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