Re: Call for Oracle Licensing reform
- From: Ronan Merrick <merrickronan1@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: oracle-l <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 17:00:23 +0000
Apologies this was meant to be a new email. Kind of relevant to the topic
at hand though.
On 8 Jan 2015 16:52, "Ronan Merrick" <merrickronan1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Listers,
>
> I bought a new server with two cpus. I want to partition this machine and
> just use one cpu for licensing purposes. I was reading around the
> documentation and got immersed in the virtualization debate.
> My understanding is that hard partitioning is only recognised for
> licensing purposes. As far as I can see the nitty gritty of hard
> partitioning is that you can partition at the core level which would seem
> to be relevant for the enterprise edition.
> The database I want to deploy on the server is standard edition so
> shouldn't soft partitioning apply since this is on a socket basis not the
> number of cores?
> When I bought the server the Oracle hardware rep told me that the xen
> hypervisor on Oracle VM would be adequate to ensure license compliance if I
> wanted to partition the machine.
> However my Oracle database rep he indicated that I may have to license
> both cpus as partitioning is not recognised for standard edition. He didn't
> sound 100% sure though and the hardware rep at the time said that the
> database guys don't like them making people aware of the partitioning issue.
> Just wondering if anybody has any experience of this
> TIA
> Ronan
> On 8 Jan 2015 06:34, "Paresh Yadav" <yparesh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> It is interesting that you mention Oracle SE and I agree that there are
>> times when SE is all one needs. Cost of migrating away from Oracle might be
>> high but cost of starting with alternatives is not that high if one knows
>> what they need.
>>
>> You are missing the NoSQL bandwagon as there are many applications where
>> ACID compliance and other bells and whistles available with Oracle database
>> is simply not needed.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Paresh
>> 416-688-1003
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:25 AM, xxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>>> There is no need for confrontation. I have simply made a statement of
>>> fact. "Audit" and "License" are not synonyms.
>>>
>>> As for how long I have been involved in licensing Oracle's products?
>>> Well, I have never been an employee of Oracle, nor have I actually
>>> *written* one of their license agreements. I have, however, been
>>> *using* Oracle databases for close to 20 years, and reading the license
>>> agreements and advising customers on how to (correctly) comply with their
>>> licenses for much of that time. I am not a lawyer, but I am fairly widely
>>> perceived as "quite knowledgeable" on this subject. (Sadly, though, much
>>> of that perception may be due to the fact that few others actually
>>> *read* Oracle's license agreements, as I do.)
>>>
>>> In any case, modifying "audit" policy is not in any way equivalent to
>>> modifying a license agreement. Oracle could cease auditing entirely, and
>>> it would have NO AFFECT on licensing. (It may, however, have an affect on
>>> Oracle's revenue.) A license is a binding contract between two parties.
>>> "Audit" is simply one of several means of ensuring that one or the other
>>> party complies with that contract. Changing the way you audit does NOT
>>> change the contract. Changing the CONTRACT is the way you change the
>>> contract.
>>>
>>> Its funny that you mention "alternatives" in this discussion. There are
>>> -- of course -- many. My favorite by far, happens to be Oracle. Oracle
>>> Standard Edition, that is.
>>>
>>> Under the current licensing terms, Oracle Standard Edition (One) can
>>> cost 1/50th as much as Oracle Enterprise Edition, or less, if you happen to
>>> use Named User licenses. Every time processor vendors increase core
>>> counts, this cost factor increases. In just a few years, I expect the
>>> *minimum* cost for an Oracle EE database server will be 100x to 250x
>>> the cost of an Oracle SE database server.
>>>
>>> When you consider the cost of migrating applications from one database
>>> to another, the very modest price of Oracle SE-One can compete very
>>> effectively even with "free" products like MySQL. As a rule, the effort
>>> for migrating applications from Oracle to MySQL is usually far from "free".
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 10:33 PM, Paresh Yadav <yparesh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> xxxxxx,
>>>> I don't like to take a confrontational stance so pardon my position
>>>> here. How long have you been involved with licensing Oracle products?
>>>>
>>>> On the audit side, whenever you play a game ( let us say Monopoly as
>>>> most of us should have played it at some point time or a close clone in
>>>> disguise) there are rules and there are strategies. Audit is the strategy
>>>> to make licensing rules work. Nothing wrong or illegal on Oracle's part but
>>>> I hope they realize that brute force licensing is hearting Oracle's long
>>>> term prospects ( who in corporate world cares for longterm prospects when
>>>> exec bonuses and stock price depends on next quarter numbers). I am sure
>>>> Oracle has gurus doing number crunching and may be using predictive
>>>> analysis to determine the equilibrium point or point of diminishing returns
>>>> as they say in economics and trying to stay in optimal zone when it comes
>>>> to squeezing all possible revenues. My empirical observations in last 5
>>>> years say not only startups but even fortune 100 orgs flush with cash have
>>>> shunned Oracle over other alternatives.
>>>>
>>>> I love Oracle database tech and consider it one of the best creations
>>>> in software enginnering even though bugs galore. But now there are
>>>> alternatives that can meet the need at fraction of the Oracle database
>>>> licensing costs and even the 'no body gets fired for buying Oracle' crowd
>>>> is using alternatives in the prod as IT becomes commoditized and is being
>>>> looked as a cost centre more than competitive advantage.
>>>>
>>>> Amen!
>>>>
>>>> Paresh
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, January 7, 2015, xxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No. The audit process is how the existing licensing system is
>>>>> *enforced*.
>>>>>
>>>>> Reforming the audit process has no actual effect on the terms and
>>>>> conditions of the license agreement -- it would affect only how and when
>>>>> that agreement is enforced and how people feel about that enforcement
>>>>> after
>>>>> the fact. The article provided suggest that there is a great deal of room
>>>>> for improvement in these things -- especially "how people feel", but no
>>>>> amount of change or improvement to the audit process in any way changes
>>>>> the
>>>>> license. Even if Oracle announced that they would NEVER audit any
>>>>> customer
>>>>> EVER again (which would certainly avoid lots of hurt feelings) honest
>>>>> customers who choose to honour the license agreement (and this is probably
>>>>> the vast majority) would still have the same terms to comply with.
>>>>>
>>>>> The last time Oracle made any sort of major reforms to the license
>>>>> agreement, they removed outdated metrics like "Power Unit" (number of
>>>>> CPUs
>>>>> times clock rate) that forced exponential cost increases on customers
>>>>> (because clock rates were doubling every 18 months, even though actual
>>>>> performance was not keeping pace) and other metrics like "Concurrent
>>>>> Users" which were next to impossible to measure and validate. (That is,
>>>>> LMS probably found "concurrent users" hard to count, while customers found
>>>>> it almost equally difficult to demonstrate their compliance.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Paresh Yadav <yparesh@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Audit process is actually licensing process in disguise.
>>>>>> Those who day dream about getting it reformed -
>>>>>> http://shortstoriesshort.com/story/who-will-bell-the-cat/ :).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> Paresh
>>>>>> 416-688-1003
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 1:56 PM, MARK BRINSMEAD <
>>>>>> mark.brinsmead@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Indeed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually, the article seems to be mainly calling for Oracle to
>>>>>>> reform its *audit* practices.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Personally, I have been curious -- for a very long time now -- as to
>>>>>>> how long it will take Oracle to revise its license metrics. Now that
>>>>>>> processor designers are scaling performance by increasing core counts
>>>>>>> rather than clock rates, the cost Oracle database servers is growing at
>>>>>>> (what is likely to be) an exponential rate. Likewise, the price gulf
>>>>>>> between EE and SE products is also growing at the same sort of rate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Hans Forbrich <
>>>>>>> fuzzy.graybeard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> While interesting .... "be careful what you wish for"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /Hans
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 07/01/2015 11:39 AM, Dennis Williams wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> List,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is an interesting article on how Oracle needs to reform its
>>>>>>>> licensing practices:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.informationweek.com/software/enterprise-applications/oracle-must-reform-says-software-licensing-group/d/d-id/1318492?_mc=NL_IWK_EDT_IWK_daily_20150107&cid=NL_IWK_EDT_IWK_daily_20150107&elq=9333c72ed91c4c87b4aef8a2fceeadf4&elqCampaignId=11918
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dennis Williams
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Paresh Yadav
>>>> 416-688-1003
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
Other related posts:
