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: [email protected] > > 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 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: [email protected] > > 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 > > [email protected] > > To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ > > ------- > > u2-users mailing list > > [email protected] > > To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ > ------- > u2-users mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ ------- u2-users mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
