Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.misc -> Re: Database Royalty Requirements for Sublicensee after Termination

Re: Database Royalty Requirements for Sublicensee after Termination

From: HansF <>
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 01:01:22 GMT
Message-Id: <>

On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 15:54:32 -0800, creno wrote:

> Thanks Hans. Finally, I am getting somewhere with this topic.
> Technically, the agency did have an agreement with the application
> developer. However, a ruling that the agreement is invalid, via an
> illegal tying arrangment, is expected on the Application Developer's
> interest. The jurisdiction would be Georgia, US. From my
> understanding the Oracle runtimes are free, but the database requires
> Royalty payments.

The runtime = free, database = royalty issue is based on an agreement that is not using the current licensing terminlogy or metric. I doubt whether you would be using that in your discussions.

> So are such negotiations with Oracle directly possible? If so, any
> ideas on who to contact about this? And yes, they did purchase a copy
> of the Oracle database, although it was back in 1993 when the system
> was purchased. The database has been upgraded many versions since then
> by the developer, not the user, if that makes any difference. They are
> currently on 8.17. Thanks again for the help!

Oracle is 'always' open to renegotiation. The first level of discussion is usually the local sales force, and they are generally on the lookout for easy revenue opportuntities. Be sharp, and get a contract negotiator on your side who understands Oracle.

Oracle 8.1.7 is technically obsolete and Oracle would likely not sell licenses for continued use of that version. I would probably be looking at negotiating both the licenses and support for the current version, and a fixed scope consulting contract to upgrade and test under version 10g.

Hans Forbrich                           
Canada-wide Oracle training and consulting
*** Top posting [replies] guarantees I won't respond. ***
Received on Mon Mar 06 2006 - 19:01:22 CST

Original text of this message