| Here on the Xerox Team we have the same problem. The Corporate Computer center
for Xerox frequently complains that their VAX environment is more costly (on a
unit cost basis) to run than their IBM environment. They, in fact, only have
IBM software in their IBM environment, with all of the mainframes being
Amdahl, but that shouldn't matter. The thing that kills us is the third-party
software licensing. Two years ago when we consolidated a number of 8xxx
systems onto a VAX 9000 and 6440 (a $4.5M deal), another $1M was required to
upgrade the 3rd-party software licenses. It came very very close to nixing the
whole deal. Somehow we have to leverage our software partners to follow our
lead in software licensing strategies. I know that Oracle has announced
User-Based Licensing, but do not know the details. Others I have talked to are
considering it, but there is still a long way to go.
Regards,
Jim
Xerox Sales Support
|
| Also on the topic of licensing, but at the 'other' end-
While all (Novell, etc.) of the pc networking software vendors license
on a server basis, we license on the client side. The forthcoming
versions of the Pathworks family will have LMF (License Management
Facility) and will 'enforce' that. Adding the issues of the
administrative costs - tracking and billing for all client licenses and
the service/support contracts, we are:
1. 180 out of phase with the industry 'standards'
2. creating an administrative nightmare
The reason that was given was 'licensing policy for a product is decided
by the product manager'. Perhaps this is an area that needs more
standards!
-Barry-
Moderator - if you feel this should be a new topic, rather than being
mixed with the large machine license cost issue, please feel free to
move.
|
| Barry,
I don't agree about whether we license the client or the server. I
really think it is 6 of 1, 1/2 dozen of the other when it comes to
where the licensing occurs. We are supposed to be pricing our systems
using the PC model. I guess the real question is whether you think we
are really meeting that model.
In terms of administration, I have to agree. We don't have a really
good method for distributing licenses for many multiples of a single
license for many systems. In one case, I had a customer who has 1500
systems and they ordered DECforms Runtime Licenses. They got 1500
individually BOXED pieces of paper. I don't understand our predeliction
for delivering paper PAKs this way. Why we don't put them into a
brightly colored envelope and save some trees is beyond me.
|
|
The following is a memo from David Stone, V.P. The New Software
Group. David's reply is as a result of reading the entries to date
on the licensing issues you have raised.
TO: SUE MURPHY@MKO
Subject: LICENSING ISSUES
Susan, this is a resend. This memo is in regard to your memo dated 22
January 1992.
Regards.
/ho
From: MRKTNG::SPRATT 27-JAN-1992 16:35:29.46
To: NM%HMSTR::MURPHY
CC: SPRATT,NM%MTS$::"core::david stone",WELCH
Subj: LICENSING ISSUES
Susan, I can offer the following with respect to the notes, comments
relative to licensing. You can feel free to put these in the notes
file, and I would be happy to discuss them with anyone directly.
CSO/THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE ---
We cannot dictate to our Partners what their business practices and
pricing ought to be. We are working actively with our Partners to
insure they are well aware of what initiatives we have taken with
user-licensing, and what our directions are for the future. We have
encouraged them to look at similar models, and to take steps as
appropriate. You may be aware that Lotus and Oracle both offer
user-licensing. Customers consistently tell us that third party
software prices are frequently out of line. We convey these messages,
as appropriate, but our Partners must decide for themselves what paths
to follow.
ADMINISTRATION/PAK COSTS ---
We are distributing PAKs on media right now. This is an option for
customers in the U.S., and Europe and GIA are soon to follow. Our
goal is to employ worldwide capabilities to distribute PAKs
electronically at the customers discretion. This will cut the
administration and paperwork involved tremendously. We have also
taken steps to consolidate packaging where a customer requests paper
PAKs, but it does not make sense to ship them individually.
CLIENT SERVER LICENSING ---
There is no one "right" way to license clients and servers. To date,
we have tried to accommodate the requirements of individual PCU's
where they see a need to license in a particular way to be
competitive. With pathworks, for example, the licenses are tied to
the clients, and give the rights for the server. In other product
environments, it is just the reverse. We are investigating the
opportunity for more consistency, but will not do so if it constrains
our ability to compete.
LICENSE MANAGEMENT ---
We are well on our way to completing development of the license
management facility V2 (LMF V2). With this, the management of
licenses, and extensions for software asset management, will be made
much more easy. The user interface will be significantly enhanced,
the administration more streamlined, and licenses will be able to be
managed across the network. This will be available for introduction
with our customers by the end of this calendar year.
We are working aggressively to improve our business practices and the
ease with which our customers manage their software environments. I
hope this gives some insight into the fact that I recognize the
issues, and we are taking pro-active steps to rectify them.
If there is anything else I can provide, please let me know.
Regards.
/ho
|