<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>It&#039;s Just Another Layer &#187; physical</title>
	<atom:link href="http://itsjustanotherlayer.com/tag/physical/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://itsjustanotherlayer.com</link>
	<description>Virtualization is a layer in software. What are you abstracting away from?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 23:33:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Ideal Software Licensing Model &#8211; Requirements Collection</title>
		<link>http://itsjustanotherlayer.com/2010/02/ideal-software-licensing-model-requirementscollection/</link>
		<comments>http://itsjustanotherlayer.com/2010/02/ideal-software-licensing-model-requirementscollection/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 01:42:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>iguy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[VMware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[licensing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[physical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[virtual]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virtualization]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://itsjustanotherlayer.com/?p=336</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;m looking for some feedback and thoughts from the community to help define a reasonable Licensing Model that takes Physical &#38; Virtual into account.  From my view as a client I don&#8217;t think this is all that complicated at the &#8230; <a href="http://itsjustanotherlayer.com/2010/02/ideal-software-licensing-model-requirementscollection/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m looking for some feedback and thoughts from the community to help define a reasonable Licensing Model that takes Physical &amp; Virtual into account.  From my view as a client I don&#8217;t think this is all that complicated at the end of the day.</p>
<p>More discussions with some vendors around licensing and I&#8217;m finding more and more that the following two axioms are defining these discussions:</p>
<ul>
<li>Vendors want to get paid for their software (obviously the most they can be).   They are not stupid in most cases.</li>
<li>Clients want to pay for what they use (obviously the least they have to).   They are not stupid in most cases.</li>
</ul>
<p>The challenges come from the fact that Vendors don&#8217;t get the following generally:</p>
<ul>
<li>A VM in VMware is limited in processing to the vCPUs it has.</li>
<li>A vCPU is limited to what a given core is individually capable of.</li>
<li>More clients might be willing to use your software if I didn&#8217;t need to pay for 12 cores of power when I only need 2 today.</li>
<li>VMotion of a VM does not mean I&#8217;m suddenly gaining more cores of processing.</li>
</ul>
<p>Clients get upset cause of the following items:</p>
<ul>
<li>When a Vendor assumes I&#8217;m an idiot and can pull the wool over my eyes.   This a good relationship does not make.</li>
<li>A Vendor goes and says a Virtual does less than a physical, then charges me more if it is virtual.</li>
<li>A Vendor requires me to license this big physical box and I only want a couple cores worth or less than # of cores in physical box.</li>
<li>I want to use your software and because I&#8217;m running it as a virtual you want to charge me more.  I can&#8217;t even buy smaller physicals to use your software within my software budget (smallest thing I can buy within reason today is an 8 core system and I only need 2 cores worth).</li>
<li>A Vendor limits me to some physical box even though the OS/Software will be on a virtual machine.   (Who cares what physical box is on it as long as I pay for the CPU MHz I&#8217;m using?  Your software doesn&#8217;t.  Only your legal does.)</li>
<li>If I buy a lot of your software you can cut me deals since I&#8217;m spending a lot of money with you and then I&#8217;ll be interested in licensing models by physical cores or just a volume level discount.  I&#8217;d rather not start there if I can avoid it.</li>
<li>We&#8217;ve seen what happens to good tech when licensing models can&#8217;t take tech into account.   See the Mainframe and Computer Associates licensing stubbornness in the 80s contribute significantly to the rise of the distributed computing space.  We don&#8217;t want to deal with that migration if we can avoid it.</li>
</ul>
<p>So there&#8217;s some of the requirements I have come up with.   What other requirements/gotchas can you think of that have got you in dealing with vendors?   Anything different when dealing with Solaris or AIX or HP/UX virtualization?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://itsjustanotherlayer.com/2010/02/ideal-software-licensing-model-requirementscollection/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

