without it, using a variety of other tools (Matlab, Maple and Scientific Word for instance). But there'd be a very serious productivity hit in the short term, and on technical grounds I'd say that these other tools are not as good, so this wouldn't be a viable long term solution either.
I don't know what the right thing to do is. I guess making it clear now to Wolfram that we won't renew in September might be a good idea. Then at least there's a chance that we'll get what we want before it comes to the crunch.
But if it does come to the crunch then I'd say the bottom line - given that we need to get science done first and foremost - is that CCM wouldn't be willing to refuse to use Mathematica.
----
Regards, Stefan
Dr Stefan Scheel Reader in Quantum Optics Blackett Laboratory Imperial College London Prince Consort Road London SW7 2AZ United Kingdom
phone: +44(0)20 7594 7720
On 13/04/11 14:53, Paterson, Carl wrote:
Not many people use it in PHOT. I've just sent out a request asking the views of any that do.
Stefan, angry enough to stump up£30,000pa X 8years =£240,000 ?
Carl
On 13/04/11 14:31, Stefan Scheel wrote:
David,
Mathematica is absolutely essential for parts of QOLS, particularly the Centre for Cold Matter. They would get very angry, indeed, if anyone would try to stop them using it.
Stefan
Dr Stefan Scheel Reader in Quantum Optics Blackett Laboratory Imperial College London Prince Consort Road London SW7 2AZ United Kingdom
phone: +44(0)20 7594 7720
On 13/04/11 13:29, David Colling wrote:
Dear Computing Reps,
The Wolfram lawyers are being wholly unreasonable and so Jo asked me if we could possibly do without any Wolfram products in the department. I replied that whilst this would be fine for me (I have access via CERN) I suspect that many would not be able to work effectively without it. I did however, say that I would ask this group in case I was wrong. So, was I wrong?
All the best, david
_______________________________________________ Physics-Departmental-Computing mailing list Physics-Departmental-Computing@imperial.ac.uk https://mailman.ic.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/physics-departmental-computing
On 13 Apr 2011, at 16:34, David Colling wrote:
Even if college pay the debts Mathematica may refuse to sell us licenses other than a site license at £30K/year - the vast majority of which would fall on physics.
How can they stop people buying licenses for their individual machines on the open market?
They couldn't and wouldn't want anyway as the cost of a full license is >£2K On 13/04/2011 18:40, Dave Clements wrote:
On 13 Apr 2011, at 16:34, David Colling wrote:
Even if college pay the debts Mathematica may refuse to sell us licenses other than a site license at £30K/year - the vast majority of which would fall on physics.
How can they stop people buying licenses for their individual machines on the open market?
Wouldn't there also be a problem with installing privately bought software on IC machines? On 14/04/11 11:23, David Colling wrote:
They couldn't and wouldn't want anyway as the cost of a full license is>£2K
On 13/04/2011 18:40, Dave Clements wrote:
On 13 Apr 2011, at 16:34, David Colling wrote:
Even if college pay the debts Mathematica may refuse to sell us licenses other than a site license at £30K/year - the vast majority of which would fall on physics.
How can they stop people buying licenses for their individual machines on the open market?
If we lose the ability to get it through College at a discount, Andrew Jaffe will be getting a private copy since he needs Mathematica that much. He runs Macs so the issue of it being on a 'college machine' might be lessened, but if Wolfram are able and considering blocking even private copies on the college network, that is something we should know about and take into account. Dave On 14 Apr 2011, at 11:24, Stefan Scheel wrote:
Wouldn't there also be a problem with installing privately bought software on IC machines?
On 14/04/11 11:23, David Colling wrote:
They couldn't and wouldn't want anyway as the cost of a full license is >£2K
On 13/04/2011 18:40, Dave Clements wrote:
On 13 Apr 2011, at 16:34, David Colling wrote:
Even if college pay the debts Mathematica may refuse to sell us licenses other than a site license at £30K/year - the vast majority of which would fall on physics.
How can they stop people buying licenses for their individual machines on the open market?
For clarity I need to make you all aware that the following applies ... Personally purchased or licensed software must not be installed on College owned systems and vice versa - thus if college funds purchase the license then it can only be installed on a College owned system - this rule applies for all software. Given that Wolfram are claiming the illegal use was perpetrated by machines which fall into both College owned and personally owned systems then I foresee further issues if someone uses a personally licensed copy of Mathematica from a personal system whilst on the College network and there is no College license in place! Regards Adrian -----Original Message----- From: physics-departmental-computing-bounces@imperial.ac.uk [mailto:physics-departmental-computing-bounces@imperial.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Dave Clements Sent: 14 April 2011 11:43 To: Scheel, Stefan Cc: physics-departmental-computing Subject: Re: [Physics-Departmental-Computing] Can we do without Wolfram?, If we lose the ability to get it through College at a discount, Andrew Jaffe will be getting a private copy since he needs Mathematica that much. He runs Macs so the issue of it being on a 'college machine' might be lessened, but if Wolfram are able and considering blocking even private copies on the college network, that is something we should know about and take into account. Dave On 14 Apr 2011, at 11:24, Stefan Scheel wrote:
Wouldn't there also be a problem with installing privately bought software on IC machines?
On 14/04/11 11:23, David Colling wrote:
They couldn't and wouldn't want anyway as the cost of a full license is >£2K
On 13/04/2011 18:40, Dave Clements wrote:
On 13 Apr 2011, at 16:34, David Colling wrote:
Even if college pay the debts Mathematica may refuse to sell us licenses other than a site license at £30K/year - the vast majority of which would fall on physics.
How can they stop people buying licenses for their individual machines on the open market?
_______________________________________________ Physics-Departmental-Computing mailing list Physics-Departmental-Computing@imperial.ac.uk https://mailman.ic.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/physics-departmental-computing
Hi Adrian,
Personally purchased or licensed software must not be installed on College owned systems and vice versa - thus if college funds purchase the license then it can only be installed on a College owned system - this rule applies for all software.
I am pretty sure that there are exceptions. Specifically I believe there are for Norton antivirus and as part of the Microsoft chest agreement for office.
Given that Wolfram are claiming the illegal use was perpetrated by machines which fall into both College owned and personally owned systems then I foresee further issues if someone uses a personally licensed copy of Mathematica from a personal system whilst on the College network and there is no College license in place!
I think in that case we would have to find the person and be able to prove that they have a personal license - although Wolfram are such ***** that I wouldn't put anything past them and the lawyers at mLaw. All the best, david
David, You can install Norton onto a single PC for use at home - not for coming in and out of College - but you have to register for this. MS Office - is available under the work at home rights scheme but the licensing models have changed to such an extent that the software shop now recommends that academic staff purchase a copy of MS Office through the MS Ultimate Steal offer (www.ultimatesteal.co.uk) - yes you have to say you are a student to the initial question but we have checked that with MS and they have said that staff are also covered by the license offer. It is also possible to find MS Office cheaply from a number of genuine retailers online. I agree that Wolfram don't really seem to know what they are doing with their licensing but given how they appear to have College over the proverbial barrel I am not sure how we square the circle given that they are claiming for illegal use going back to 2003 and we have no way of tracing people back that far! Regards Adrian -----Original Message----- From: physics-departmental-computing-bounces@imperial.ac.uk [mailto:physics-departmental-computing-bounces@imperial.ac.uk] On Behalf Of David Colling Sent: 14 April 2011 13:34 To: physics-departmental-computing Subject: Re: [Physics-Departmental-Computing] Can we do without Wolfram?, Hi Adrian,
Personally purchased or licensed software must not be installed on College owned systems and vice versa - thus if college funds purchase the license then it can only be installed on a College owned system - this rule applies for all software.
I am pretty sure that there are exceptions. Specifically I believe there are for Norton antivirus and as part of the Microsoft chest agreement for office.
Given that Wolfram are claiming the illegal use was perpetrated by machines which fall into both College owned and personally owned systems then I foresee further issues if someone uses a personally licensed copy of Mathematica from a personal system whilst on the College network and there is no College license in place!
I think in that case we would have to find the person and be able to prove that they have a personal license - although Wolfram are such ***** that I wouldn't put anything past them and the lawyers at mLaw. All the best, david _______________________________________________ Physics-Departmental-Computing mailing list Physics-Departmental-Computing@imperial.ac.uk https://mailman.ic.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/physics-departmental-computing
On 14 Apr 2011, at 13:18, Mannall, Adrian B wrote:
For clarity I need to make you all aware that the following applies ...
Personally purchased or licensed software must not be installed on College owned systems and vice versa - thus if college funds purchase the license then it can only be installed on a College owned system - this rule applies for all software.
In this instance I was referring to a license purchased with fund that the individual controls themselves, presumably going through the college purchasing system if Wolfram allow that. It would be both college owned and on a college owned machine, albeit one largely managed by the individual.
Given that Wolfram are claiming the illegal use was perpetrated by machines which fall into both College owned and personally owned systems then I foresee further issues if someone uses a personally licensed copy of Mathematica from a personal system whilst on the College network and there is no College license in place!
So anyone visiting the college with a legal Mathematica on their laptop who uses it here will cause a problem - conference delegates, visiting academics, rich undergraduates, graduate students who've bought it at student rates...? That sounds perverse. Dave
Just a thought... Has anyone checked the authenticity of Wolfram's claims of illegal copies of Mathematica being used here? Might they be (or have been) counting personally procured copies (e.g. the Home Edition) on, say, peoples' laptops when run here? What happens if I were physically at home, but logged onto the college's VPN (which I do a lot to, e.g., send emails via icex, log onto HPC, remote desktop my workstation, ssh my workstation, access my college home directory (I think), etc.) and then launch a personal copy of Mathematica? Would this start a red light flashing at Wolfram's lawyers HQ? Is it just Imperial that has been targeted by Wolfram, or have other universities been lent on too? I guess people know this but for those that don't (like me 30 mins. ago) - Single User license via ICT - £145 per annum - Individual license for a Faculty/Staff member direct from Wolfram costs £860 (inc. VAT?) - The "Hobbyist" Home Ed. costs £195 exc. VAT - The Student Editions costs £96 inc. VAT (or even £24 for the "Semester Edition") Cheers, Robert On 14 Apr 2011, at 14:14, Dave Clements wrote:
On 14 Apr 2011, at 13:18, Mannall, Adrian B wrote:
For clarity I need to make you all aware that the following applies ...
Personally purchased or licensed software must not be installed on College owned systems and vice versa - thus if college funds purchase the license then it can only be installed on a College owned system - this rule applies for all software.
In this instance I was referring to a license purchased with fund that the individual controls themselves, presumably going through the college purchasing system if Wolfram allow that. It would be both college owned and on a college owned machine, albeit one largely managed by the individual.
Given that Wolfram are claiming the illegal use was perpetrated by machines which fall into both College owned and personally owned systems then I foresee further issues if someone uses a personally licensed copy of Mathematica from a personal system whilst on the College network and there is no College license in place!
So anyone visiting the college with a legal Mathematica on their laptop who uses it here will cause a problem - conference delegates, visiting academics, rich undergraduates, graduate students who've bought it at student rates...? That sounds perverse.
Dave _______________________________________________ Physics-Departmental-Computing mailing list Physics-Departmental-Computing@imperial.ac.uk https://mailman.ic.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/physics-departmental-computing
-- ============================================================================= Dr Robert J. Kingham -------------------- Plasma Physics Group, Tel: +44 (0)207-5947637 Room 724, Blackett Laboratory, Fax: +44 (0)207-5947658 Imperial College London, E-mail: rj.kingham@imperial.ac.uk London SW7 2AZ, UK. Web: www3.imperial.ac.uk/people/rj.kingham =============================================================================
Hi Robert, It is pretty much impossible to know what Wolfram have been counting or not as they wont tell us. All the best, david On 14/04/2011 17:16, Robert Kingham wrote:
Just a thought...
Has anyone checked the authenticity of Wolfram's claims of illegal copies of Mathematica being used here? Might they be (or have been) counting personally procured copies (e.g. the Home Edition) on, say, peoples' laptops when run here?
*What happens if I were physically at home, but logged onto the college's VPN* (which I do a lot to, e.g., send emails via icex, log onto HPC, remote desktop my workstation, ssh my workstation, access my college home directory (I think), etc.) and then launch a personal copy of Mathematica? *Would this start a red light flashing at Wolfram's lawyers HQ?*
Is it just Imperial that has been targeted by Wolfram, or have other universities been lent on too?
I guess people know this but for those that don't (like me 30 mins. ago) - Single User license via ICT - *£145 per annum* - Individual license for a Faculty/Staff member direct from Wolfram costs *£860* (inc. VAT?) - The "Hobbyist" Home Ed. costs *£195 exc. VAT* - The Student Editions costs *£96 inc. VAT* (or even *£24* for the "Semester Edition")
Cheers,
Robert
On 14 Apr 2011, at 14:14, Dave Clements wrote:
On 14 Apr 2011, at 13:18, Mannall, Adrian B wrote:
For clarity I need to make you all aware that the following applies ...
Personally purchased or licensed software must not be installed on College owned systems and vice versa - thus if college funds purchase the license then it can only be installed on a College owned system - this rule applies for all software.
In this instance I was referring to a license purchased with fund that the individual controls themselves, presumably going through the college purchasing system if Wolfram allow that. It would be both college owned and on a college owned machine, albeit one largely managed by the individual.
Given that Wolfram are claiming the illegal use was perpetrated by machines which fall into both College owned and personally owned systems then I foresee further issues if someone uses a personally licensed copy of Mathematica from a personal system whilst on the College network and there is no College license in place!
So anyone visiting the college with a legal Mathematica on their laptop who uses it here will cause a problem - conference delegates, visiting academics, rich undergraduates, graduate students who've bought it at student rates...? That sounds perverse.
Dave _______________________________________________ Physics-Departmental-Computing mailing list Physics-Departmental-Computing@imperial.ac.uk <mailto:Physics-Departmental-Computing@imperial.ac.uk> https://mailman.ic.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/physics-departmental-computing
-- ============================================================================= Dr Robert J. Kingham -------------------- Plasma Physics Group, Tel: +44 (0)207-5947637 Room 724, Blackett Laboratory,Fax: +44 (0)207-5947658 Imperial College London, E-mail:rj.kingham@imperial.ac.uk <mailto:rj.kingham@imperial.ac.uk> London SW7 2AZ, UK. Web: www3.imperial.ac.uk/people/rj.kingham <http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/people/rj.kingham> =============================================================================
They would surely have to disclose any information relating to the accusations if they stand a chance of suing successfully. If College has not even pressed for this how can we be confident that we're not giving in to simple bullying? Carlo On 14/04/2011 17:42, David Colling wrote:
Hi Robert,
It is pretty much impossible to know what Wolfram have been counting or not as they wont tell us.
All the best, david
On 14/04/2011 17:16, Robert Kingham wrote:
Just a thought...
Has anyone checked the authenticity of Wolfram's claims of illegal copies of Mathematica being used here? Might they be (or have been) counting personally procured copies (e.g. the Home Edition) on, say, peoples' laptops when run here?
*What happens if I were physically at home, but logged onto the college's VPN* (which I do a lot to, e.g., send emails via icex, log onto HPC, remote desktop my workstation, ssh my workstation, access my college home directory (I think), etc.) and then launch a personal copy of Mathematica? *Would this start a red light flashing at Wolfram's lawyers HQ?*
Is it just Imperial that has been targeted by Wolfram, or have other universities been lent on too?
I guess people know this but for those that don't (like me 30 mins. ago) - Single User license via ICT - *£145 per annum* - Individual license for a Faculty/Staff member direct from Wolfram costs *£860* (inc. VAT?) - The "Hobbyist" Home Ed. costs *£195 exc. VAT* - The Student Editions costs *£96 inc. VAT* (or even *£24* for the "Semester Edition")
Cheers,
Robert
On 14 Apr 2011, at 14:14, Dave Clements wrote:
On 14 Apr 2011, at 13:18, Mannall, Adrian B wrote:
For clarity I need to make you all aware that the following applies ...
Personally purchased or licensed software must not be installed on College owned systems and vice versa - thus if college funds purchase the license then it can only be installed on a College owned system - this rule applies for all software.
In this instance I was referring to a license purchased with fund that the individual controls themselves, presumably going through the college purchasing system if Wolfram allow that. It would be both college owned and on a college owned machine, albeit one largely managed by the individual.
Given that Wolfram are claiming the illegal use was perpetrated by machines which fall into both College owned and personally owned systems then I foresee further issues if someone uses a personally licensed copy of Mathematica from a personal system whilst on the College network and there is no College license in place!
So anyone visiting the college with a legal Mathematica on their laptop who uses it here will cause a problem - conference delegates, visiting academics, rich undergraduates, graduate students who've bought it at student rates...? That sounds perverse.
Dave _______________________________________________ Physics-Departmental-Computing mailing list Physics-Departmental-Computing@imperial.ac.uk <mailto:Physics-Departmental-Computing@imperial.ac.uk> https://mailman.ic.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/physics-departmental-computing
-- ============================================================================= Dr Robert J. Kingham -------------------- Plasma Physics Group, Tel: +44 (0)207-5947637 Room 724, Blackett Laboratory,Fax: +44 (0)207-5947658 Imperial College London, E-mail:rj.kingham@imperial.ac.uk <mailto:rj.kingham@imperial.ac.uk> London SW7 2AZ, UK. Web: www3.imperial.ac.uk/people/rj.kingham <http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/people/rj.kingham> =============================================================================
_______________________________________________ Physics-Departmental-Computing mailing list Physics-Departmental-Computing@imperial.ac.uk https://mailman.ic.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/physics-departmental-computing
I know that many of the 'challenges' brought against the theory group were actually unfounded because they turned out to be students using their legally licensed versions or other cases of personally held licenses. I got the impression that they went after any use that did not tally up against a restricted list of license servers. The theory group was accused of being one of the worst culprits of illegal use but as far as I know there was only a couple of true cases where students were using cracked copies. There was however, a long list of machines that had to be inspected and I don't know if the results of that exercise was passed back to Wolfram and this 'list' corrected to only include actual, documented cases of illegal use. Perhaps someone in the department has this information and can compile a number eg of how many illegal copies were being used and compare with Wolfram's original claims. Carlo On 14/04/2011 17:16, Robert Kingham wrote:
Just a thought...
Has anyone checked the authenticity of Wolfram's claims of illegal copies of Mathematica being used here? Might they be (or have been) counting personally procured copies (e.g. the Home Edition) on, say, peoples' laptops when run here?
*What happens if I were physically at home, but logged onto the college's VPN* (which I do a lot to, e.g., send emails via icex, log onto HPC, remote desktop my workstation, ssh my workstation, access my college home directory (I think), etc.) and then launch a personal copy of Mathematica? *Would this start a red light flashing at Wolfram's lawyers HQ?*
Is it just Imperial that has been targeted by Wolfram, or have other universities been lent on too?
I guess people know this but for those that don't (like me 30 mins. ago) - Single User license via ICT - *£145 per annum* - Individual license for a Faculty/Staff member direct from Wolfram costs *£860* (inc. VAT?) - The "Hobbyist" Home Ed. costs *£195 exc. VAT* - The Student Editions costs *£96 inc. VAT* (or even *£24* for the "Semester Edition")
Cheers,
Robert
On 14 Apr 2011, at 14:14, Dave Clements wrote:
On 14 Apr 2011, at 13:18, Mannall, Adrian B wrote:
For clarity I need to make you all aware that the following applies ...
Personally purchased or licensed software must not be installed on College owned systems and vice versa - thus if college funds purchase the license then it can only be installed on a College owned system - this rule applies for all software.
In this instance I was referring to a license purchased with fund that the individual controls themselves, presumably going through the college purchasing system if Wolfram allow that. It would be both college owned and on a college owned machine, albeit one largely managed by the individual.
Given that Wolfram are claiming the illegal use was perpetrated by machines which fall into both College owned and personally owned systems then I foresee further issues if someone uses a personally licensed copy of Mathematica from a personal system whilst on the College network and there is no College license in place!
So anyone visiting the college with a legal Mathematica on their laptop who uses it here will cause a problem - conference delegates, visiting academics, rich undergraduates, graduate students who've bought it at student rates...? That sounds perverse.
Dave _______________________________________________ Physics-Departmental-Computing mailing list Physics-Departmental-Computing@imperial.ac.uk <mailto:Physics-Departmental-Computing@imperial.ac.uk> https://mailman.ic.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/physics-departmental-computing
-- ============================================================================= Dr Robert J. Kingham -------------------- Plasma Physics Group, Tel: +44 (0)207-5947637 Room 724, Blackett Laboratory,Fax: +44 (0)207-5947658 Imperial College London, E-mail:rj.kingham@imperial.ac.uk <mailto:rj.kingham@imperial.ac.uk> London SW7 2AZ, UK. Web: www3.imperial.ac.uk/people/rj.kingham <http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/people/rj.kingham> =============================================================================
Has anyone checked the authenticity of Wolfram's claims of illegal copies of Mathematica being used here? Might they be (or have been) counting personally procured copies (e.g. the Home Edition) on, say, peoples' laptops when run here? We have checked as well as we can – Wolfram provided us with a list of IP addresses, license numbers and MathIDs. We tracked down most of those users and did not find anyone where Wolfram had alleged illegal use that actually had a valid license. (There were a number where we couldn't check – eg academic visitors, conference delegates, people who had left) Their initial allegation was worded something like "4000 illegal copies" - this actually meant 4000 usage instances (so anything from a single use by a student "trying it out" to a member of staff using it > 100 times over more than a year) What happens if I were physically at home, but logged onto the college's VPN (which I do a lot to, e.g., send emails via icex, log onto HPC, remote desktop my workstation, ssh my workstation, access my college home directory (I think), etc.) and then launch a personal copy of Mathematica? Would this start a red light flashing at Wolfram's lawyers HQ? No. Wolfram track the pair of MathID and License number – provided they are valid they don't seem to care where you are using it (so we know we have had visitors using perfectly legal copies of Mathematica at Imperial and these are not picked up by Wolfram as illegal – they're not) Is it just Imperial that has been targeted by Wolfram, or have other universities been lent on too? I don't know but I suspect that we were targeted because we used to have a site license and then cancelled it. I think there were perfectly valid reasons for this (eg Maths used to use it for teaching but moved to Maple meaning that a site license was no longer needed). I would guess that if any other university had a site license and cancelled it then they would also be checked out. Steve
participants (11)
-
Bantges, Richard J
-
Carl Paterson
-
Carlo Contaldi
-
Dave Clements
-
David Colling
-
James Spencer
-
Mannall, Adrian B
-
Robert Kingham
-
Rochford, Steve
-
Stefan Scheel
-
Török, Peter