| > Because of the mixture of client-based licenses in her network, she claims
> that the server won't accept these new "version 7.0" licenses.
I'm not sure what this means -- that the license server won't
accept them (which isn't true) or that the file server (really
the license registrar) won't accept them when the client tries
to make a connection - which is correct.
> Anyhow, his server wouldn't accept the new licenses.
same comment as above
> He told me all he wanted to do was to buy the equivalent of 3 CCS licenses
> for
> his new
> Windows 95 / PATHWORKS V6 DOS & Windows PCs.
> I told him to order QP-5LWs, but now I'm wondering if this is correct: >
that is
QP-5LWAA-A* is the current replacement for CCS; it includes 2 licenses -
both a PWLMXXXFP05.00 to allow access to your PW v5 & earlier servers
and a PWXXWINAT07.00 to grant the right to use PW 7.0 or earlier client
software.
|
| re: .0
Customer #1:
... she claims
that the server won't accept these new "version 7.0" licenses.
>>>
>>> That is *exactly* true! If a customer tries to use a PATHWORKS 32, V7.0
>>> license (PWXXWINAT07.00) to access a server, they will be rejected...
>>> *because* that license does not grant rights to the server.
>>>
The only way she can get it all to work,is to use her exising CCS
licenses
>>>
>>> Though it *is* true that a CCS license will work, it is *not* true that
>>> using a CCS license is the *only* way she can get it to work.
>>>
>>> When she received her QP-5LWAA-Ax license packages, she received
>>>
>>> a) DIGITAL PATHWORKS 32, V7.0 System license(s) [PWXXWINAT07.00]
>>> b) PATHWORKS V5.0 (LAN Manager) Designated Access license(s)
>>> [PWLMXXXFP05.00]
>>> c) TeamLinks V2.7 Mail for Windows System license(s)
>>> d) DIGITAL MAPI Driver for ALL-IN-1, V1.0 System license(s)
>>> e) A cover letter explaining how to use the Designated Access license
>>> with existing PATHWORKS clients
>>>
>>> The 2 items that she needs to solve her problem are (e) and (b). In fact,
>>> that's why we wrote (e), strangely enough.
>>>
CUSTOMER#2
He wanted to add three PCs.
He was sold QM-5LKAA-C* upgrade licences.
(However, he was not upgrading and didn't want PW32 - at least for the present
- on his
additional PCs: therefore I think the reseller made an error in selling him
the QM-5LKAA-C*
licenses)
>>>
>>> Well, I can see that you're on the right track here. It's *illegal* to use
>>> and upgrade license on a client that doesn't also have an initial license
>>> (virtually) assigned to it. Put another way, for every upgrade license
>>> that is put in use, an initial license must be taken out of use. (Clearly
>>> written up in the terms and conditions of *every* DIGITAL license.)
>>>
Anyhow, his server wouldn't accept the new licenses.
>>> Same as above. A PW32 license does *not* grant rights to servers.
He told me all he wanted to do was to buy the equivalent of 3 CCS licenses for
his new
Windows 95 / PATHWORKS V6 DOS & Windows PCs.
I told him to order QP-5LWs, but now I'm wondering if this is correct: that is
I'm wondering
if there's an exception to the CCS --> Enterprise Integration Client License
replacement .
>>>
>>> You told him the right thing. As in all the Sales Updates that we published
>>> on this matter, the QP-5LW... replaces the LAN Manager-based CCS licenses.
>>>
QUESTION
========
Is there a problem with mixed client environments (eg windows 3.x and 95 with
different
versions of PATHWORKS for DOS & Windows) and the new PATHWORKS licenses ?
>>>
>>> No. But there *is* a problem trying to use a license that only grants
>>> rights to use PATHWORKS 32, V7.0 software (...well, it also grants rights
>>> to use older versions of PATHWORKS client software too...as per the terms
>>> and conditions) to access PATHWORKS servers. If you understood the old
>>> PATHWORKS licenses, the PATHWORKS 32, V7.0 license is a *CNS* license...not
>>> a *CCS* license.
Or is thre a problem in general when a customer continues to use the old media
with the
new licenses (I know this is not meant to be the case) ?
(I have been through all the stuff about the differences between QM-0TL and
QM-5LK and
QP-5LW etc with these customers, and they seem to understand everything).
>>>
>>> The problem is that customers are not reading the cover letters and are
>>> simply assuming that the PW32 license is a replacement CCS license.
>>>
>>> It's not.
>>>
>>> Please take another look at the PATHWORKS Business Practices Advisory
>>> Package published in VTX or WEB IR and ask customers to read the coverletter
>>> that is shipped with their new license packages.
>>>
>>> The key is that the license they need to access their servers is the
>>> Designated Access (formerly called the FPA) license (PWLMXXXFP05.00) and the
>>> license that gives them legal access to their PATHWORKS client software is
>>> now the PATHWORKS 32 System license (PWXXWINAT07.00).
>>>
>>> They need to use the Designated Access license for license management, but
>>> don't need the System license...technically. Legally, they need both if
>>> they are using both client and server PATHWORKS code.
>>>
>>>
>>> John
|