There have been some discussions about licenses and self-auditing in these forums. Can someone please tell me what this part of the EULA means? It applies to customers who are purchasing a Progress "core" license.
"A Core License may not be transferred from one Server or Platform to another."
I googled for this and wasn't able to find the exact language from any other vendors. It seems kind of crazy that a customer wouldn't be able to go ahead and install a core license on another server if the hardware dies or goes out of warranty. I suspect that isn't what the language is supposed to mean, but that's how it reads at face value. I suspect the purpose of that sentence has more to do with DR strategies. It is possible that some customers might plan on using the same licenses in the case of a disaster (ie. having a server image ready to be turned on in a different datacenter).
Please let me know how to read this. Any additional explanation would be helpful.
You are correct: this is to prevent the use of core and concurrent licences to enable any kind of DR strategy.
There is some additional language in the DR section that may be pertinent here: 'No Disaster Recovery License is required for a switch from a primary Server to secondary Server so long as the primary Server is permanently disabled. However a Disaster Recovery License is required for any other temporary reassignment between the primary Server and any other Server."
That's exactly what it means - I've had customers under that kind of license that couldn't move off existing hardware w/out a license change.
You are correct: this is to prevent the use of core and concurrent licences to enable any kind of DR strategy.
There is some additional language in the DR section that may be pertinent here: 'No Disaster Recovery License is required for a switch from a primary Server to secondary Server so long as the primary Server is permanently disabled. However a Disaster Recovery License is required for any other temporary reassignment between the primary Server and any other Server."
So, if server hardware goes out of warranty, what is the proceedure to move to another server? Does Progress keep track of all our servers for us? Is there a fee/cost related to Progress licensing every time the underlying hardware needs to be changed?
I think I've heard that other vendors allow core licenses to be mobile, as long as you don't move them to new hardware too frequently (eg. once every 90 days).
|
|
||||
|
Brian Maher
|
||||
|
Principal Engineer, Technical Support
|
||||
 |
||||
|
Progress
|
||||
|
14 Oak Park | Bedford, MA 01730 | USA
|
||||
|
||||
|
No Progress does not keep track of servers. I believe that officially, if you move to a new server, you need to request a new serial # (no cost if you're paying maintenance). Unofficially, I doubt that this is necessary as long as the move is permanent.
Brian, I had asked my account rep already and this is what he sent me.
I suspect that a ton of people have the same question when reading that sentence, and I'd rather that the next person not have to waste a lot of time on the same FAQ. Communities like this one are a helpful place to get FAQ's answered. I don't know why licensing questions should be more technical or opaque than software development questions.
I think what you are really saying is that I need to take the sentence at face value ("A Core License may not be transferred from one Server or Platform to another.") It is written in plain English, after all. ;)
|
|
||||
|
Brian Maher
|
||||
|
Principal Engineer, Technical Support
|
||||
 |
||||
|
Progress
|
||||
|
14 Oak Park | Bedford, MA 01730 | USA
|
||||
|
||||
|
However, Brian, some of us have had the experience of the rep telling us things that did not match published materials and so believe that it is wise to be forewarned so that one can argue if there is something that doesn't make sense.
There is an "it depends" quality to this problem. If a server dies and you re-install on an identical server, then I can't imagine anyone ever complaining, even in an audit since no one knew the serial number of the original box. The issue comes in moving to a new box, which often is far from identical. Clearly, if it is a different OS, one needs new binaries and new serial numbers. I would think that with a core license, there might also be an issue about whether the old core was equivalent to a new core. Whenever you do a swap like this, it is treated like a trade-in and one has to deal with any licensing which no longer conforms to current licensing.
But IT would be very interesting to see the answer
Update from Progress Community
Brian K. Maher David,You really need to be talking to your account rep for this. Communities cannot provide the answers.
You received this notification because you subscribed to the forum. To unsubscribe from only this thread, go here.
Flag this post as spam/abuse.
Thomas: there is no issue, AFAIK, with core equivalencies when upgrading. Again, in my experience (which is fairly extensive), a core is a core is a core.
One gotcha on VMWare is that the hypervisor is often configured with hyper threads as vCPUs. For example, a 4 CPU, 8 core per CPU box, which has 32 cores, will present 64 vCPUs. In this case, your "4 vCPU" VM is really only using 2 cores. If you have licenses for 4 cores, then you can use 8 vCPUs in this example.
As always, the usual disclaimers apply: YMMV. I am not a lawyer.
Paul, it was exactly that sort of issue which I was referring to. In particular, moving from an older machine without VM to a newer machine with VM.
