Re: Money is a great thing, but strong ethic is better (I think, but Oracle not)

Glen A Stromquist wrote:

> DA Morgan wrote:
>
> >
> > Ask specifically aboutlicensing by connected user. Which means paying for
> > the total number of users connected simultaneously rather than the number
> > that could theoretically connect which is named users.
> >
> > Also ... if you have Oracle licensed by CPU ... does your license prevent
> > you from creating a new schema? Likely not. Does it prevent you from
> > building tables and putting code into that new schema in an existing
> > database? Likely not. Among your myriad databases and instances can you
> > find one where the memory requirements and usage would be roughly similar?
> > Likely so.
> >
> > I want Larry to have enough money to beat you guys soundly and bring the
> > cup back to its namesake. But not on your back alone. Heck I have a 50'
> > sailboat of my own and I might decide to challenge Larry for
> > it in a few years. ;-}
> >
> > Daniel Morgan
>
> I find this interesting, our license was(is) still for concurrent ( I
> assume this is the same as "connected") users, but I was told by oracle
> that we were only allowed to keep paying for our concurrent user license as
> we were "grandfathered" in, and when we increased users over the number of
> concurrent users we are licenced for, we then have to go for the new named
> users scheme. But we would get a credit of 2 named users plus for each
> concurrent user in our present license.
>
> As some of our existing databases are accesible by 300 users but only 20 at
> the most were connected at a time, our license fee was reasonable. But with
> a new app coming online this year, where about the same amount will have
> access but many more will be connected at one time, the concurrent users
> license goes out the proverbial window and we have to switch to a named
> user license, which increases our license cost by about 350%.
>
> As well, I was told that any new databases that came online would be
> covered by the new license, as long as the named users did not increase.
> This means that since our new named users license would in effect cover
> every employee, then any and all new oracle databases are in effect,
> already paid for, which provides me with good ammo to have management let
> me convert our few sqlserver db's to oracle and get rid of those licenses.
>
> Anyone else hear of this approach/scheme or have a similar arrangement? -
> although oracle has "simplified" their licensing so to speak, it still
> seems that the answer is different depending on which rep you talk to, as
> it was before.

Licensing has changed. But Oracle tends to demonstrate flexibility when confronted with loss of revenue. Keep in mind that what constitutes a new application versus what constitutes an upgrade of an existing applications is wholly dependent upon who writes the spec sheet.

I suspect a little imagination will quickly solve the problem.

Daniel Morgan Received on Fri Jan 10 2003 - 10:38:24 CST