Slashdot Mirror
Multi-Core Chips And Software Licensing
i_r_sensitive writes "NetworkWorldFusion has an article on the interaction between multi-core processors and software licensed and charged on a per-processor basis. Interesting to see how/if Oracle and others using this pricing model react. Can multi-core processors put the final nail in per-processor licensing?"
Most likely per-"Physical Processor" will be changed to per-"Physical Processor Die" since the multi-cores still share a die.
demanding more money for multi-core is ridiculous. if you're going to do that, why not charge more for faster CPUs? why should it cost twice as much to use, for example, a 2-core 1GHz CPU than a 1-core 2GHz CPU?
on the other hand it may push more people to OSS.
Well, these rules are obviously not written in stone. "likely" is speculative. Let's wait and see what they *actually* decide to do. Rules can change as technology changes. The enterprise users should speak up about this issue and provide feedback.
Obviously Oracle considers an n-core chip as n processors. However they are not going to be able to compete if another database company does the opposite with its licensing. However, maybe they'll all follow each other just for the sake of quick $.
And I think single-core, single-CPU systems will stick around for a long time, if not for the indefinitely foreseeable future. CPUs get faster all the time, and since it's much easier to engineer single-core, single-CPU systems, so single-processor systems will remain the preferred solution for the low end. Look at something as basic as pipelining, that is an ancient technology in terms of processor design, yet there is still a place for non-pipelined processors at the very bottom of the chain, where microcontrollers are concerned.
That's because HyperThreading is a neat and very low level trick that makes it appear like there are two processors. A dual-core processor doesn't use any tricks and physically contains two processing cores on one chip. Of course, this could lead to some very interesting things such as an dual core AMD proc using one shared on-chip memory controller or Intel procs with dual-cores AND hyperthreading for a total of 4 procs.
I'm looking forward to dual-cores.
Hate me!
It's a complicated subject that gets even more complicated as time goes on. Like the Xeon Pentium chips that count as multiple processors in windows.... but it's really 1 physical chip. What if they were emulating stuff thru vmware. Now 1 chip is really on multiple OSes. Etc Etc.
No licenses today can contractually prepare for innovative stuff in the future. That's why 90% of hi-tech lawyers should quit and leave us techies alone.
If I had modpoints, I'd mod you up. It's as silly as charging more for *the same car* depending on how many passengers you want to carry.
0: I need a car.
1: Sure, how about this little one? Only $14000!
0: Nice, my wife will love it!
1: It's for your wife?
0: No, but I give her a ride to work each morning.
1: Oh, you want to drive with your wife in it too? That'll be another $6000.
0: Huh? What do I get for the extra $6000?
1: Well, we remove the factory installed passenger door lock that your key doesn't fit.
0: That's it? I could do that myself!
1: Yes, but we require you to sign this form giving us permission to check your car whenever we like to make sure you haven't bypassed our security and aren't driving with unauthorised passengers. And if we suspect you have been doign so, we'll prosecute to the fullest extent of the law for misuse of our product.
0: But if I buy it, it's MY car!?
1: Yes, but the design and processes are still ours. You're buying a license to use the implementations provided with the car, and unapproved use with a passenger therefor illegal. The car is yours, but we still own it's usage...
Yes, arbitrary licensing and the current commercial software business model is complete BS.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.