I wonder. Keeping the licensing language and policies vague and convoluted has got to be good for Oracle in that no one, including themselves, can really determine when one is in or out of compliance. Makes it easier to squeeze more revenue from existing customers. On the other hand more companies are looking for clear cut policies which has got to be pushing some folks elsewhere. I know from looking at MicroSlop's licensing that it is almost as convoluted. Regrettably I can't tell for DB2 or Sybase. There's too many add-on's that change things. Possibly that is why MySql and PostGreSQL are catching on more. Clear licensing policies.
Dick Goulet ____________________Reply Separator____________________ Author: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 1/15/2003 9:13 PM Hi Jared I have a reply from someone who does not want to be identified. This is his case. His company tried reasoning and discussing it with Oracle and even tried a compromised (which I would not be happy with) He company put forward to Oracle to pay for the full licence on the production server AND the minimum for the standby. In the case the standby was a single CPU and so the minimum licence is a 5 User Licence. This was to account for any DBA connection to check the integrity of the standby database. Even this was not acceptable to Oracle. How greedy can you be? Can you say "Gordon Gekko"? BTW The following information applies to all You need to know the difference between NAMED USER and NAMED USER PLUS. (extract from SELECT*Star) Gone also is the "Named User" license. In its place is "Named User Plus. Companies wanting to purchase additional user licenses for the same machine will need to convert their Named User licenses to Named User Plus licenses if they do not have a "Price Hold" on the license. The minimum number of licenses must be the greater of either the actual number of users or the Minimum Named User Plus (25 per CPU) for the server. Minimum Named User (Enterprise Edition) per CPU used to be 10 but now the minimum Named User Plus per CPU is 25. In some instances, customers are forced to buy more licenses than is required when looking for additional licenses. The key difference between Named User and Named User Plus is that Named User does not allow for batch processing whereas Named User Plus does. ta tony At 08:57 PM 15/01/2003 -0800, Jared Still wrote: >Thanks Tony. > >Looks like Larry E is trying to boost revenues in a down >economy by any means necessary. > >You're right, this doesn't seem right. > >Jared > >On Wednesday 15 January 2003 19:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Hi All >> >> For those sites with either a standby, DR or failover database, >> the following information is very important to you. You could be in >> breach of Oracle's Licensing agreement and could cost you $100,000s >> if not millions $$ >> >> (Read the summary at the end if you want to skip the details) >> >... <html> Hi Jared<br><br> I have a reply from someone who does not want to be identified.<br> This is his case. <br><br> His company tried reasoning and discussing it with Oracle<br> and even tried a compromised (which I would not be happy with)<br><br> He company put forward to Oracle to pay for the full licence<br> on the production server AND the minimum for the standby.<br> In the case the standby was a single CPU and so the minimum<br> licence is a 5 User Licence. This was to account for any DBA<br> connection to check the integrity of the standby database.<br> Even this was not acceptable to Oracle. How greedy can you be?<br> Can you say "Gordon Gekko"?<br><br> BTW The following information <b>applies to all <br> </b>You need to know the difference between <u>NAMED USER </u>and<br> <u>NAMED USER <b>PLUS</u></b>. (extract from SELECT*Star)<br><br> <dl><tt><font color="#008000"> <dd>Gone also is the "Named User" license. In its place is <dd>"Named User Plus. Companies wanting to purchase additional <dd>user licenses for the same machine will need to convert <dd>their Named User licenses to Named User Plus licenses <dd>if they do not have a "Price Hold" on the license. <dd>The minimum number of licenses must be the greater of <dd>either the actual number of users or the <dd>Minimum Named User Plus (25 per CPU) for the server. <br><br> <br><br> <dd>Minimum Named User (Enterprise Edition) per CPU <dd>used to be 10 but now the minimum Named User Plus <dd>per CPU is 25. In some instances, customers are <dd>forced to buy more licenses than is required <dd>when looking for additional licenses.<br><br> <dd>The key difference between Named User and <dd>Named User Plus is that Named User does not allow <dd>for batch processing whereas Named User Plus does</b>.<br><br> </font></tt> </dl>ta<br> tony<br><br> <br> At 08:57 PM 15/01/2003 -0800, Jared Still wrote:<br><br> <br> <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Thanks Tony.<br><br> Looks like Larry E is trying to boost revenues in a down<br> economy by any means necessary.<br><br> You're right, this doesn't seem right.<br><br> Jared<br><br> On Wednesday 15 January 2003 19:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:<br> > Hi All<br> ><br> > For those sites with either a standby, DR or failover database,<br> > the following information is very important to you. You could be in<br> > breach of Oracle's Licensing agreement and could cost you $100,000s<br> > if not millions $$<br> ><br> > (Read the summary at the end if you want to skip the details)<br> ><br> ...</blockquote></html> -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California -- Mailing list and web hosting services --------------------------------------------------------------------- To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
