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?"
If the efforts of other corporations bent on protecting their intellectual property (RIAA) are any indication, per-processor licensing will move to per-core licensing. If the RIAA can force you to pay multiple times for the same song (which you, unfortunately, cannot move between preferred mediums), then it would make sense that software companies bent on collecting money would make you pay multiple times for one processor. On the other hand, they are somewhat different issues: usage of music would be governed under fair use (in theory), while usage of software (at in terms of licensing per processor) would be governed by the EULA or another contract between the corporation and customer.
I don't if it's any indication of what they'll do for dual-core, but on Hyperthreading Xeon's, Oracle charged us RAC licensing fees per physical processor, even though most OS tools show twice as many virtual processors.
11*43+456^2
A recent example would be the Hyperthreaded CPUs. SQL Server can be licensed per CPU and with Hyperthreading, the software does for all intents and purposes treat it as a second CPU. However, Microsoft's stance is surprisingly that you only license per the physical processor. Page has doc with more info on MS specifics
Most likely per-"Physical Processor" will be changed to per-"Physical Processor Die" since the multi-cores still share a die.
no, but i bet linux can.
Oracle runs on Linux.
Oracle charges per CPU.
Your point was?
Agile Artisans
Yeah, I'm looking forward to the day where you have to pay a license fee for each element in your toaster. Who needs to toast more than one slice of bread at a time, right?
www.kitchengeek.com -- Nosh for
Businesses charge the maximum they can, for maximum total profit: "what the market will bear". Per-processor prices are just a way to negotiate how much money the customer can make from the software, therefore how much is available from their revenue to pay the software supplier. Just like when an employee negotiates their income, they are negotiating for a share of their employer's revenue to which their work contributes. I'd like to see a software licensing model that treats the software's work as automated labor, and negotiates accordingly. Like some kind of profit sharing. People don't get paid up front, why should the software company? That allows a timeframe for a "test drive" during which both parties can get benchmarks on the actual value of the software.
--
make install -not war
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.
multi-core means more than one physical chip. hyperthreading means more than one thread sharing resources in a single core. for example, the ibm power5 chip that just came out is a multi-core hyperthreaded chip, with 4 logical processors and 2 physical cores, on 1 total chip.
- tristan
Oracle charges for cores individually. (see the Processor section)
Perhaps a compromise will result. Eventually a 2CPU license could entirely replace a single CPU license. At such a stage licenses could be bundled as 2CPU, 4CPU, etc. As multicores become the norm, naturally 1CPU licenses should phase out entirely.
This would allow companies to keep their per core licensing scheme. Customers would get the feeling of a deal by getting a muticore license. Perhaps the market would lower the cost of 2CPU license to what a single CPU would be worth.
HT is another matter - architecturally and performance-wise.
I think it is interesting that, Windows running on a 2 CPU machine requires a 2 CPU license, but, say, 5 instances of VMWare running on a single CPU, each hosting an instance of Windows, requires five licenses. (Six if the instances of VMWare are themselves running on Windows)
Also, what if there was a VMWare-like program that simulated a SMP machine? Would that require a multiple CPU license to run Windows? Even if this program that emulated a SMP machine was running on a single CPU?
Unknown host pong.
Insulting linux zealots on slashdot? Think of your karma man!
Why are any of you surprised?
.. AND ITS FREEEEEE.
.....
... they really didnt like it when I pointed out that I'll be saving $52,000 by using MapServer + Postgresql + PostGIS over their ArcIMS + ArcSDE/Oracle setup.
Oh ya, its because you can only think with the open source half of your brain.
Of course software companies will try to charge you more money any chance they can!
Just like every other product you can buy anywhere, if they can sell it for more, they will.
Wake up!
Until you complain enough, they will reap what they can from this conundrum.
If you don't like how Oracle screws you on your new dual core processor, then send them packing, I'd bet that Postgresql / PostGIS is now sufficient for the needs of most enterprise database users
In fact, I personally am going to skip the chance at ever having the topic at hand affect me
Today I called, found out that, ESRI in canada charges $13,500 for a 1cpu license of ArcSDE or $19,000 for a 2cpu license, it remains to be seen what they define as a CPU.
But instead of blowing that $19,000, I am installing PostGIS to serve my spatial datasets. Screw them!
And the joke is on them as my system is faster, easier to setup / deploy, and can handle much bigger raster datasets in a fraction the time.
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
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.