All posts by Christopher Barnett

About Christopher Barnett

Email: [email protected]
Tel: +1 (214) 999 0080
Christopher represents clients in a variety of business, intellectual property and IT-related contexts, with matters involving trademark registration and enforcement, software and licensing disputes and litigation, and mergers, divestments and service transactions.

Innovative Solutions To Circumvent Burdensome SPLA Requirements

Many online service providers are well aware that Microsoft’s Services Provider License Agreement (SPLA) entails a licensing framework that can be difficult to manage. SPLA may be a great model for businesses seeking to “float” their license expenditures from month to month based on usage. However, what Microsoft considers “usage” and what most companies and individuals consider “usage” can be very different. The result is that monthly SPLA-reporting obligations can be very burdensome, especially for products licensed on a per-user basis under Subscriber Access Licenses (SALs).

Fortunately, there are developers who are beginning to offer products that may help some companies to better manage and even reduce or eliminate some expenditures under SPLA. For example, relatively new to the market is a product called Winflector, which might be a candidate for service providers interested in a replacement for Windows Remote Desktop Services (RDS) SALs under SPLA. Ordinarily, a SPLA licensee must assign an RDS SAL to each user who is authorized to directly or indirectly access RDS. It is critical to note that the licensing requirement is triggered based on authorization to access RDS and not on actual usage of the service. Therefore, if a service provider with a billing model that is based on actual usage of a product incorporating RDS sets up ten accounts for a customer, the provider can run into trouble if only three of that customer’s users actually access the product in a reporting month. Since ten accounts are active, Microsoft would expect the provider to report ten SALs, even though only three users actually accessed RDS. Winflector may be a solution for service providers in that situation to consider, because, according to its developer, it does not make any use of RDS. Instead, the service provider’s application is deployed and configured on a server that is also running the Winflector server product. The customer’s users then run a Winflector client application and use that application to access the hosting server.

Of course, products like Winflector may not be good fit for all service providers. The requirement of a client-side application may be a deal-breaker, and while Winflector’s license model may be represent long-term cost savings, the product is not free and likely would represent a capital expenditure rather than an operating expense. Nevertheless, new offerings like Winflector are promising developments for many service providers. Some of Microsoft’s SPLA-licensing policies seem designed to squeeze SPLA licensees out of the hosting business and into the business of reselling Microsoft’s own hosted services. These kinds of technological options could be answers for companies seeking to continue operating under existing business models.

Sweat The Small Stuff When Licensing Oracle Software

Enterprise-level software solutions often entail complex licensing challenges. Many of the thorniest questions often center on how to license software in virtualized environments, especially if the goal is to use something less than the full processing power of the hosting infrastructure. IBM licensees should be familiar with Big Blue’s requirement (in most cases) to deploy its IBM License Metric Tool (ILMT) in order to track the usage of products licensed on a sub-capacity basis. However, IBM certainly is not alone in the marketplace in forcing its customers to jump through hoops to use its products in cost-effective ways. Oracle’s requirements in this area can be equally daunting, depending on the hardware where the Oracle solutions are to be deployed.

Oracle allows its licensees to us “Hard Partitioning” to limit the number of software licenses required for a server or a cluster of servers. However, while Hard Partitioning may mean different things to different IT administrators, it means a set of specific requirements for Oracle, all of which must be carefully controlled in order to avoid unpleasant licensing surprises:

  • You must use Oracle-approved technologies to hard-partition your servers. Those technologies currently include the following:
    • Dynamic System Domains (DSD) — enabled by Dynamic Reconfiguration (DR),
    • Solaris Zones (also known as Solaris Containers, capped Zones/Containers only),
    • LPAR (adds DLPAR with AIX 5.2),
    • Micro-Partitions (capped partitions only),
    • vPar,
    • nPar,
    • Integrity Virtual Machine (capped partitions only),
    • Secure Resource Partitions (capped partitions only),
    • Fujitsu’s PPAR, and
    • Oracle VM Server (provided additional requirements are satisfied)
  • If the software is to be deployed on certain Oracle Engineered Systems, then the licensee needs to use Oracle VM Server and Oracle Enterprise Manager (OEM) to set up and report on “Trusted Partitions” where the software will be running. OEM can be deployed in either “Connected” or “Disconnected” mode: in the former, OEM reports on software usage directly to My Oracle Support, while in the latter the licensee is required to generate quarterly usage reports and to retain those reports for at least two years.
  • In every case where OVM is to be used as a Hard Partitioning technology, it is necessary to disable live migration of VMs and otherwise to follow Oracle’s technical instructions to allocate vCPU resources.

Businesses planning to license Oracle software on a sub-capacity basis need to review all of the requirements against current and compatible technologies deployed in their environments in order to determine whether the administrative costs associated with setting-up and maintaining those software deployments will make sense in the long run.