Slashdot Mirror
Dual-core Processors Challenge Licensing Models
ffub writes "Changes in hardware (such as dual-core processors and virtualisation) are making software licensing increasingly difficult for software firms. Companies still prefer the per-seat one-off license, while subscription models are favoured with software firms. But neither model reflects well the way software is used these days. The Economist looks at the situation and briefly touches on how Open Source could benefit from the muddle."
To me, it's like charging the driver of a larger car more to renew his plates, than the owner of a compact car. It doesn't make any sense.
In many jurisdictions, to encourage the population to drive smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles, they do exactly that. The US had a gas guzzler tax (don't know if they still have it) that was a one-time tax if your car didn't get 20 mpg or so.
There's actually a specific internet connection license for that sort of setup, however it's interesting to note that Microsoft have said, for licensing purposes, dual core CPUs count as a single cpu.
Compare to Oracle; if you buy a licence for a dual core machine, the second core is only counted as .75 of a CPU, as is each succeeding core. However Oracle rounds all numbers up, so .75 = one for licensing, and 1.75 = two, roughly the same cost as if you bought two licences. And so on. It's only a saving if you have 3 dual core cpus or more.
Microsoft per cpu licenses are considered per socket, not per core. Makes getting a single dual-core cpu preferable to dual single-core cpus.
I think it was more to get around the fact you could use one 'licensed seat' to access your application, but have 100's of people route thru that single seat. So they 'lose' revenue.
This way they can stick you for 'expected load'.
Remember too that once upon a time you were charged for use of that cpu TIME, not just a flat charge for access to it.. ( actually some of the big iron licenses is still based on a per cycle fee.. )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Servers come in configurations of single up to 8 or even 16-way processors. Is it fair that a company with a server that has a single processor serving 100 users pays the same as a company that has a server with an 8-way processor serving 1000 users.
Per CPU licensing was a simple metric that allowed software companies to scale their pricing so that it was fair to both the entry level and high end customers.
As the article points out multi core processors are the processor companies' way of increasing performance without having to increase the clock speed and therefore keep temperatures down. Since software companies didn't care about the performance of a given processor, just how many you had, they shouldn't arbitrarily change the licensing model.
At the company I work for I know that because of the per CPU model we intentionally bought servers with fewer faster processors. Even though in most cases those servers were more expensive than machines with more processors the amount we saved on licensing costs more than made up for the additional hardware costs.
I suspect that in the end they'll end up with more of a performance based model similar to the MIP based licensing model on mainframes.
Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.