Re: Oracle-Users
- From: "Maria Gurenich" <gurenich@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: keithgreysr@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 10:13:25 -0500
Hi all,
thanks a lot for the clarifications and DO apologize for spreading the wrong
rumor. To be honest, we do not use DEV in our environment at all and all our
license policy goes through the vendor. That is why I was confused. I just
heard that some pretty big companies were using up to 5 DBs in DEV, while
paying for only 1 PROD DB.
Again, author, I am sorry for the disinformation. I won't spread this rumor
anymore.
Thanks,
M.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:13 PM, <keithgreysr@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Yes, I had that MIS-understanding about development licensing and was
> quite mortified to find out in negotiations with Oracle that we needed
> additional Dev licenses...on top of the mess we (my mgmt & I) inherited
> for production.
>
> The upshot is that while we will maintain the current level of licenses
> to support the multi-master Streams between here (US) and an Malaysia
> office for an OLTP database, the local data warehouse will be moved to
> EnterpriseDB (PostgreSQL). In addition, the HA & remote DR solutions we
> plan to implement in the next six months will be done with EnterpriseDB.
>
>
> Our environments are NOT of the TERABYTE catagory. When you start
> talking about licensing costs equivalent to the salaries of SEVERAL
> senior Oracle DBAs, I am quite willing to put in extra hours to setup &
> maintain the business functionality my employer requires to remain
> competitive (ie, in business).
>
> Keith T. Grey, Sr.
> Oracle DBA & General Handyman
>
> keithgreysr@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Office: 803-233-1820
>
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: Oracle-Users
> > From: Dan Norris <dannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Wed, December 10, 2008 5:16 pm
> > To: gurenich@xxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: finn.oracledba@xxxxxxxxx, andrew.clarke@xxxxxxxxxx,
> > Jan-Hendrik.Boll@xxxxxxxxxxx, oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> > Maria,
> >
> > >> You can use it for learning purposes, for evaluation, even for the
> > development. Oracle is free for download and installation without paying
> > a penny.
> >
> > That's a bit too broad. I'm not the license police, but unless you're
> > talking about Oracle XE (which is free for commercial and non-commercial
> > use, as I understand it), Oracle definitely is *not* free for
> > development. This is a relatively common myth and can have some pretty
> > nasty consequences if an audit is conducted (it's happened to some
> sites).
> >
> > While Oracle does need to be licensed for development, it is relatively
> > common practice for companies to use named-user based licensing in
> > non-production environments as that is often much less expensive than
> > the CPU-based license model.
> >
> > That's about all I know on the subject--the rest is a conversation you
> > may have with Oracle Sales (and they are very likely not reading this
> > directly).
> >
> > That said, you're right, it is free for download and installation, but
> > you really should pause and read the big license agreement you agree to
> > when you check that box. That goes for the edelivery or OTN sites. There
> > are some important restrictions in there that may affect your ability to
> > use the product at all and often limits the duration for which you can
> > use the product if you use it under the "trial" license heading.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > Maria Gurenich wrote:
> > > Finn,
> > >
> > > Yes, you definitely should as Oracle states and encourages itself.
> > > You can use it for learning purposes, for evaluation, even for the
> > > development. Oracle is free for download and installation without
> > > paying a penny.
> > >
> > > You need the ML support when you have production and this production
> > > is critical. Then you buy licenses and hence the support.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > M.
> > >
> > --
> > //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
Other related posts:
