Re: Practice of using chopt to disable database options
- From: Niall Litchfield <niall.litchfield@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Norman Dunbar <oracle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 17:11:30 +0000
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Norman Dunbar <oracle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> This does not. However, changing the name of the official docs and saving
> it somewhere else on the web site isn't helping in my personal opinion. If
> there is to be a definitive licensing doc, it must be consistent, accurate,
> up to date and supplied with each and every product!
>
But there is, someone at the organisation will have signed an agreement.
Almost certainly Oracle's standard one, but not necessarily the current
standard one. I agree that it would be helpful to have the current standard
agreement on the web, but that changes from time to time and only sad types
like me would read it (and it would be possible that customers had
different agreements anyway).
> Yes indeed, I was reading this one a while ago, and found those very
> terms. It's almost impossible to keep up with what the licenisng agreement
> *really* is - everyone you speak to has a differeing opinion, and as we
> know, opinions don't count in court!
>
Well that's why I always refer to what was actually signed, note though
that the software investment guide has the specific purpose of answering
these sorts of questions (and uses the word installed not use)
"This guide is your key source for Oracle licensing information. For exact
> terms and conditions, which govern your usage, please consult your specific
> Oracle license agreement."
In other words the software investment guide tells you the current
principles, scope and practice for licensing software, but you - or your
lawyers or finance department - signed the contract. This is why I started
off by saying this is an IT financial/account management challenge and not
really a technical one.
--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
http://www.orawin.info
Other related posts:
