Dual-core Processors Challenge Licensing Models 176
ffub writes "Changes in hardware (such as dual-core processors and virtualisation) are making software licensing increasingly difficult for software firms. Companies still prefer the per-seat one-off license, while subscription models are favoured with software firms. But neither model reflects well the way software is used these days. The Economist looks at the situation and briefly touches on how Open Source could benefit from the muddle."
Re:Maybe (Score:5, Interesting)
Database Licensing and the Web (Score:5, Interesting)
In the early days of the web, I worked on a web-based project which connected to a MS SQL-Server database. The licensing issue was very confusing since the information in the database would be made available to anyone who came to site (and we expected a few hundred regular users), but technically everything would be accessed by through only one account (the webserver!).
I called the local MS office and they confirmed that we only need one licence for this model.
Based on this information, we rewrote a major internal application to be entirely browser based - and then dropped all our seat licences bar one.
Needless to say, MS had a absolute fit!
About a year later we received an incredibly confusing document outlining license-requirements for internet and intranet applications.
Re:Maybe (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Maybe (Score:2, Interesting)
Most states charge based on the value of the car. This makes no sense other than trying to stick it to the rich. If you have a expensive compact car, you could pay more than someone with a inexpensive but larger car.
Charging based on weight makes more sense. The heavier the vehicle the more damage it does to the roadway. Thus larger cars should pay more, they cause more maintance to have to be done to the roads.
We've heard this before... (Score:4, Interesting)
CPU Licensing?? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Maybe (Score:3, Interesting)
How about per cycle? (Score:4, Interesting)
Case in point: I worked with IBM's MQSeries product as a link between a mainframe and a webserver. The MQSeries license for NT was something like a flat $6000. On the mainframe, however, it was some ungodly amount for the tapes, then they charged a per-cycle fee *and* a monthly maintenance contract.
As part of load testing, I wrote a program that would spit the complete works of shakespeare back and forth, over and over, to the mainframe and back using multiple threads. Two weeks of testing cost the company an extra $12,000 because of the cycles expended.
I noticed too that starting with SQL Server 7.0 that the explain plan feature can also show the number of cycles spent on a particular step. I would think Microsoft, with that info, could, if they wanted, go to a similar model with SQL Server if they so chose (and wanted to effectively kill the product).
And now that I think about it, my Unix account back in the early 90s had a cost associated with it too...I was allotted something like $1000 worth of what I assume was cpu time, and sure enough, enough attempts to get Nethack to compile and I was back in the office begging for more "money".
Ah, the good old days. I think.
Re:Database Licensing and the Web (Score:3, Interesting)
Compare to Oracle; if you buy a licence for a dual core machine, the second core is only counted as
Of course, microsoft used to allow you to have 4 cpu's for windows NT (this was back in the days when dual core stuff hadn't started).
Mostly, this is just about extorting as much money out of a paying customer as they can. If they charged a license per gigahertz of cpu speed, there would be an uproar when your software costs doubled when you upgraded your 1 GHz cpu to a 2GHz cpu.
When you look at it like this, you can see what a contrived concept that charging per core is.
Even if you argue that it takes more to write multithreaded code, that shouldn't make any difference between 2-4 cpu's. And in many cases the program utilisation might never even require that second core.
My 2c
Michael
Per CPU licensing makes no sense anyway.. (Score:5, Interesting)
The reason licenses are tied to hardware or to seats is probably because it's easy to justify these as a "cost of doing business" to suits. While projects usually have the greatest difficulty getting an OK for money to go towards programmers, expensive hardware is purchased willy-nilly, on the basis of "well, now we've got this application, we need to run it, or else the money we spent on programming it is wasted!". So tying your database license to CPUs makes more of an afterthought. (Just like performance, scaleability and actual volumes are an afterthought).
The same goes for seats; you just HAVE to license one copy of Microsoft Office or an OS or a database for every employee, otherwise you're paying (some) employees for basically standing around! Then, to recover costs, you make sure they have very little access to things like notepads, pens, or copying machines, since those dimes add up, don't you know?
Call me a cynical bastard if you will..
licensing = overhead (Score:4, Interesting)
All this, as I see it, is a pure waste of scarce resources. It is somewhat alleviated by sitewide licensing of a few products, but even these are not easy to administer. The whole scene is like the U.S. medical or tax system -- value is being delivered, but the administrative overhead is huge. All the costs of compliance are passed on to the end users and institutions.
What a difference with Linux and OSS! Easy licensing is a big plus and it's not well enough appreciated.
It's better than power unit licences for a start (Score:4, Interesting)
While an interesting question, how does this question manage to rate as a "insightful"?
Xix.
Wha-Whuuu? (Score:4, Interesting)
Did anyone else notice that line and do a doubletake? I parse that sentence as implying that Linux is only for Pentium-style processors.
Reminds me of a funny story... (Score:2, Interesting)