Re: What a load of rubbish

I suggest you take this line with caution. If you ever get audited by FAST (that is Federation against Software Theft) or another national equivalent or by someone acting for Oracle I am sure they will see it differently. Have you checked your definition with your company's legal advisors. If they agree with you I would certainly be interested. If you have a legitimate way for us all to save moeny I am all for it.

However, I find it difficult to believe it could be that simple - although I am quite open to be corrected if you have the truth of the matter.

Regards

--
Kevin A Lewis (BOCM PAULS LTD) - Animal Feed Manufacturer - Ipswich United
Kingdom)
                        <Kevin_A_Lewis_at_Hotmail.com>

The views expressed herein by the author of this document
are not necessarily those of BOCM PAULS Ltd.
DNP <High.Flight_at_btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:38C79AA3.42FC_at_btinternet.com...


> Its none of Oracle's business how you define your users.

>

> Perhaps Oracle knows that there are a lot of apps out there with lots of

> separate users already defined (so they have decided to change their

> licencing model to 'catch them' between the 'rock' of the unlimited user

> licence option and the 'hard place' of the named user licence option).

>

> If your point was valid, can you please point out to me the mechanisms

> Oracle is implementing to make sure that every user account on the

> server maps to an existing real-live person? e.g. requirements to send

> photos / names / addresses / birth certificates / company payroll

> records / forms registering users for the system / favourite colours /

> an updated list of employees leaving and joining an enterprise to

> Oracle.

>

> Don't be so blooming daft.

>

> If you need to audit users, you create user accounts. But you pay big

> money to Oracle for the privilge.