You and LJ are likely correct. I have heard similar things. It is just odd to me and seems against how a typical license agreement is written. I am so use to "you can use this as long as you pay us" (for server software, not Office, etc.) I just figured BMC wasn't enforcing it or going after the organization it knew about.
So in the scenario above, what if the organization downloaded 7.6 or even 8.x before they dropped support. They can upgrade since they downloaded it during their entitled period? Jason On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Rick Westbrock <[email protected]> wrote: > ** > > I would check on ARS/ITSM compatibilities, I have heard of a customer who > was on ARS 7.1 and ITSM 7.0.03 and could not upgrade ARS to 7.5 because > their current version of ITSM would not work with that version of ARS. I > heard about this years after the fact so I don’t know if any testing was > done or if they were just going on what BMC reported to them. > > > > > > As far as support my understanding (whether it’s correct or not is up for > debate) is that you should be able to run forever without a support > contract but you lose all abilities to initiate a case with BMC Support, no > access to patches or any other software and so forth. I haven’t read the > fine print of a contract though so I could be wrong. I was at a customer > once who ran without support for nearly a year without a support contract > because they were planning to migrate from Remedy to a different platform. > As I recall BMC didn’t have a problem with the system running without a > support contract, they just wouldn’t sell additional licenses without > renewal of the overall support contract. > > > > If you were to buy software and a specific number of licenses wouldn’t you > expect to be able to run that software with that user count in perpetuity > regardless of whether you had a support contract? I think in Scott’s case > the customer needs to upgrade ARS for compliance reasons so they are going > to have to accept the costs associated with that (i.e. purchase a support > contract) or migrate to another platform (IMHO). > > > > > > -Rick > > > > *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Jason Miller > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 25, 2014 2:12 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: ITSM 7 Defs Running on ARS 7.6 > > > > ** > > Thanks for the info. Viable, yes. Potentially with some challenges. > > > > We are still on Help Desk 6 on 8.1 ARS. I stop short of calling it ITSM > because all we are using is Help Desk and this was before Assignment > Engine, EIE/AIE and various other newer processes external to AR that now > make up the whole ITSM suite tick. > > > > At this point I call it ours because it is so customized and so far out of > support that we'll never upgrade over it. In fact we recently converted > all of the Help Desk, CMDB and SLA objects to Custom (I plan on deleting > the CMDB and SLA stuff, we don't use them and are already broken > binary-wise). > > > > With that said we still pay for support (granted we were heading down the > ITSM 8.x path until recently). Servers get old and need to be replaced, > that old version of ARS will will only go so far with newer OSes. We will > need new license keys for the new servers (without playing illegal games). > We do a ton of development and we want to continue to incorporate new (UI) > features. Starting at 7.5 the new and updated web UI controls have been > highly valuable. We too use Remedy every day and it is considered one of > higher priority apps DR wise (much of the info we need to recover is stored > in Remedy). > > > > My aim is not to call out your customer however we are dancing around some > legalities... How can an organization upgrade ARS without a support > contract? The reasons your customer is not able to access parts of the BMC > site, including software, is because that entitlement ran out with > support. I have heard stories of long-running systems that have been off > of support for years so I know they are out there but I don't think legally > an organization can continue to run Remedy without support?.?.? I haven't > read the license agreement that closely and am not qualified to be > authoritative on the subject but it is my understanding. > > > > Jason > > > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Scott Hallenger <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Long story here.... but they use remedy every day, yet they dont want to > upgrade itsm.... they are happy enough with their itsm as it is. However, > they are running in to compliance issues outsode of remedy, like with > MS..... Again long story, but I'm just checking if this could be a viable > plan B. So I really need some ipinions to ring in here. > > > -------------------------------------------- > On Tue, 11/25/14, Jason Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > Subject: Re: ITSM 7 Defs Running on ARS 7.6 > To: [email protected] > Date: Tuesday, November 25, 2014, 3:17 PM > > ** > > You bet it is ok. You have my blessing. > <smarta$$ off> I have not specifically run ITSM > 7.1 on ARS 7.6 but largely you should be ok. There are > some behaviors that may have changed between ARS 7.1 and 7.6 > and might give you a few minor surprises but for the most > part the def won't care. I think if anything you might > run into more issues with 7.1 binaries and a 7.6 server. > Assignment Engine and Approval Engine might be interesting > since those are now AR components but were ITSM components > in earlier versions. You might choose to no upgrade those > as part of the AR upgrade to keep them inline with version > that the ITSM def were designed around. > From your previous post it sounds > like you (or your customer) don't mind if it is an > unsupported configuration and are working more to keep the > lights on. Really the only way to know will be to stand up > a sandbox and test thoroughly. Although if you no longer > have support getting licenses for that sandbox could be > prohibitive. Your customer might need to check what they > want to do (or not do) with reality. How important is > Remedy to them? Not important enough to pay for support > but important enough to try and keep it > updated? > Jason > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at > 9:50 AM, Scott Hallenger <[email protected]> > wrote: > Seem > completely feasable to me, but wanted to consult the minds > on this as well. Is it OK to run a full ITSM 7.1 def set on > ARS 7.6. > > > > > > _______________________________________________________________________________ > > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > > "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 > years" > > > _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been > for 20 years_ > > > > _______________________________________________________________________________ > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years" > > > > _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ > _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ > _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
