When is a server licence required?

[Stefaan A Eeckels]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 06:35:14 +0100
"Dr. David Kirkby" <drkirkby@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> I'm trying to determine if a computer of mine (Sun Ultra 80), bought
> from a non-Sun dealer, needs a workstation or a server licence to run
> Solaris 9.
>
> The machine is no longer sold by Sun, but was sold as a workstation.
> But I use it as a server, since I share its file systems to other
> systems. Does that means it needs a workstation or server license?

The machine is a workstation. The same hardware, in a different case
and different PSUs, was also sold as a server. The fact that you export
a few file systems is neither here nor there. It's a workstation, by
Sun's own reckoning.

> Going to
> [url]http://store.sun.com/catalog/doc/BrowsePage.jhtml?cid=91371&parentId=82426[/url]
> I see a "Solaris 9 Multiprocessor Desktop Upgrade RTU License, 4 CPU"
> at $199 and a "Solaris 9 Workgroup Server4 Upgrade RTU License, 4 CPU"
> license at $999. Clicking on the links for "Part details" gives no
> extra information.

No need to be masochistic. Repeat after me: "The U80 is a workstation."
Then, pay Sun its $199 and don't worry, be happy.

Take care,

--
Stefaan
--
"What is stated clearly conceives easily." -- Inspired sales droid

[Rich Teer]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:

> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 06:35:14 +0100
> "Dr. David Kirkby" <drkirkby@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>

> > I'm trying to determine if a computer of mine (Sun Ultra 80), bought
> > from a non-Sun dealer, needs a workstation or a server licence to run
> > Solaris 9.
> >
> > The machine is no longer sold by Sun, but was sold as a workstation.
> > But I use it as a server, since I share its file systems to other
> > systems. Does that means it needs a workstation or server license?

>
> The machine is a workstation. The same hardware, in a different case
> and different PSUs, was also sold as a server. The fact that you export
> a few file systems is neither here nor there. It's a workstation, by
> Sun's own reckoning.

I agree. But at least historically, Sun have stated that a
machine's purpose determined whether or not it was a server,
not what it was marketed as. One of the determining factors
was if a machine export file systems to another, then that
machine was a "server", and hence required a server license.
So, according to the historical definition, David would require
a server license.

I don't know if the same definition still applies. It's ambiguities
like this that make me think that the concept of "workstation"
licenses and "server" licenses is stupid. Just license a machine
based on its capabilities, and be done with it. Preferably
with some official relaxation of the rules for EOLed hardware. :-)

--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: [url]http://www.rite-online.net[/url]

[Axel Neumann]

"Dr. David Kirkby" <drkirkby@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> I'm trying to determine if a computer of mine (Sun Ultra 80), bought
> from a non-Sun dealer, needs a workstation or a server licence to run
> Solaris 9.
>
> The machine is no longer sold by Sun, but was sold as a workstation.
> But I use it as a server, since I share its file systems to other
> systems. Does that means it needs a workstation or server license?
>
> Going to
> [url]http://store.sun.com/catalog/doc/BrowsePage.jhtml?cid=91371&parentId=82426[/url]
> I see a "Solaris 9 Multiprocessor Desktop Upgrade RTU License, 4 CPU"
> at $199 and a "Solaris 9 Workgroup Server4 Upgrade RTU License, 4 CPU"
> license at $999. Clicking on the links for "Part details" gives no
> extra information.
>
>
> --
> Dr. David Kirkby,
> Senior Research Fellow,
> Department of Medical Physics,
> University College London,
> 11-20 Capper St, London, WC1E 6JA.
> Tel: 020 7679 6408 Fax: 020 7679 6269
> Internal telephone: ext 46408
> e-mail [email]davek@medphys.ucl.ac.uk[/email]

Hi,

For Solaris 9 you need a Workstation License.

HTH,

Axel Neumann

[John D Groenveld]

In article <Pine.GSO.4.44.0307310858040.14921-100000@zaphod.rite-group.com>,
Rich Teer <rich.teer@rite-group.com> wrote:

>I don't know if the same definition still applies. It's ambiguities

The silly definitions havent been in the BCL document since Solaris 2.6
AFAICR.

John
[email]groenveld@acm.org[/email]

[Grog]

In article <Pine.GSO.4.44.0307310858040.14921-100000@zaphod.rite-
group.com>, [email]rich.teer@rite-group.com[/email] says...

> I agree. But at least historically, Sun have stated that a
> machine's purpose determined whether or not it was a server,
> not what it was marketed as. One of the determining factors
> was if a machine export file systems to another, then that
> machine was a "server", and hence required a server license.

Hmm. Then I know of **A LOT** of machines out there that don't have the
correct license. In fact, I can't think of a Sun machine that I've seen
during the past 10 years that didn't export at least one file system,
but none of them had a server license.

> I don't know if the same definition still applies. It's ambiguities
> like this that make me think that the concept of "workstation"
> licenses and "server" licenses is stupid. Just license a machine
> based on its capabilities, and be done with it. Preferably
> with some official relaxation of the rules for EOLed hardware. :-)

They could do what Microsoft does: Hardcode some limits into Solaris and
call that the "workstation" version, but simultaneously market the
original variant of Solaris as the "server" version. Then it doesn't
matter about the hardware.

Okay, I'm going to shut the hell up now.

[Rich Teer]

On 31 Jul 2003, John D Groenveld wrote:

> The silly definitions havent been in the BCL document since Solaris 2.6
> AFAICR.

I can't recall where I read the definitions (marketing blurb,
perhaps). It's not in any of the BCLs I have here (2.4, 2.5
desktp and server, and servers up to an including Solaris 9).

--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: [url]http://www.rite-online.net[/url]

[Thomas H Jones II]

In article <MPG.19934fb77226fe4998a33c@news.alt.net>,
Grog <master@g.rog> wrote:

>They could do what Microsoft does: Hardcode some limits into Solaris and
>call that the "workstation" version, but simultaneously market the
>original variant of Solaris as the "server" version. Then it doesn't
>matter about the hardware.

Or take advantage of the fact that CPU's can be dynamically onlined and
offlined: allow 1-2 CPU's to be active without any license key, then
use a license key to determine how many additional CPU's can be brought
online.

-tom

--

"You can only be -so- accurate with a claw-hammer." --me

[Neil W Rickert]

Rich Teer <rich.teer@rite-group.com> writes:

>On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:

>> The machine is a workstation. The same hardware, in a different case
>> and different PSUs, was also sold as a server. The fact that you export
>> a few file systems is neither here nor there. It's a workstation, by
>> Sun's own reckoning.

>I agree. But at least historically, Sun have stated that a
>machine's purpose determined whether or not it was a server,
>not what it was marketed as. One of the determining factors
>was if a machine export file systems to another, then that
>machine was a "server", and hence required a server license.

I don't think that is correct. Maybe it had to export 2 or more file
systems before being called a server. As I recall, exporting
"/export/home", so that you could access you home directories on
another system did not magically make your work station a server.

I think it was the number of exported file systems, but I'm
not sure what the cut off number was.

>So, according to the historical definition, David would require
>a server license.

You are probably correct. But David was a little vague about what
was exported.

[Rich Teer]

On 1 Aug 2003, Neil W Rickert wrote:

> I don't think that is correct. Maybe it had to export 2 or more file
> systems before being called a server. As I recall, exporting
> "/export/home", so that you could access you home directories on
> another system did not magically make your work station a server.

It had to export more file systems than it imports. Here's a
message I posted in May 2002 which explains the historical
licensing terms I was talking about:

[url]http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_umsgid=Pine.GSO.4.44.0205261944190.846-100000%40grover.rite-group.com&lr=&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_mi ny=2000&as_maxd=1&as_maxm=8&as_maxy=2003&num=50&hl =en[/url]

(Sorry about the long URL.)

Note that the list explicitly includes exported home directories...

--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: [url]http://www.rite-online.net[/url]

[Neil W Rickert]

Rich Teer <rich.teer@rite-group.com> writes:

>On 1 Aug 2003, Neil W Rickert wrote:

>> I don't think that is correct. Maybe it had to export 2 or more file
>> systems before being called a server. As I recall, exporting
>> "/export/home", so that you could access you home directories on
>> another system did not magically make your work station a server.

>It had to export more file systems than it imports. Here's a
>message I posted in May 2002 which explains the historical
>licensing terms I was talking about:

That sounds familiar.

(URL snipped).

Sun wants to characterize a server by the way it is used, rather than
the hardware. I think the definition in terms of exports is a poor
one, but it is at least attempting to make that sort of
characterization.

Our main campus DNS server does not export any file systems at all.
Still, I would claim that it is being used as a server, not as a work
station.

One of our faculty runs a web server on his workstation. But I would
claim that it is still a workstation, not a server. (It is a limited
scope web server, for his own project).

My desktop workstation exports two file systems, and most
of the time is importing zero. Still, it is not a server, it is a
work station. [Although two file systems are exported, one of those
is rarely imported elsewhere -- both are exported for the convenience
of the primary workstation user, rather than as a service to others]

[Grog]

In article <Cx6dnSxLeJHgYbSiRTvUqA@speakeasy.net>, [email]ferric@xanthia.com[/email]
says...

> In article <MPG.19934fb77226fe4998a33c@news.alt.net>,
> Grog <master@g.rog> wrote:

> >They could do what Microsoft does: Hardcode some limits into Solaris and
> >call that the "workstation" version, but simultaneously market the
> >original variant of Solaris as the "server" version. Then it doesn't
> >matter about the hardware.

>
> Or take advantage of the fact that CPU's can be dynamically onlined and
> offlined: allow 1-2 CPU's to be active without any license key, then
> use a license key to determine how many additional CPU's can be brought
> online.

That, and limit the number of filesystems that can be exported.

Hell, why stop there, add a hardware scanner that records the exact
configuration of the machine, and then lock Solaris to that so the user
will be forced to buy a copy for every single machine. Add some kernel
code that monitors license compliance and phones home to Sun HQ with
secret reports. And make sure all new versions of Solaris aren't
backward compatible with earlier versions, so everybody has to buy new
software with every upgrade. Last but not least, make the "server"
version of Solaris super-expensive... US$3,000 per CPU ought to be
about right. Yeah, Sun is sitting on a goldmine, here.

If we're going to mention all of Microsoft's ugly revenue-generating
games, then we might as well go all out.

[John D Groenveld]

In article <bge4m2$1u7$2@husk.cso.niu.edu>,
Neil W Rickert <rickert+nn@cs.niu.edu> wrote:

>Sun wants to characterize a server by the way it is used, rather than
>the hardware. I think the definition in terms of exports is a poor

Your tense is incorrect. The definition of server and desktop/workstation
is now just what's on the case.

John
[email]groenveld@acm.org[/email]

[Lars Tunkrans]

Grog wrote:

> In article <Cx6dnSxLeJHgYbSiRTvUqA@speakeasy.net>, [email]ferric@xanthia.com[/email]
> says...
>

>>In article <MPG.19934fb77226fe4998a33c@news.alt.net>,
>>Grog <master@g.rog> wrote:
>>

>>>They could do what Microsoft does: Hardcode some limits into Solaris and
>>>call that the "workstation" version, but simultaneously market the
>>>original variant of Solaris as the "server" version. Then it doesn't
>>>matter about the hardware.

>>
>>Or take advantage of the fact that CPU's can be dynamically onlined and
>>offlined: allow 1-2 CPU's to be active without any license key, then
>>use a license key to determine how many additional CPU's can be brought
>>online.

>
>
> That, and limit the number of filesystems that can be exported.
>
> Hell, why stop there, add a hardware scanner that records the exact
> configuration of the machine, and then lock Solaris to that so the user
> will be forced to buy a copy for every single machine. Add some kernel
> code that monitors license compliance and phones home to Sun HQ with
> secret reports. And make sure all new versions of Solaris aren't
> backward compatible with earlier versions, so everybody has to buy new
> software with every upgrade. Last but not least, make the "server"
> version of Solaris super-expensive... US$3,000 per CPU ought to be
> about right. Yeah, Sun is sitting on a goldmine, here.
>
> If we're going to mention all of Microsoft's ugly revenue-generating
> games, then we might as well go all out.

Well the Advent of GNU/Linux and Free/Net/OpenBSD has made it
impossible to be too greedy for licenses in the UNIX marketspace.
This is why SCO is in very dire straits at the moment.

It impossible to sell something that is free around the corner.

When the new advanced multitasking multithreading multicpu Kernels
of FreeBSD and LINUX combines with the AMD Hammer/Opteron chip this
autumn, the price thats possible to charge for any commersial UNIX
will erode even furter.

We will probably continue to see workstation licenses costing in the
$100 - $200 pricerange. I.e. what you pay for a boxed
shrinkwrapped LINUX distro.


//Lars

[Anthony Mandic]

Lars Tunkrans wrote:

> Well the Advent of GNU/Linux and Free/Net/OpenBSD has made it
> impossible to be too greedy for licenses in the UNIX marketspace.
> This is why SCO is in very dire straits at the moment.

Perhaps in the Unix marketplace. I don't think Microsoft have
bothered observing this though.

> It impossible to sell something that is free around the corner.

Seems to work fine for conmen.

> When the new advanced multitasking multithreading multicpu Kernels
> of FreeBSD and LINUX combines with the AMD Hammer/Opteron chip this
> autumn, the price thats possible to charge for any commersial UNIX
> will erode even furter.

Multitasking, multithreading and multi-CPU is neither new
nor advanced. Except for those OSes you've mentioned. So
they are still playing catchup.

-am © 2003

[Bob Palowoda]

Anthony Mandic <qs@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3F2C7763.7053EAE9@hotmail.com>...

> Lars Tunkrans wrote:
>

> > Well the Advent of GNU/Linux and Free/Net/OpenBSD has made it
> > impossible to be too greedy for licenses in the UNIX marketspace.
> > This is why SCO is in very dire straits at the moment.

>
> Perhaps in the Unix marketplace. I don't think Microsoft have
> bothered observing this though.
>

> > It impossible to sell something that is free around the corner.

>
> Seems to work fine for conmen.
>

> > When the new advanced multitasking multithreading multicpu Kernels
> > of FreeBSD and LINUX combines with the AMD Hammer/Opteron chip this
> > autumn, the price thats possible to charge for any commersial UNIX
> > will erode even furter.

>
> Multitasking, multithreading and multi-CPU is neither new
> nor advanced. Except for those OSes you've mentioned. So
> they are still playing catchup.
>

Let us all read the Opteron Specweb99 results on the [url]www.spec.org[/url]
site and talk about Solaris x86 catching up.

---Bob

[Lars Tunkrans]

Anthony Mandic wrote:

> Lars Tunkrans wrote:
>
>

>> Well the Advent of GNU/Linux and Free/Net/OpenBSD has made it
>> impossible to be too greedy for licenses in the UNIX marketspace.
>> This is why SCO is in very dire straits at the moment.

>
>
> Perhaps in the Unix marketplace. I don't think Microsoft have
> bothered observing this though.
>
>

>> It impossible to sell something that is free around the corner.

>
>
> Seems to work fine for conmen.
>
>

>> When the new advanced multitasking multithreading multicpu Kernels
>> of FreeBSD and LINUX combines with the AMD Hammer/Opteron chip this
>> autumn, the price thats possible to charge for any commersial UNIX
>>will erode even furter.

>
>
> Multitasking, multithreading and multi-CPU is neither new
> nor advanced. Except for those OSes you've mentioned. So
> they are still playing catchup.
>
> -am © 2003

Absolutley correct.

FreeBSD 5.1 is the first version of BSD that is actually able
to run the kernel in two CPU's concurrently
The rumor is that FreeBSD 5.2 due this autumn will support
OPteron chips.

Solaris is ofcourse 10 years ahead in the SMP area.
Scaling to 106 CPU's and so on ...

The point I was making was that FreeBSD and LINUX will be SMP
capable in the 64-bit low end maket this autumn.
Therefore it will be difficult to charge high prices for
Solaris / AIX / HP_UX / whatever-NIX in the same low end
market as the poster previous to me suggested, in an effort
to compare Unix priceing to Microsoft priceing.

//Lars


--
================================================== ======
Lars Tunkrans
smtp: lars dot tunkrans at bredband dot net
--------------------------------------------------------

[grog]

In article <20030731223142.7660c47b.hoendech@ecc.lu>, [email]hoendech@ecc.lu[/email]
says...

> It's actually amazing we bother to discuss $200 or $1000
> Solaris licenses. I remember quite clearly paying more than
> $2000 for an Interactive Unix 1-2 user license, back in '91.
> But it came with a shelf full of binders, that must be said.
>
> Times have changed.

You can buy hard copies of everything in the Answerbook for some
enormous amount of money. That would fill a bookcase shelf, possibly a
few shelves (it depends on the bookcase).

The only thing that's changed is that Sun doesn't force you to buy all
the books in hard copy form.

[Andrew Kam]

Good morning all!

Post your technical queries to [email]ap-csc-english@sun.com[/email] if you are based in
the Asia Pacific region (including Australia and New Zealand). This is the
Technical Support area. They should be able to point you in the right
direction.

However, unless you have a Cobalt machine - all other hardware and software
support requires you to have a valid maintenance contract number with Sun.
If you don't have one, be prepared to pay for time and materials costs.

Best regards
Andrew

"Dr. David Kirkby" <drkirkby@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3F28AA92.199E4CAB@ntlworld.com...

> I'm trying to determine if a computer of mine (Sun Ultra 80), bought
> from a non-Sun dealer, needs a workstation or a server licence to run
> Solaris 9.
>
> The machine is no longer sold by Sun, but was sold as a workstation.
> But I use it as a server, since I share its file systems to other
> systems. Does that means it needs a workstation or server license?
>
> Going to
> [url]http://store.sun.com/catalog/doc/BrowsePage.jhtml?cid=91371&parentId=82426[/url]
> I see a "Solaris 9 Multiprocessor Desktop Upgrade RTU License, 4 CPU"
> at $199 and a "Solaris 9 Workgroup Server4 Upgrade RTU License, 4 CPU"
> license at $999. Clicking on the links for "Part details" gives no
> extra information.
>
>
> --
> Dr. David Kirkby,
> Senior Research Fellow,
> Department of Medical Physics,
> University College London,
> 11-20 Capper St, London, WC1E 6JA.
> Tel: 020 7679 6408 Fax: 020 7679 6269
> Internal telephone: ext 46408
> e-mail [email]davek@medphys.ucl.ac.uk[/email]

[Anthony Mandic]

Lars Tunkrans wrote:

> The point I was making was that FreeBSD and LINUX will be SMP
> capable in the 64-bit low end maket this autumn.
> Therefore it will be difficult to charge high prices for
> Solaris / AIX / HP_UX / whatever-NIX in the same low end
> market as the poster previous to me suggested, in an effort
> to compare Unix priceing to Microsoft priceing.

I suppose we could discuss whether we should distinguish between
hardware and operating systems/software.

I got this blurb thru the reseller channel today -

"Announced 1st August, SUN Microsystems has reduced pricing
across their entire range of hardware and software products
with savings of up to 12 – 15% on workgroup servers and the
Sun Fire 280R reduced by almost 30%."

So Sun are making an effort to remain competitive. Although I
think its just regional since it mentions the better exchange
rate against the US Dollar.

-am © 2003