Re: [U2] MvInternet - IBM Licensing Requirement
In a message dated 4/17/2005 4:33:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: However if you had persistence in the UvBasic program where the past activity of that web user is recorded and then used in a future action then you may be crossing the line. Sorry I have to disagree. The mere act of recording state is not a violation. Almost every web-to-Pick process records state in some way. Will Johnson --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] MvInternet - IBM Licensing Requirement
In a message dated 4/17/2005 5:42:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As mentioned before, if you use Redback you can multiplex until you are blue-in-the-face. Redback is not that expensive to purchase. Is. That's the point. It's the big fat cow on this planet of small farms. Will Johnson --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] MvInternet - IBM Licensing Requirement
In a message dated 4/18/2005 3:09:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I cannot stress that the points I raise are those that are raised by an international consortium of IBM, Microsoft, CA and others to clamp down on piracy. The perception is piracy is the corner market selling bootleg copies of Office, etc. However their focus is on licensing breaches. They see no difference between using 10 copies of word on 1 license of Word or providing 10 users access to a database with 1 user licenses. I disagree with your interpretation of what you perceive to be happening. Perhaps you could point us at a U2 or IBM site that specifically and officially address this, otherwise I claim you're just making a mountain out of something that they could care less about. As has been pointed out, we are discussing WEB connectivity. Anything that discusses anything other than WEB connectivity is not germane to the conversation. Allowing 100 web users to use 10 licenses does not violate any agreement with IBM or anyone else since those web users all share the 10 licenses and are not persisting in the connection. As has also been pointed out, unless you have a speedy system or a good way to share, you may not be able to actually *get* 100 people to share 10 licenses in a timely manner. Your speed may vary. When I was at Spectrum this was one of my questions to the various web-solution providers, how many licenses do I need and how many web users can I support. Without exception, the number of licenses is far less than the number of web users, and IBM was right there with their booth hearing and being a party to all of this and said nothing about it. So, try those apples insert smiley icon here Will Johnson --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] MvInternet - IBM Licensing Requirement
What people are doing is through special programs and queuing where they can run several users continuously with several background processes that stay active. This is what IBM has frowned upon. - My brain wiring doesn't allow me to separate this scenario from real life either. None of this falls under the rules of Piracy ie running one Microsoft Word on multiple PCs. That's spreading FUD and is so far off the point cannot be addressed directly. Look at it this way. I have 500 employees and I pay two full time people to do nothing but run reports for whoever dials their extension and makes a request. These two employees are logged in all day, they remember, manage and distribute the hundreds of requests they get all day. That's all they do. Does your scenario suggest I need 500 licenses rather than two? If not, how does this differ from web services running even from within UV? Is the difference human vs. program? I fully understand the loss of revenue to IBM argument. I'm not going to pay taxes I don't owe either. If I can replace a person with a program, a telephone extension with a web interface, I have saved my company money and have cost IBM nothing I didn't owe before. I'm just more productive. I failed ethics in college. I was failing my second attempt until my Professor gave me a clue. The test questions are supposed to be grey he said, your problem is Dean, you don't think like a criminal. And, I'm still confused today. If I replace a person with a program and a telephone extension with a web interface, do I go to jail or get promoted? What I'm hearing is jail. But my brain isn't wired to understand why. -[d]- On 4/18/05, Tony Gravagno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Until I saw Dean's posting I was also going to just let it go. The trigger for me was the equating of multi-user license usage to running multiple copies of software on different systems. Copying software allows more than one person to execute different functions at exactly the same time. All DBMS products are engineered to allow us to perform the following sequential functions: Accept connection and query Read state data from cache or disk Perform operation on all data Write state data to cache or disk Respond to user and disconnect This is the way web servers work and one common way of engineering a disconnected client/server model. There is no physical way that anyone process can perform those functions for two users simultaneously, the way two instances of pirated software does. All users must wait for any user consuming a license to disconnect before they consume the license in their own turn. The terms connect and disconnect may imply logging in or simply going inactive as someone else consumes the license resource - the point is that the way MV platforms are engineered, only one user can make use of the resource at any given moment in time. This use of licenses has a long standing legal precedent, here are two examples: Modems which came into use in 2nd to 3rd generation systems allowed one user to connect and then disconnect, followed by another user who did the same. Per-seat licensing, compared to named user licensing has always acknowleged this paradigm. Today, if we choose to allow one user to consume that license for a period of 2 hours before giving it up, or 200 milliseconds, that is a matter of design. There are no set standards for how long a user must consume a license in order to be considered legal, except where software vendors impose some minimum connect time. Such impositions are considered bad design and virtually no company takes a stance on this because it's technically and politically unreasonable. Software like UniObjects, PDP.NET, mv.NET, ODBC and RPC, are specifically designed to allow software to connect, process, and disconnect as described above. These products and technologies, and many others like them have established a precedent which allows developers to effectively consume licenses with as short a connect time as possible. I have not heard of a single legal case in the IT world, not just the MV market, brought by a DBMS vendor against a VAR/developer for abuse of this common communications design. I think any company that does so would be committing political suicide, if it allowed its developer base to go so long without action, and then all of a sudden claimed that accepted practices and established connectivity products were now in violation of their legal terms. Unless IBM publicly states their position on this topic, takes a developer to court, or just sends a polite please rethink your license consumption note to someone, we will not know how liberal they are about their licensing, regardless of what their license actually says. My guess is that no DBMS company will take action unless there is blatent abuse. Such abuse would probably have to involve exploitation of a bug which
RE: [U2] MvInternet - IBM Licensing Requirement
I have not heard of a single legal case in the IT world, not just the MV market, brought by a DBMS vendor against a VAR/developer for abuse of this common communications design. I think any company that does so would be committing political suicide, if it allowed its developer base to go so long without action, and then all of a sudden claimed that accepted practices and established connectivity products were now in violation of their legal terms. I am aware of Microsoft doing this. It has done software audits on even large organisations and clobbered then for breaches on SQL Server license. Oracle and IBM have stringent components of their contracts to enable them to do audits. I have had to sign distributor contract with IBM and it stated that they were entitled to investigate my client's sites to ensure that they have proper licenses. As the pressure is on the IT vendors to build revenues and IT spending is down, then sooner or later vendors are going to chase licensing issues to recover revenue. Unless IBM publicly states their position on this topic, takes a developer to court, or just sends a polite please rethink your license consumption note to someone, we will not know how liberal they are about their licensing, regardless of what their license actually says. My guess is that no DBMS company will take action unless there is blatent abuse It is in the licensing contract and a breach of license can lead to criminal charges to Directors. Under SOX one cannot ignore this because one thinks it is unlikely to happen. IBM U2 is not ignoring this area and has already placed restrictions in the use of phantoms to contain this manipulation. Additionally: The examples you give are not the main issue that causes a breach. There are a number of applications where users connect and stay connected but through a 3rd party mechanism that channels tasks through one license to the backend that then distributes to multiple background processes. The intent of this process is not application convenience or style but more an attempt to avoid license fees and many advertise this. It is this avoidance of license revenue that can expose companies legally. I have discussed this issue with both jbase and MvOn as their products talk to Oracle or SQL Server and falls into a similar category where you really only have 1 process accessing the RDBMS, independent of the number of users on jBase or MvOn. Both organisations have very quickly pointed me to Oracle and Microsoft to discuss licensing issues and neither would publicly recommend that companies run using 1 license of Oracle or SQL Server. This is very much on the radar of database vendors. Regards David Jordan --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] MvInternet - IBM Licensing Requirement
Much dittoing I know there have been some changes in the recent versions of U2 to try to prevent the type of multi-plexing that IBM really had a problem with - the use of (unlicensed) phantoms to service these requests. Current versions require phantoms to use a license if they perform certain functions. Perhaps this is where the 10 to 1 figure came in. Each U2 user can start 10 phantoms. I know there is/used to be a 4GL product that ADVERTISED the fact they used phantoms to help eliminate the purchase of DBMS users. I can see the vendors having a problem with that. Hence the recent changes. However, even one of the SVP's at D3 states about the licensing requirements of PDP.net: The less persistent your connection, the more users you can squeeze in. (note trimmed and does not have full context). I doubt the IBM support staff on the list will reply to any of these. Perhaps the user group can lobby IBM to clarify the types of multi-plexing they would have a problem with. Just my .02 CDN Colin Alfke Calgary, Canada -Original Message- From: Tony Gravagno Until I saw Dean's posting I was also going to just let it go. The trigger for me was the equating of multi-user license usage to running multiple copies of software on different systems. Copying software allows more than one person to execute different functions at exactly the same time. [snip] Unless IBM publicly states their position on this topic, takes a developer to court, or just sends a polite please rethink your license consumption note to someone, we will not know how liberal they are about their licensing, regardless of what their license actually says. My guess is that no DBMS company will take action unless there is blatent abuse. [snip] I'd also like to get some real numbers on the table. Some people say you can get 10 users on a single license. Anyone who has implemented a multi-user environment knows this isn't the case because, as stated above, the first user will connect and you'll have 9 people waiting in line afterward. A real high performance remote transaction might take about 250ms, plus or minus depending on network bandwidth, which is still only 4 transactions per second. [snip] Tony Nebula RD --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] MvInternet - IBM Licensing Requirement
Hi Dean I have gone through a number of detailed sessions with Microsoft on issues of Piracy and Microsoft regards improper licensing of database licenses in the same light as running one version of Word on multiple PCs. In my estimation there are probably more companies who have run into trouble with Microsoft over misuse of database license that misuse of Office licenses. Please don't shoot the messenger I am only passing on what I am aware of licensing legalities. The complexities of licensing has to be studied very carefully and is dependent on databases, licensing agreements and methods of use. It is not to say a situation is right or wrong it is a question if it fits the licensing agreement. Unfortunately many people feel that if something is technically possible, then it is legally possible which is not the case. Your examples if you have 500 staff requesting reports from 2 IT people who do the processing then it is obvious 2 users license. Your example of Web Services is difficult. If the database has named licensing then everyone who accesses the database requires a license or you purchase a license per processor. With U2 the licensing is concurrent and the licensing is according to demand. Ie if 100 users could access the system at the same time then you would need a 100 licenses. However if you use a 3rd party product to process the 100 users through 10 licenses then you could fall foul of licensing issues. The other area that may expose you to license issues if you use persistence then you may cross the line again. This is not as simple and clear cut as many may think and it does fall under strict copyright laws. Regards David Jordan --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] MvInternet - IBM Licensing Requirement
I'm not shooting the messenger. My apologies. What Microsoft says about their licensing they can take up with the EU and other criminal charges they have and will continue to answer too. It's is a separate issue unrelated to my discussion about IBM and their product. As is copyright violation, this is not a discussion of profiting from duplicating software for distribution. My discussion is license consumption as it pertains to IBM and their Universe product. Your examples if you have 500 staff requesting reports from 2 IT people who do the processing then it is obvious 2 user license. Your example of Web Service is difficult. Why? Even though I'm not looking for you answer. I ask to raise a point. With U2 the licensing is concurrent and the licensing is according to demand. Ie if 100 users could access the system at the same time then you would need a 100 licenses. Users that could have access in my example, and actually do thought the IT staff is 500. But it is obvious to you that only 2 licenses are required. I can't imagine a DBMS licensing based upon the number of telephone extensions you have in your building. It appears the separation you make is the difference between a person performing a function and a program performing the same function. If it's two people, two licenses are required. If it's two programs, 500 licenses are required. I'm not convinced the definition of a user license is subjective. At some point I would like to write a Web/UV application. When I do, I will be as productive with my user licenses as CPU cycles allow. In the mean time, our speculations as to what is or is not allowed are just that. I don't separate the functions of a human to the functions of a program as far as licenses are concerned. They're both performing the same tasks, abet one is far more productive than the other. Increasing productivity within a connection (user license) does not relate in my mind a legal requirement for more licenses. It's only my opinion. Perhaps IBM and possibly the courts will give us a definition. On 4/18/05, David Jordan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Dean I have gone through a number of detailed sessions with Microsoft on issues of Piracy and Microsoft regards improper licensing of database licenses in the same light as running one version of Word on multiple PCs. In my estimation there are probably more companies who have run into trouble with Microsoft over misuse of database license that misuse of Office licenses. Please don't shoot the messenger I am only passing on what I am aware of licensing legalities. The complexities of licensing has to be studied very carefully and is dependent on databases, licensing agreements and methods of use. It is not to say a situation is right or wrong it is a question if it fits the licensing agreement. Unfortunately many people feel that if something is technically possible, then it is legally possible which is not the case. Your examples if you have 500 staff requesting reports from 2 IT people who do the processing then it is obvious 2 users license. Your example of Web Services is difficult. If the database has named licensing then everyone who accesses the database requires a license or you purchase a license per processor. With U2 the licensing is concurrent and the licensing is according to demand. Ie if 100 users could access the system at the same time then you would need a 100 licenses. However if you use a 3rd party product to process the 100 users through 10 licenses then you could fall foul of licensing issues. The other area that may expose you to license issues if you use persistence then you may cross the line again. This is not as simple and clear cut as many may think and it does fall under strict copyright laws. Regards David Jordan --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] MvInternet - IBM Licensing Requirement
Could you elaborate on this issue ? breaches on SQL Server license David Jordan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have not heard of a single legal case in the IT world, not just the MV market, brought by a DBMS vendor against a VAR/developer for abuse of this common communications design. I think any company that does so would be committing political suicide, if it allowed its developer base to go so long without action, and then all of a sudden claimed that accepted practices and established connectivity products were now in violation of their legal terms. I am aware of Microsoft doing this. It has done software audits on even large organisations and clobbered then for breaches on SQL Server license. Oracle and IBM have stringent components of their contracts to enable them to do audits. I have had to sign distributor contract with IBM and it stated that they were entitled to investigate my client's sites to ensure that they have proper licenses. As the pressure is on the IT vendors to build revenues and IT spending is down, then sooner or later vendors are going to chase licensing issues to recover revenue. Unless IBM publicly states their position on this topic, takes a developer to court, or just sends a polite please rethink your license consumption note to someone, we will not know how liberal they are about their licensing, regardless of what their license actually says. My guess is that no DBMS company will take action unless there is blatent abuse It is in the licensing contract and a breach of license can lead to criminal charges to Directors. Under SOX one cannot ignore this because one thinks it is unlikely to happen. IBM U2 is not ignoring this area and has already placed restrictions in the use of phantoms to contain this manipulation. Additionally: The examples you give are not the main issue that causes a breach. There are a number of applications where users connect and stay connected but through a 3rd party mechanism that channels tasks through one license to the backend that then distributes to multiple background processes. The intent of this process is not application convenience or style but more an attempt to avoid license fees and many advertise this. It is this avoidance of license revenue that can expose companies legally. I have discussed this issue with both jbase and MvOn as their products talk to Oracle or SQL Server and falls into a similar category where you really only have 1 process accessing the RDBMS, independent of the number of users on jBase or MvOn. Both organisations have very quickly pointed me to Oracle and Microsoft to discuss licensing issues and neither would publicly recommend that companies run using 1 license of Oracle or SQL Server. This is very much on the radar of database vendors. Regards David Jordan --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ - Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] MvInternet - IBM Licensing Requirement
The gotcha there, is the fact that you *know* that 500 employees are using the DBMS simultaneously via 2 seats. If you said, I _know_ that no more than 10 employees are using the software at any given moment and I have 10 licenses to justify that, then there would be no problem. Whether or not it appears that 500 can use it within realistic timing is a completely separate investigation. The truth is, if you only have 10 seats then there can only be 10 active processes on the box at a time. The days of user=process are gone. It's time to wake up and realize the world has changed already. MV is always the last to smell the coffee burning. This thread is really getting moldy guys. The fact is, user-seat licensing and pooled licensing mix together like alcohol and mercury. There's a cost-per-unit sales problem inherent there. Either you loose all your single-seats to pooled muxes or you end up fighting the single-seat mux wars. IBM can try it, but I know it won't work. It's time for a CPU based license model, for those who want to configure MV for a non-persistent services model. There's no other realistic solution. Glen -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dean Fox Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 7:54 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] MvInternet - IBM Licensing Requirement What people are doing is through special programs and queuing where they can run several users continuously with several background processes that stay active. This is what IBM has frowned upon. - My brain wiring doesn't allow me to separate this scenario from real life either. None of this falls under the rules of Piracy ie running one Microsoft Word on multiple PCs. That's spreading FUD and is so far off the point cannot be addressed directly. Look at it this way. I have 500 employees and I pay two full time people to do nothing but run reports for whoever dials their extension and makes a request. These two employees are logged in all day, they remember, manage and distribute the hundreds of requests they get all day. That's all they do. Does your scenario suggest I need 500 licenses rather than two? If not, how does this differ from web services running even from within UV? Is the difference human vs. program? I fully understand the loss of revenue to IBM argument. I'm not going to pay taxes I don't owe either. If I can replace a person with a program, a telephone extension with a web interface, I have saved my company money and have cost IBM nothing I didn't owe before. I'm just more productive. I failed ethics in college. I was failing my second attempt until my Professor gave me a clue. The test questions are supposed to be grey he said, your problem is Dean, you don't think like a criminal. And, I'm still confused today. If I replace a person with a program and a telephone extension with a web interface, do I go to jail or get promoted? What I'm hearing is jail. But my brain isn't wired to understand why. -[d]- On 4/18/05, Tony Gravagno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Until I saw Dean's posting I was also going to just let it go. The trigger for me was the equating of multi-user license usage to running multiple copies of software on different systems. Copying software allows more than one person to execute different functions at exactly the same time. All DBMS products are engineered to allow us to perform the following sequential functions: Accept connection and query Read state data from cache or disk Perform operation on all data Write state data to cache or disk Respond to user and disconnect This is the way web servers work and one common way of engineering a disconnected client/server model. There is no physical way that anyone process can perform those functions for two users simultaneously, the way two instances of pirated software does. All users must wait for any user consuming a license to disconnect before they consume the license in their own turn. The terms connect and disconnect may imply logging in or simply going inactive as someone else consumes the license resource - the point is that the way MV platforms are engineered, only one user can make use of the resource at any given moment in time. This use of licenses has a long standing legal precedent, here are two examples: Modems which came into use in 2nd to 3rd generation systems allowed one user to connect and then disconnect, followed by another user who did the same. Per-seat licensing, compared to named user licensing has always acknowleged this paradigm. Today, if we choose to allow one user to consume that license for a period of 2 hours before giving it up, or 200 milliseconds, that is a matter of design. There are no set standards for how long a user must consume a license in order to be considered legal, except where software
RE: [U2] MvInternet - IBM Licensing Requirement
Piracy would mean installing and using an unlicensed software product. Piracy and multiplexing are not the same issue. David Jordan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Dean I have gone through a number of detailed sessions with Microsoft on issues of Piracy and Microsoft regards improper licensing of database licenses in the same light as running one version of Word on multiple PCs. In my estimation there are probably more companies who have run into trouble with Microsoft over misuse of database license that misuse of Office licenses. Please don't shoot the messenger I am only passing on what I am aware of licensing legalities. The complexities of licensing has to be studied very carefully and is dependent on databases, licensing agreements and methods of use. It is not to say a situation is right or wrong it is a question if it fits the licensing agreement. Unfortunately many people feel that if something is technically possible, then it is legally possible which is not the case. Your examples if you have 500 staff requesting reports from 2 IT people who do the processing then it is obvious 2 users license. Your example of Web Services is difficult. If the database has named licensing then everyone who accesses the database requires a license or you purchase a license per processor. With U2 the licensing is concurrent and the licensing is according to demand. Ie if 100 users could access the system at the same time then you would need a 100 licenses. However if you use a 3rd party product to process the 100 users through 10 licenses then you could fall foul of licensing issues. The other area that may expose you to license issues if you use persistence then you may cross the line again. This is not as simple and clear cut as many may think and it does fall under strict copyright laws. Regards David Jordan --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] MvInternet - IBM Licensing Requirement
Somehow or other this thread points out issue(s) mvDbms vendors need to come to grips with. I got onto google and entered SQL Server site license and picked the first link I saw and found out I could get a single processor SQL Server Standard license for $3,500 (or a single processor SQL Server Enterprise license for $7,500). To me this means I get an unlimited user SQL Server license for a single processor for $3,500 (or $7,500 if I'm interested in some advanced analysis features). This is specifically offered for e-commerce applications. It's often been pointed out that the mvDbms products are waay too expensive by comparison. This thread has wildly speculated about possible heavy handed action by IBM in order to continue to overcharge users for U2 products. At this rate there won't be any U2 users left. I don't believe anyone is trying to cheat IBM here (and IBM knows it). Developers are just trying to compete. This is good; for developers and for IBM. :-) Bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Jordan Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 5:38 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] MvInternet - IBM Licensing Requirement I have not heard of a single legal case in the IT world, not just the MV market, brought by a DBMS vendor against a VAR/developer for abuse of this common communications design. I think any company that does so would be committing political suicide, if it allowed its developer base to go so long without action, and then all of a sudden claimed that accepted practices and established connectivity products were now in violation of their legal terms. I am aware of Microsoft doing this. It has done software audits on even large organisations and clobbered then for breaches on SQL Server license. Oracle and IBM have stringent components of their contracts to enable them to do audits. I have had to sign distributor contract with IBM and it stated that they were entitled to investigate my client's sites to ensure that they have proper licenses. As the pressure is on the IT vendors to build revenues and IT spending is down, then sooner or later vendors are going to chase licensing issues to recover revenue. Unless IBM publicly states their position on this topic, takes a developer to court, or just sends a polite please rethink your license consumption note to someone, we will not know how liberal they are about their licensing, regardless of what their license actually says. My guess is that no DBMS company will take action unless there is blatent abuse It is in the licensing contract and a breach of license can lead to criminal charges to Directors. Under SOX one cannot ignore this because one thinks it is unlikely to happen. IBM U2 is not ignoring this area and has already placed restrictions in the use of phantoms to contain this manipulation. Additionally: The examples you give are not the main issue that causes a breach. There are a number of applications where users connect and stay connected but through a 3rd party mechanism that channels tasks through one license to the backend that then distributes to multiple background processes. The intent of this process is not application convenience or style but more an attempt to avoid license fees and many advertise this. It is this avoidance of license revenue that can expose companies legally. I have discussed this issue with both jbase and MvOn as their products talk to Oracle or SQL Server and falls into a similar category where you really only have 1 process accessing the RDBMS, independent of the number of users on jBase or MvOn. Both organisations have very quickly pointed me to Oracle and Microsoft to discuss licensing issues and neither would publicly recommend that companies run using 1 license of Oracle or SQL Server. This is very much on the radar of database vendors. Regards David Jordan --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] MvInternet - IBM Licensing Requirement
The legal run around would be write a transaction interface for MV to SQL, and float a SQL processor license solution on the web side... At this point you think why do I want to even use a U2 backend? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill H. Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 1:44 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] MvInternet - IBM Licensing Requirement Somehow or other this thread points out issue(s) mvDbms vendors need to come to grips with. I got onto google and entered SQL Server site license and picked the first link I saw and found out I could get a single processor SQL Server Standard license for $3,500 (or a single processor SQL Server Enterprise license for $7,500). To me this means I get an unlimited user SQL Server license for a single processor for $3,500 (or $7,500 if I'm interested in some advanced analysis features). This is specifically offered for e-commerce applications. It's often been pointed out that the mvDbms products are waay too expensive by comparison. This thread has wildly speculated about possible heavy handed action by IBM in order to continue to overcharge users for U2 products. At this rate there won't be any U2 users left. I don't believe anyone is trying to cheat IBM here (and IBM knows it). Developers are just trying to compete. This is good; for developers and for IBM. :-) Bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Jordan Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 5:38 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] MvInternet - IBM Licensing Requirement I have not heard of a single legal case in the IT world, not just the MV market, brought by a DBMS vendor against a VAR/developer for abuse of this common communications design. I think any company that does so would be committing political suicide, if it allowed its developer base to go so long without action, and then all of a sudden claimed that accepted practices and established connectivity products were now in violation of their legal terms. I am aware of Microsoft doing this. It has done software audits on even large organisations and clobbered then for breaches on SQL Server license. Oracle and IBM have stringent components of their contracts to enable them to do audits. I have had to sign distributor contract with IBM and it stated that they were entitled to investigate my client's sites to ensure that they have proper licenses. As the pressure is on the IT vendors to build revenues and IT spending is down, then sooner or later vendors are going to chase licensing issues to recover revenue. Unless IBM publicly states their position on this topic, takes a developer to court, or just sends a polite please rethink your license consumption note to someone, we will not know how liberal they are about their licensing, regardless of what their license actually says. My guess is that no DBMS company will take action unless there is blatent abuse It is in the licensing contract and a breach of license can lead to criminal charges to Directors. Under SOX one cannot ignore this because one thinks it is unlikely to happen. IBM U2 is not ignoring this area and has already placed restrictions in the use of phantoms to contain this manipulation. Additionally: The examples you give are not the main issue that causes a breach. There are a number of applications where users connect and stay connected but through a 3rd party mechanism that channels tasks through one license to the backend that then distributes to multiple background processes. The intent of this process is not application convenience or style but more an attempt to avoid license fees and many advertise this. It is this avoidance of license revenue that can expose companies legally. I have discussed this issue with both jbase and MvOn as their products talk to Oracle or SQL Server and falls into a similar category where you really only have 1 process accessing the RDBMS, independent of the number of users on jBase or MvOn. Both organisations have very quickly pointed me to Oracle and Microsoft to discuss licensing issues and neither would publicly recommend that companies run using 1 license of Oracle or SQL Server. This is very much on the radar of database vendors. Regards David Jordan --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] MvInternet - IBM Licensing Requirement
Other RDBMS are worse, you usually have the choice of named users or server licenses and you don't have the advantage of concurrent licenses. The number of sites who put up something like a phone book list on SQL Server with 10 license as they expected no more than 10 people at a time accessing the database to only find out later that they needed a couple of 100 licenses for every potential user who accesses the system. Worse if you access the database from your desktop and your phone then you require 2 licenses not one. Using RDBMS for Internet facilities requires a Server License of the database to get around this issue of named licenses. The wording in the licensing for UniVerse did specify that it was a breach of the license to use this type of multiplexed processing to minimise licensing. This is covered with Redback with special licensing and I am not aware of this being made available to other 3rd parties, but I am sure that some arrangement could be made with IBM for other 3rd party products. I do believe in the next releases of UniVerse UniData that pooling facilities will be made available although I am not sure what this means in licensing terms. Although there is often a level of outrage, remember if U2 does not sell licenses then there will be no U2 products. Just to give some perspective, concurrent licensing can cut the number of licenses purchased as much as 90% (1 concurrent to 10 named licenses). By multiplexing, one is reducing by 90% again by having 10 users use 1 concurrent license. This means that U2 would only achieve 1% of the license sales that you would expect if you had Oracle, SQL Server, etc. Bearing this in mind, if people have a realistic and commercially viable suggestion for a suitable licensing model for these types of applications, then the U2UG can lobby IBM for a change in licensing. Regards David Jordan U2UG Director -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brown, Rick (brownri) Sent: Saturday, 16 April 2005 5:57 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] MvInternet - IBM Licensing Requirement Actually, not allowing connections would be a very stupid move on IBM's part. That would make me move away from any IBM product as quickly as you could say Oracle. I too doubt that that Datatel is violating a license agreement. The number of user license (concurrent) is configurable. A limitation like that would mean that no Unidata data would ever get to the web. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] MvInternet - IBM Licensing Requirement
I've been watching this thread and not saying anything because my view is contradictory to what seems to be the majority. I have 5 people visiting my web site, some are reading the page, some have left for coffee after loading the page and others are cutting and pasting from the page. Nevertheless, they are web site visitors. They are not logged in users of the DBMS. They can't be. The HTML protocol doesn't work that way. The user of the DBMS is the web service. If a link on the web page needs data, the web service logs on to the DBMS, retrieves the data and logs off. One user license used for the duration. In my mind, I need as many DBMS user licenses as I need web service connections. If it takes 20 seconds to perform the SELECT FILE and return the results, then for those 20 seconds, one DBMS license is consumed. If it takes .5 seconds to read an Item, then one DBMS license is consumed for .5 seconds. So long as there is no threading, and by threading I mean multiple unrelated requests in the same connection. If each DBMS request consumes one license, legalese or not, I'll sleep the sleep of the rightest. Besides how would I manage this? At what point would they be considered a logged in user of the DBMS? When they load my home page? Or perhaps two links later when they load the Review Order page? They retrieve their order and it's now displayed, how long are they to be considered still logged on? Because, after viewing their order they've moved on to a completely different site. Do I time them out after 30 seconds? One hour? The consumer of the license is the web service. One license per request. If I can feed 100 web site visitors and the web service only needs 5 connections at any given moment, then I need 5 DBMS licenses. Sorry if that fails the morality and legal tests. It's the way my brain is wired. -[d]- On 4/17/05, Webmaster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem with multiplexing is the fact that DBMS vendors are still banking on the one-to-one human ratio to make a profit. More and more people are looking for an open DBMS backend and not always a per-user environment. That's why MySQL and Postgres are moving up in the DBMS arena. It's been way past the time for a services license model and architecture. You can multiplex in a huge variety of methods that currently do not warrant an arrest for DB assault. Some methods are more efficient and easier to implement than others. The wording of many EULAs can be interpreted many ways and that can lead to problems. Dual-licensing is one way to bundle OEM DBMS systems and multiplexing products together, but it's not really a solution for the masses. Look at the following scenario: You establish a web site that gets ~20 DBMS hits per second. (that's a high amount of traffic) You implement a web service that uses 20 user licenses and each license runs in the DBMS for 1 second or less. Ideally, your solution is capable of handling a minimum of 20 users per second. It could possibly handle 40 users per second depending on the code being run. This scenario does not breach the EULA, since you are not handling more concurrent users than you have licenses for. Each connection uses a license, but only for a split second and then it is released. The same could be said for buying 10 licenses for 30 employees and allowing each department to use their terminals during a specified time in the day. You are still 'multiplexing', but most view the latter as a valid license useage while the first is abusive minimizing of licenses. Seems contradictory logic to me. Glen http://picksource.com http://mvdevcentral.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Jordan Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2005 7:17 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] MvInternet - IBM Licensing Requirement Other RDBMS are worse, you usually have the choice of named users or server licenses and you don't have the advantage of concurrent licenses. The number of sites who put up something like a phone book list on SQL Server with 10 license as they expected no more than 10 people at a time accessing the database to only find out later that they needed a couple of 100 licenses for every potential user who accesses the system. Worse if you access the database from your desktop and your phone then you require 2 licenses not one. Using RDBMS for Internet facilities requires a Server License of the database to get around this issue of named licenses. The wording in the licensing for UniVerse did specify that it was a breach of the license to use this type of multiplexed processing to minimise licensing. This is covered with Redback with special licensing and I am not aware of this being made available to other 3rd parties, but I am sure that some arrangement could be made with IBM for other 3rd party products. I do believe in the next
RE: [U2] MvInternet - IBM Licensing Requirement
Hi Dean What you are doing is not a breach of the license. Connect, process, Disconnect and forget is OK. However if you had persistence in the UvBasic program where the past activity of that web user is recorded and then used in a future action then you may be crossing the line. What people are doing is through special programs and queuing where they can run several users continuously with several background processes that stay active. This is what IBM has frowned upon. User1 --- --- Process1 \ / User2 Multiplex 1xU2 License - Process2 / \ User 3 -- Process3 Understand that this equates to a loss of revenue to IBM and sooner or later one should expect that they will take action. This is not an ethics issue; it falls under the rules of Piracy ie running one Microsoft Word on multiple PCs. The criminal and civil actions apply to the customer as much as they do to the partner that sells the solution, so one has to tread very carefully down this path. Worldwide IBM, Microsoft and a number of vendors have formed a piracy coalition hiring lawyers and that works with Governments and law enforcement to attack piracy. Large fines and jail sentences have been given to suppliers committing piracy and CIOs' have lost jobs and CIOs' and Companies have been fined for breaching license agreements. Under SOX this is becoming a bigger issue. One cannot pretend the rules are not there, there should be activities to ensure special licensing arrangements are in place for 3rd party applications as they are for RedBack. Regards David Jordan --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] MvInternet - IBM Licensing Requirement
As mentioned before, if you use Redback you can multiplex until you are blue-in-the-face. Redback is not that expensive to purchase. David Jordan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Dean What you are doing is not a breach of the license. Connect, process, Disconnect and forget is OK. However if you had persistence in the UvBasic program where the past activity of that web user is recorded and then used in a future action then you may be crossing the line. What people are doing is through special programs and queuing where they can run several users continuously with several background processes that stay active. This is what IBM has frowned upon. User1 --- --- Process1 \ / User2 Multiplex 1xU2 License - Process2 / \ User 3 -- Process3 Understand that this equates to a loss of revenue to IBM and sooner or later one should expect that they will take action. This is not an ethics issue; it falls under the rules of Piracy ie running one Microsoft Word on multiple PCs. The criminal and civil actions apply to the customer as much as they do to the partner that sells the solution, so one has to tread very carefully down this path. Worldwide IBM, Microsoft and a number of vendors have formed a piracy coalition hiring lawyers and that works with Governments and law enforcement to attack piracy. Large fines and jail sentences have been given to suppliers committing piracy and CIOs' have lost jobs and CIOs' and Companies have been fined for breaching license agreements. Under SOX this is becoming a bigger issue. One cannot pretend the rules are not there, there should be activities to ensure special licensing arrangements are in place for 3rd party applications as they are for RedBack. Regards David Jordan --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ - Do you Yahoo!? Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides! --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] MvInternet - IBM Licensing Requirement
At 17:47 -0600 2005/04/14, D Averch wrote: Think of this scenario. You have a Web site that is accessed by over 100 users at a give time. You would have to have at least $44,000 worth of licenses to handle that load versus just around 6 to 10 web shares with RedBack. I strongly disagree. Each Web transaction is a finite batch request and this situation is essentially no different than having fewer licenses than the total number of people in your office or having a U2 session kicked-off in response to files being placed in a directory. There is no concurrency, as modern as the web is, it's really just back to 70's batch mode with a different dialect of roff/troff. We have not found a lot of companies running Web sites that want to gamble that IBM is not going to catch them. We as in who? It's hard to tell with the Hotmail address and the lack of a signature. Just because you've not encountered any, that doesn't mean they don't exist in large numbers. Datatel has well over 600 colleges using their Web Advisor product (It's very likely higher now, that number is about two years old); Aptron has all of their universities; we have our customer base; Via Systems, Pixius, Sierra Bravo, etc. have their U2 customers; Application developers like Innovative Software Solutions, Key Data, Autopower, etc. have their customers -- The list goes on. There are a very large number of U2 users that have gone non-Redback routes. Ray -- .=. | =-=-=-=-=-=-= Eagle Rock Information Systems Corp =-=-=-=-=-=-= | | -=-=-=-=-=-=- web and database business solutions -=-=-=-=-=-=- | | http://www.eriscorp.commailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | |Midwest Regional Office: 815-547-0662 (voice) 815-547-0353 (Fax)| .=. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] MvInternet - IBM Licensing Requirement
Until I saw Dean's posting I was also going to just let it go. The trigger for me was the equating of multi-user license usage to running multiple copies of software on different systems. Copying software allows more than one person to execute different functions at exactly the same time. All DBMS products are engineered to allow us to perform the following sequential functions: Accept connection and query Read state data from cache or disk Perform operation on all data Write state data to cache or disk Respond to user and disconnect This is the way web servers work and one common way of engineering a disconnected client/server model. There is no physical way that anyone process can perform those functions for two users simultaneously, the way two instances of pirated software does. All users must wait for any user consuming a license to disconnect before they consume the license in their own turn. The terms connect and disconnect may imply logging in or simply going inactive as someone else consumes the license resource - the point is that the way MV platforms are engineered, only one user can make use of the resource at any given moment in time. This use of licenses has a long standing legal precedent, here are two examples: Modems which came into use in 2nd to 3rd generation systems allowed one user to connect and then disconnect, followed by another user who did the same. Per-seat licensing, compared to named user licensing has always acknowleged this paradigm. Today, if we choose to allow one user to consume that license for a period of 2 hours before giving it up, or 200 milliseconds, that is a matter of design. There are no set standards for how long a user must consume a license in order to be considered legal, except where software vendors impose some minimum connect time. Such impositions are considered bad design and virtually no company takes a stance on this because it's technically and politically unreasonable. Software like UniObjects, PDP.NET, mv.NET, ODBC and RPC, are specifically designed to allow software to connect, process, and disconnect as described above. These products and technologies, and many others like them have established a precedent which allows developers to effectively consume licenses with as short a connect time as possible. I have not heard of a single legal case in the IT world, not just the MV market, brought by a DBMS vendor against a VAR/developer for abuse of this common communications design. I think any company that does so would be committing political suicide, if it allowed its developer base to go so long without action, and then all of a sudden claimed that accepted practices and established connectivity products were now in violation of their legal terms. Unless IBM publicly states their position on this topic, takes a developer to court, or just sends a polite please rethink your license consumption note to someone, we will not know how liberal they are about their licensing, regardless of what their license actually says. My guess is that no DBMS company will take action unless there is blatent abuse. Such abuse would probably have to involve exploitation of a bug which didn't enforce licensing policies. I'm also guessing no company would make any open statements - the we can sue you if we really want to ace in the hole is just enough to keep some people from jumping across that nearly transparent line between reasonable use and abuse. I'd also like to get some real numbers on the table. Some people say you can get 10 users on a single license. Anyone who has implemented a multi-user environment knows this isn't the case because, as stated above, the first user will connect and you'll have 9 people waiting in line afterward. A real high performance remote transaction might take about 250ms, plus or minus depending on network bandwidth, which is still only 4 transactions per second. (Note that's not including common MV operations like SELECT or EXECUTE.) With 10 users one 1 license you'll have some users waiting in excess of 2.5 seconds, which is simply unacceptable in some environments. A more real expectation is 2-4 licenses per 10 users. In a 100 user shop, that doesn't mean 20 to 40 licenses, it means 25-50 because you'll still need some ports for telnet administration, etc. OK, maybe 50 licenses for 100 users is too much, but you can easily see that now we're negotiating numbers far different from a 1-to-10 ratio. Everyone is looking at this situation as an abuse of licenses. I think we need to look at licensing from a bigger perspective. DBMS companies don't make money selling to mom and pop shops. I think IBM and other companies are happy to know about 100 user sites and 1000 user sites, even if they only consume 30 to 400 seats for those numbers of users. A 30 license shop, even for 100 users, is much less hassle than 10 systems with 3 users. Market share is usually quoted in total numbers
Re: [U2] MvInternet - IBM Licensing Requirement
Is there a per CPU license that would allow any number of connections? With SQL server, Oracle and others you can purchase a per cpu license whereby any number of connections can be made. That is probably what would be best in an environment where a large number of users are expected, but just how large is not known in advance. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] MvInternet - IBM Licensing Requirement
It does not matter that who built the multiplex software or how it works only RedBack is allowed by contract to do multiplexing. All of the scenarios would require more licenses except those using RedBack. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave S Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 6:18 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] MvInternet - IBM Licensing Requirement I have seen and used multiplexing software where you specify the number of licenses (ports) to be used. If you assign 10 ports for example, then the 11th user has to wait until a port is freed up. Ideally the requests only take up a few seconds, so the 11th user does not have to wait that long. Under a multiplexing setup, utilizing client-server 100% you might be able to purchase fewer licenses then under a non client server setup. You could have 1,000 actual users for example only consume 200 concurrent licenses at one time with a client-server setup. I have used other software packages (Saleslogix) that require each and every unique user to have a license. From your email, you seem to hint that Redback is exempt from the IBM licensing scheme, is that correct ? --- D Averch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They U2 OEM Handbook it states: Customers are required to purchase a number of licenses equal to the maximum number of concurrent solution users. For example, if either third party or in-house transaction-based multiplexing software (e.g. Transaction Processing (TP) Monitor, Web servers, etc.) or hardware, other than RedBack, is used in conjunction with U2, you will be required to purchase the number of licenses equal to the actual number of licenses you have used without multiplexing software. Think of this scenario. You have a Web site that is accessed by over 100 users at a give time. You would have to have at least $44,000 worth of licenses to handle that load versus just around 6 to 10 web shares with RedBack. We have not found a lot of companies running Web sites that want to gamble that IBM is not going to catch them. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave S Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 12:54 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] MvInternet - IBM Licensing Requirement Can you provide the sentence(s) in the license agreement that states this ? --- D Averch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All of the products mentioned here except RedBack will VOID your IBM concurrent user license requirement. IBM does not allow you to use third party or in-house multiplexing software. You must purchase the number of licenses equal to the actual number of licenses you would have used without multiplexing software. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Raymond DeGennaro II Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 10:18 AM To: Brown, Rick (brownri) Cc: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] MvInternet At 08:50 -0400 2005/04/14, Brown, Rick \(brownri\) wrote: It seems that the MvInternet product is no longer available. Is there some transport to get Unibasic or XML output to the web that does not entail spending 16,000 dollars? ... MvInternet seemed to be EXACTLY what we wanted. WebWizard (which seems to run on that engine) seems way too expensive. Rick, Just in case somebody hasn't gotten back to you yet, we offer a whole suite of products and the $16k price tag is for all the bells and whistles, full source-code distribution, maintenance, two days on-site training, travel estimates, etc.. I was a bit hesitant to reply to the list because I didn't want my reply to come off too like a sales pitch, but I also didn't want to leave some technical aspects open to misinterpretation. Web Wizard was written to be platform independent and to work on top of any low-level connection. We have installations running in uniVerse, UniData, D3, mv.Base, jBase, PI/Open, etc. and even had a few installs on MentorPro back in the early days. As for the low-level connection, we have installations of Web Wizard running on top of ViaDuct, mvInternet, Coyote, uvObjects, LibertyODBC, our own low-level connection, etc.. Also, the next version of our connector, which is being seeded to beta testers, will have full SSL encryption between the web server and database server. The full version of Web Wizard includes a Web API that generates HTML and auto-adjusts to WML if the browser is a PDA or cell phone, XML parsing and generation, the capability to return dynamically generated Excel Spreadsheets, PDF, RTF, etc. Since the API is written in mvBASIC, it makes is very easy to reuse your existing subroutines, files and dictionaries. Almost always, there is very
RE: [U2] MvInternet - IBM Licensing Requirement
For example, if either third party or in-house transaction-based multiplexing software (e.g. Transaction Processing (TP) Monitor, Web servers, etc.) or hardware, other than RedBack, is used in conjunction with U2, you will be required to purchase the number of licenses equal to the actual number of licenses you have used without multiplexing software. You have to be a contract lawyer to decipher this. Good luck trying to determine the actual number of licenses you have used without multiplexing software. D Averch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It does not matter that who built the multiplex software or how it works only RedBack is allowed by contract to do multiplexing. All of the scenarios would require more licenses except those using RedBack. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave S Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 6:18 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] MvInternet - IBM Licensing Requirement I have seen and used multiplexing software where you specify the number of licenses (ports) to be used. If you assign 10 ports for example, then the 11th user has to wait until a port is freed up. Ideally the requests only take up a few seconds, so the 11th user does not have to wait that long. Under a multiplexing setup, utilizing client-server 100% you might be able to purchase fewer licenses then under a non client server setup. You could have 1,000 actual users for example only consume 200 concurrent licenses at one time with a client-server setup. I have used other software packages (Saleslogix) that require each and every unique user to have a license. From your email, you seem to hint that Redback is exempt from the IBM licensing scheme, is that correct ? --- D Averch wrote: They U2 OEM Handbook it states: Customers are required to purchase a number of licenses equal to the maximum number of concurrent solution users. For example, if either third party or in-house transaction-based multiplexing software (e.g. Transaction Processing (TP) Monitor, Web servers, etc.) or hardware, other than RedBack, is used in conjunction with U2, you will be required to purchase the number of licenses equal to the actual number of licenses you have used without multiplexing software. Think of this scenario. You have a Web site that is accessed by over 100 users at a give time. You would have to have at least $44,000 worth of licenses to handle that load versus just around 6 to 10 web shares with RedBack. We have not found a lot of companies running Web sites that want to gamble that IBM is not going to catch them. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave S Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 12:54 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] MvInternet - IBM Licensing Requirement Can you provide the sentence(s) in the license agreement that states this ? --- D Averch wrote: All of the products mentioned here except RedBack will VOID your IBM concurrent user license requirement. IBM does not allow you to use third party or in-house multiplexing software. You must purchase the number of licenses equal to the actual number of licenses you would have used without multiplexing software. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Raymond DeGennaro II Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 10:18 AM To: Brown, Rick (brownri) Cc: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] MvInternet At 08:50 -0400 2005/04/14, Brown, Rick \(brownri\) wrote: It seems that the MvInternet product is no longer available. Is there some transport to get Unibasic or XML output to the web that does not entail spending 16,000 dollars? ... MvInternet seemed to be EXACTLY what we wanted. WebWizard (which seems to run on that engine) seems way too expensive. Rick, Just in case somebody hasn't gotten back to you yet, we offer a whole suite of products and the $16k price tag is for all the bells and whistles, full source-code distribution, maintenance, two days on-site training, travel estimates, etc.. I was a bit hesitant to reply to the list because I didn't want my reply to come off too like a sales pitch, but I also didn't want to leave some technical aspects open to misinterpretation. Web Wizard was written to be platform independent and to work on top of any low-level connection. We have installations running in uniVerse, UniData, D3, mv.Base, jBase, PI/Open, etc. and even had a few installs on MentorPro back in the early days. As for the low-level connection, we have installations of Web Wizard running on top of ViaDuct, mvInternet, Coyote, uvObjects, LibertyODBC, our own low-level connection, etc.. Also, the next version of our connector, which is being seeded
RE: [U2] MvInternet - IBM Licensing Requirement
VOID isn't the right word... BTW, it was your word, not mine. It's not even close to being the right word. It's all out wrong. I should have continued quoting the next line too (below). You didn't just imply that it's not allowed, you said it. The very documentation you pull out to support your argument specifically talks about needing license slots for that very thing. If it's not allowed than there is be no reason to state the need for user licenses for them. We could even make it more interesting. Your new argument seems to be against the queuing of requests. I believe most webservers queue requests. I know for a fact that apache does. See the docs on MinSpareServers, MaxSpareServers, and MaxClients. And since a webserver is transactional and stateless (unless we consider sessions which I'll get into in a sec), then when does a user count and when do they not? In other words, I request a page from the webserver connected to a U2 database. I use up a user license slot. When does that slot free back up? When the page is done being sent? When I don't ask for any more pages? How you going to determine that? When my session is over? If sessions are used. What if they aren't? When I close my browser? Again how to determine that? After some arbitrary timeout? How long and who decides? Let's relate it to a terminal based app. Say I want to check inventory. I could log on, send my request, see the answer and log out. Is that not what the web server is doing when a page asking for the same this is requested and sent back? So for a terminal, my user license is needed from login to logout. So unless something like sessions are being used to maintain some type of state, then why would the web based user not be bound by the same rules? --- D Averch wrote: All of the products mentioned here except RedBack will VOID your IBM concurrent user license requirement. IBM does not allow you to use third party or in-house multiplexing software. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] MvInternet - IBM Licensing Requirement
VOID is not the proper word. However, if you have 100 users hitting your web site all at once, you need 100 licenses not 10 with multiplexing software queuing up the other 90 users. This makes no sense to me. If I have 100 desktops all trying to access my UV app at the same time, but my 10 user license only allows 10 in at a time, are you saying I have to have 100 licenses? Multiplexing and queueing are not the same thing. If I use software to arbitrate 100 queries so that only 10 are ever processed at the same time, how is that different from my desktop example? Barry --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] MvInternet - IBM Licensing Requirement
This is absolutely false. It would be interesting to see one company trying to force a particular system onto a company that wanted to use a competitor's product. I think there's a word for this . h Notice how no one actually from IBM has piped in on this. Will Johnson Fast Forward Technologies -Original Message- From: D Averch [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Sent: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:22:59 -0600 Subject: RE: [U2] MvInternet - IBM Licensing Requirement VOID is not the proper word. However, if you have 100 users hitting your web site all at once, you need 100 licenses not 10 with multiplexing software queuing up the other 90 users. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] MvInternet - IBM Licensing Requirement
You can develop client-server applications that don't require persistent connections. I hope you don't think that Unidata/Universe shops are going to develop 100% client-server applications that require each and every desktop to have a Unidata/Universe license. That's not the case from what I have seen. I have seen a mixture of green-screen (legacy) and client-server applications at one company. The client-server was multiplexed and that worked great. --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: VOID isn't the right word... BTW, it was your word, not mine. It's not even close to being the right word. It's all out wrong. I should have continued quoting the next line too (below). You didn't just imply that it's not allowed, you said it. The very documentation you pull out to support your argument specifically talks about needing license slots for that very thing. If it's not allowed than there is be no reason to state the need for user licenses for them. We could even make it more interesting. Your new argument seems to be against the queuing of requests. I believe most webservers queue requests. I know for a fact that apache does. See the docs on MinSpareServers, MaxSpareServers, and MaxClients. And since a webserver is transactional and stateless (unless we consider sessions which I'll get into in a sec), then when does a user count and when do they not? In other words, I request a page from the webserver connected to a U2 database. I use up a user license slot. When does that slot free back up? When the page is done being sent? When I don't ask for any more pages? How you going to determine that? When my session is over? If sessions are used. What if they aren't? When I close my browser? Again how to determine that? After some arbitrary timeout? How long and who decides? Let's relate it to a terminal based app. Say I want to check inventory. I could log on, send my request, see the answer and log out. Is that not what the web server is doing when a page asking for the same this is requested and sent back? So for a terminal, my user license is needed from login to logout. So unless something like sessions are being used to maintain some type of state, then why would the web based user not be bound by the same rules? --- D Averch wrote: All of the products mentioned here except RedBack will VOID your IBM concurrent user license requirement. IBM does not allow you to use third party or in-house multiplexing software. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] MvInternet - IBM Licensing Requirement
He may be speaking from the VAR point-of-view instead of the end-user point-of-view. --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is absolutely false. It would be interesting to see one company trying to force a particular system onto a company that wanted to use a competitor's product. I think there's a word for this . h Notice how no one actually from IBM has piped in on this. Will Johnson Fast Forward Technologies -Original Message- From: D Averch [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Sent: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:22:59 -0600 Subject: RE: [U2] MvInternet - IBM Licensing Requirement VOID is not the proper word. However, if you have 100 users hitting your web site all at once, you need 100 licenses not 10 with multiplexing software queuing up the other 90 users. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] MvInternet - IBM Licensing Requirement
Actually, not allowing connections would be a very stupid move on IBM's part. That would make me move away from any IBM product as quickly as you could say Oracle. I too doubt that that Datatel is violating a license agreement. The number of user license (concurrent) is configurable. A limitation like that would mean that no Unidata data would ever get to the web. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] MvInternet - IBM Licensing Requirement
I have seen and used multiplexing software where you specify the number of licenses (ports) to be used. If you assign 10 ports for example, then the 11th user has to wait until a port is freed up. Ideally the requests only take up a few seconds, so the 11th user does not have to wait that long. Under a multiplexing setup, utilizing client-server 100% you might be able to purchase fewer licenses then under a non client server setup. You could have 1,000 actual users for example only consume 200 concurrent licenses at one time with a client-server setup. I have used other software packages (Saleslogix) that require each and every unique user to have a license. From your email, you seem to hint that Redback is exempt from the IBM licensing scheme, is that correct ? --- D Averch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They U2 OEM Handbook it states: Customers are required to purchase a number of licenses equal to the maximum number of concurrent solution users. For example, if either third party or in-house transaction-based multiplexing software (e.g. Transaction Processing (TP) Monitor, Web servers, etc.) or hardware, other than RedBack, is used in conjunction with U2, you will be required to purchase the number of licenses equal to the actual number of licenses you have used without multiplexing software. Think of this scenario. You have a Web site that is accessed by over 100 users at a give time. You would have to have at least $44,000 worth of licenses to handle that load versus just around 6 to 10 web shares with RedBack. We have not found a lot of companies running Web sites that want to gamble that IBM is not going to catch them. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave S Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 12:54 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] MvInternet - IBM Licensing Requirement Can you provide the sentence(s) in the license agreement that states this ? --- D Averch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All of the products mentioned here except RedBack will VOID your IBM concurrent user license requirement. IBM does not allow you to use third party or in-house multiplexing software. You must purchase the number of licenses equal to the actual number of licenses you would have used without multiplexing software. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Raymond DeGennaro II Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 10:18 AM To: Brown, Rick (brownri) Cc: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] MvInternet At 08:50 -0400 2005/04/14, Brown, Rick \(brownri\) wrote: It seems that the MvInternet product is no longer available. Is there some transport to get Unibasic or XML output to the web that does not entail spending 16,000 dollars? ... MvInternet seemed to be EXACTLY what we wanted. WebWizard (which seems to run on that engine) seems way too expensive. Rick, Just in case somebody hasn't gotten back to you yet, we offer a whole suite of products and the $16k price tag is for all the bells and whistles, full source-code distribution, maintenance, two days on-site training, travel estimates, etc.. I was a bit hesitant to reply to the list because I didn't want my reply to come off too like a sales pitch, but I also didn't want to leave some technical aspects open to misinterpretation. Web Wizard was written to be platform independent and to work on top of any low-level connection. We have installations running in uniVerse, UniData, D3, mv.Base, jBase, PI/Open, etc. and even had a few installs on MentorPro back in the early days. As for the low-level connection, we have installations of Web Wizard running on top of ViaDuct, mvInternet, Coyote, uvObjects, LibertyODBC, our own low-level connection, etc.. Also, the next version of our connector, which is being seeded to beta testers, will have full SSL encryption between the web server and database server. The full version of Web Wizard includes a Web API that generates HTML and auto-adjusts to WML if the browser is a PDA or cell phone, XML parsing and generation, the capability to return dynamically generated Excel Spreadsheets, PDF, RTF, etc. Since the API is written in mvBASIC, it makes is very easy to reuse your existing subroutines, files and dictionaries. Almost always, there is very little code migration required. For the people that know HTML, or want to have very fine control over the generated HTML/XML, CSS and scripting there is also a template based approach so you can do anything you can do with HTML, even generate ECMAScript (aka JavaScript) on the fly. If anybody has any other questions, I'll answer them here, or take it to e-mail, whichever the list desires
