Re: Local vs. network file
On Monday, July 2, 2012 3:32:40 PM UTC-7, Eric Sosman wrote:
... [snip] ...
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.
Let's say for the sake of argument that your description doesn't yet
match what the OP is doing. You have in the last few posts introduced
new ideas (floating vs. fixed license, for example) that the OP should
find extremely helpful. Ditto future readers of this thread, including me.
One thing is clear and unequivocal - if the OP's employer is no better at
explaining the value proposition of the "network" license than is the OP,
their customers will not be able to suss it out either.
I agree with earlier posters that the license scheme as described, even if
it adopts the refinements you describe, sucks.
--
Lew