Re: Local vs. network file
On 7/2/2012 4:32 PM, Peter Duniho wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 16:18:59 -0400, Eric Sosman wrote:
[...] The stand-alone
license permits a fixed maximum number of concurrent users to run the
software on their local machine (the maximum controls the number of
concurrent machines on which it is running). It's a pricing and
marketing thing; the network license is more expensive but doesn't
really offer any extra functionality or benefit.
Err, why would anyone want to pay more for the network share license?
Maybe I am missing something but I don't understand the business case here.
It might be more economical to support N occasional users with
M << N expensive "floating" licenses than to buy N cheaper dedicated
licenses and see them sit unused most of the time.
Except that the OP has already stated that the license covers _concurrently
running instances_ and not installed machines. In that scenario, the
licensee has no real reason to pay more for a "network" license than a
"standalone" one, because they only need to license standalone instances
that are running either way (i.e. they don't need more licenses than would
actually be running at a given time).
One of the things the O.P. actually wrote was
"The network license permits a fixed maximum number of
concurrent users to load the software from a single network
share. The stand-alone license permits a fixed maximum number
of concurrent users to run the software on their local machine
(the maximum controls the number of concurrent machines on
which it is running)."
Okay, the description is not exactly clear. But one thing that
*is* clear is that two kinds of licenses are contemplated. As I read
it (and/or guess at it), a "stand-alone" license is tied to a specific
machine, and allows up to N concurrent usages on that machine. For
a workstation, N is probably 1. For a server, N may be greater. But
if machine X is using all N licenses while machine Y is using none,
Y can't lend a license to X.
The "network" license, on the other hand, allows up to N concurrent
usages across the entire "network" (however that's defined). It doesn't
matter which machine(s) are being used, so if Y hasn't claimed a license
X can do so.
Fine, lots of guesswork from an incomplete description. But IMHO
the guesswork is plausible, and answers Robert Klemme's question.