**

Theo,

Not wanting to stoke any further fires....perhaps our perpective is based on
the fact that traditionally support from Remedy in Africa has had to go
through EMEA offices who in turn needed to go to the US.....

Obviously this would be even more frustrating to ourselves ( VAR/ISV's as
well as our clients ), and in the process we at times have learnt to
improvise and use ingenuity in order to achieve our main objective...which
lest we never forget is to serve the clients that keep ALL of us in
business!

Alright im getting off my soapbox.....ooops :)

KM Rutenberg
Remedy Application Consultant
Cape Town
South Africa

----- Original Message -----
From: "Fondse, Theo"
To:
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: Manipulating License Keys


> **
>
> Gidd,
>
> Touche! :-)
>
> I believe all those who have had to defend the integrity of Remedy as a
> product to be "defenders of the faith" (even more so if you have to do it
> without the support you need from the main supplier to do so).
>
> I aree this is a serious issue and should not be taken lightly since there
> could be serious legal repercussions, but my personal view is that in
order
> to do the greater good, the end (Remedy revenue $$$ and -product
integrity)
> sometimes justifies the means, if you know where to draw the line in
bending
> the rules that can be bent and as long as you only bend them for a very
> short time before straightening them out again ..... (just my $0.02).
>
>
> Have a good weekend, all you "defenders of the faith" out there! ;-)
>
> Theo
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gidd Calden [mailto:gidd@BUOYANTSOLUTIONS.NET]
> Sent: 11 October 2002 16:59 PM
> To: ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM
> Subject: Re: Manipulating License Keys
>
> **
>
> Theo,
>
> While a subject of controversy this is not an issue that should
> be dodged. I was prompted to respond to another lister's question
> in confidence.
>
> Apparently I enjoy the heat in the kitchen?? However, I am
> not interested in being a martyr either.
>
> Regards...Gidd
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
> [mailto:ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM]On Behalf Of Fondse, Theo
> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:38 AM
> To: ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM
> Subject: Re: Manipulating License Keys
>
>
> **
>
> Gidd,
>
> Seems you like stirring the pot every once in a blue moon...... ;-)
>
> I would definitely agree with you on keeping it legit, especially for the
> long run or if it is on production environments.
>
> With Development/test environments I have to echo Kevin Rutenberg's
> sentiment.
>
> Remedy Corp./Peregrine/BMC/Whoever's Next? Do prove to be somewhat
sluggish
> if not reluctant to assist it's "defenders of the faith" to keep up the
good
> image of the best product ever for workflow management.
>
> Maybe it is ARS's status, amongst those in the know, as the best that
gives
> the suppliers of the licenses such a (false?) sense of secutity to move
them
> to be as (sometimes arrogantly) relulctant as they prove themselves at
> times. In such cases I believe it justifyable to bend the rules ever so
> slightly - but only for a short time in order to "restore or uphold the
> faith" and keep the Remedy Dollars rolling in to pay all those salaries
that
> are in control of issuing the licenses (and the new versions).
>
> In today's day and age it is not acceptible to wait three months for a
Demo
> license to be issued to any Remedy customer.
>
>
> Furthermore, there are ways and means of bending the licensing rules both
> above and below board. One of these methods, I have been lead to believe,
is
> being employed on the Remedy Supportweb site itself........ go
figure.....
>
> Hint: users with Read licenses can do "updates" * on any ARS server with a
> bit of "artistic application design".
>
> (For the record: My company keeps everything legit)
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Theo J. Fondse
> Fellow Remedy Rocket Scientist
>
>
> * through submission ... go figure ...
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Rutenberg [mailto:cygnusx1@SOFTHOME.NET]
> Sent: 10 October 2002 20:30 PM
> To: ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM
> Subject: Re: Manipulating License Keys
>
> **
>
> Gidd though your point is interesting to speculate on, and in an ideal
world
> yes i would have to say i agree....
> I leave this real-life scenario for further contemplat:ion:
>
> Some years ago we had a client that was awaiting licensing information
from
> Remedy....and without going into detail...after the client became
> increasingly upset with the response I set down on a path to discover
> exactly how licenses were issued in the HelpDesk module to enable myself
to
> better understand the intricacies of this process, and at the same time
> hoping to give them some relief in their development enviroment ( perhaps
by
> finding some way either illicit or not ) in order for them to be able to
> test certain scenarios without the restrictions of limited licenses.
>
> Needless to say....and before all of you jump up and shout THIEF,
> CRIMINAL,etc etc blah blah blah sometimes we may need to bend the rules in
> the greater glory of our mission...which for me at least fundamentaly, is
to
> try in my own small way to enhance and defend and create an image of this
> wonderfully rich and robust product which has given me much joy ( and
agony
> i must admit ) as well as a considerable flexibility and freedom in my
> career and life as well as outlet for my creative abilities
>
> I did
> (...it pains me to admit it...though not because i had to do something
> seemingly "illegal" and was unsure of how to move forward...rather the
> irritation at Remedy for forcing me down this unconventional route to say
> the least....due to their excrutiatingly slow response in obtaining the
> licenses from them....whilst I was struggling as the "defender of the
faith"
> and trying to uphold the image of the product, my company and Remedy.
>
> find a mechanism to add additional HD fixed or floating licenses by
> alteration of their workflow. Was this illegal? The client wasn't in
> production and this might have been seen by some, as just a form of
creative
> pre-sales ingenuity or persistance/doggedness on my behalf.
>
> Sometimes, and I'm not saying that the ends justify the means in all
> cases....just sometimes....things arent always as cut and dry as they
would
> seem to be and a little artistic licensing (excuse the pun), may just be
> acceptable. After all, if this had meant an additional $100m dollars for
> Remedy's coffers would they really have objected?
>
> Haven''t we all at some points in our lives been faced with similiar
> situations....even outside of our work where we had to make a judgement
call
> in the face of a seeming moral dilemna at some level or another?
>
> I don't agree in "black and white"...rigid thinking 24x7.."apply the rules
> ruthlessly"...
> without due consideration of all the facts.
>
> KM Rutenberg
> Remedy Application Consultant
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gidd Calden"
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 3:30 PM
> Subject: Manipulating License Keys
>
>
> > **
> >
> > Listers:
> >
> > Hot subject and perhaps rarely discussed openly.
> >
> > Here is the scenario, I have a pool of Fixed Licenses and I am a
> > Remedy rocket scientist (dreaming) so I create a simple application
> > that through workflow allows me to dynamically control assignment
> > of these license keys. My application lets the user log in and on
> > login assigns a Fixed License Key, which works well because when the
> > 2nd shift shows up I do the same process for them only I change the
> > User form by unassigning the Fixed License and reassigning it to the
> > person logging in...do this for a 3rd shift too (we are a 24x7
operation).
> >
> > Here's the QUESTION - Is this legal? GOD gave us legs so we walk.
> > Remedy gave us the User form and the ability to change manually the
> > license assigned to the individual so why can't I create workflow to
take
> > this to the next step ???
> >
> > Here's the VERDICT
> >
> > Dynamically reassigning fixed licenses at login time is definitely
> > a violation of the spirit and intention of Remedy licensing rules.
> >
> > So ok, but if this is abuse then what could Remedy do to control the
> > situation ?
> >
> > They could:
> > - delay when changes to licensing take effect
> > - limit the number of times a license type can be changed for
> > a user
> > - make a reload after a user license change expensive so that
> > there is a performance problem when doing this many
> > times
> > - other similar things......
> >
> > My 2 cents, follow the rules and keep it legitimate, license users for
> > their individual requirements and issue licenses accordingly. I for
> > one do NOT want additional restrictions on the flexibility given to
> > me by the Remedy software in its current state. I am also sure this
> > message is controversial and will garner a few responses but it
> > is out in the open and here is where we discuss such issues.
> >
> > For those interested in this subject material I hope this helps.
> >
> >
> > Regards...Gidd
> >
> >
> > Glidden L. Calden
> > BUOYANT SOLUTIONS, INC.
> > "Keeping business afloat
> > ...in a Sea of Solutions"
> >
> >
> > Cell * 916.761.3095
> > Office * 916.334.0599
> > Web * http://www.buoyantsolutions.net
> > E-mail * mailto:gidd@buoyantsolutions.net
> > E-Fax * 916-339-2915
> >
> > The contents of this e-mail and any attachments are sent for the
personal
> > attention of the addressee(s) only and may be confidential. If you are
> not
> > the intended addressee, any use, disclosure or copying of this e-mail
and
> > any attachments is unauthorized. Please notify the sender by return
> e-mail
> > and delete the message. Any representation or obligation expressed in
> this
> > e-mail are subject to contract.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

>
> > You may control your subscription options, including UNSUBSCRIBE,and
> ACCESS THE ARCHIVES at http://www.ARSLIST.org
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.391 / Virus Database: 222 - Release Date: 19/09/2002
>
>

>
> You may control your subscription options, including UNSUBSCRIBE,and
ACCESS
> THE ARCHIVES at http://www.ARSLIST.org
>
>

>
> You may control your subscription options, including UNSUBSCRIBE,and
ACCESS
> THE ARCHIVES at http://www.ARSLIST.org
>
>

>
> You may control your subscription options, including UNSUBSCRIBE,and
ACCESS
> THE ARCHIVES at http://www.ARSLIST.org
>
>


> You may control your subscription options, including UNSUBSCRIBE,and
ACCESS THE ARCHIVES at http://www.ARSLIST.org


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.391 / Virus Database: 222 - Release Date: 19/09/2002


You may control your subscription options, including UNSUBSCRIBE,and ACCESS THE ARCHIVES at http://www.ARSLIST.org

**

Matt,

You left out perhaps the most important clause of the license section you
quoted:

(1)(c)(iii) Use of an alias to allow multiple individuals to share the same
license (either fixed or floating), or attempts to disable or circumvent any
of the licensing mechanisms within the Software each constitute a material
breach of this Agreement.

I think this clause, as well as the definition of fixed license as you quote
it below, makes it crystal clear that fixed licenses are tied to
individuals,
not seats or hours of the day or phases of the moon or whatever.

Black, Matt wrote:
> **
>
> Robert, (all)
> I hate to even comment on this thread, but I have to.
>
>
> I'm all for optimizing any system. It is our jobs to try to "get the
> most" from the hardware and software that we use. However....
>
> Please read the Software License Agreement again.
> I'm referencing a copy from my v5.1 doc set. (earlier Agreements may be
> worded slightly differently.)
>
> Specifically the section labeled:
> "
> Definitions
>
>
>
> Fixed License shall mean a license that is assigned to a specific user for
> that users exclusive use. The Fixed License grants (i) users with write
> licenses to right to change data at any time, and (ii) users with Remedy
> Full Text Search Option license the right to perform searches using the full
> text search capability at any time.
>
> Floating License shall mean a license that is available to named individual
> users within a license pool. Each Floating License is represented by one of
> a number of "tokens" in a pool of licenses commensurate with the number of
> licenses Licensee has obtained. Users access tokens from the pool as others
> users release their tokens. The Floating License, like the Fixed License,
> grants (i) users with write license the right to change data, and (ii) users
> with Remedy Full Text Search Option license the right to perform searches
> using the full text search capability at such time as a license token is
> available from the license pool.
> "
>
>
> So. IMHO: (I'm not a lawyer, but you may need on if you try some of the
> ideas in this thread. :)
>
> If you "reassign" a fixed license to a new user while the "original user" is
> still "using it" then you are likely breaking the "is assigned to a specific
> user for that users exclusive use" clause.
>
> If you use 10 Fixed licenses, and allow 20 people to use those 10 "generic
> logins", then you are likely also violating that same clause.
>
>
> I guess there might be some "wiggle room" on what "user" means. Is
> it a ARS 'Login Name' or is it a person? (However, I doubt that argument
> would standup in court.)
>
>
> Strictly speaking, the text that I quoted does not mention concepts
> like "timeouts" for the floating "tokens". So I guess if you constructed a
> front end that would compartmentalize every transaction to the ARS server as
> a "", and you only used floating licenses. Then
> I guess, the users would only "hold the token" as long as it took to execute
> "".
>
> Not sure I want my users doing that many login/logouts. Nor do I
> want to have to "make my own user tool/web tool" to operate in such a
> fashion. (,> out>, ,etc...) Can you imagine how little of
> ARS workflow (Forms, active links, menus, buttons, etc...) would really make
> sense to use is such a "login conscious" model?
>
> If this theoretical improved user tool could know the difference
> between "read transactions" and "write transactions", and if it could use
> two connections to the server at the same time with different
> usernames/passwords, then maybe most of the workflow could still be used.
> The idea would be to hold a read license open for the majority of the
> interactions. Then switch to the float user, login, do what you need to do
> and logoff as soon as possible. [Push actions, and macros, in Active Links
> might still be a bit of a problem.] But this design might be "ok" legally.
> (So who is up for rewriting the entire User tool and/or Mid-Tier?)
>
>
> Just my 2 cents... The hassle is not worth the effort or possible legal
> consequences.
>
> If ARS is to expensive to use without going to extreme
> optimizations, then start coding your own ARS.
>
> (I mean, how hard can it be? It only took Remedy [that is something like
> <800 people] 10 years to get the product to its current state. So a good
> consultant should be done next month right? :)
>
>
> --
> Carey Matthew Black
>
> Solution = People + Process + Tools
> Fast, Accurate, Cheap.... Pick two.
>
>
> You may control your subscription options, including UNSUBSCRIBE,and ACCESS THE ARCHIVES at http://www.ARSLIST.org


--
G. David Frye gdf@uiuc.edu
CCSO Communications Engineering (217) 333-7439
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign


You may control your subscription options, including UNSUBSCRIBE,and ACCESS THE ARCHIVES at http://www.ARSLIST.org. For ARSList support, please send eMail to support@arslist.org

**

David,

Let me start off by sating that I agree with your point. That being
said, every time that I have talked with someone from Remedy they have
told me that this clause refers specifically to situations where you
have more than one person logging into a Remedy server, using an alias,
at the same time. While I agree that the letter of the agreement seems
to disallow the use of aliases altogether, the spirit of the document,
at least as communicated by the good folks at Remedy, seems to indicate
otherwise.

We should really be asking Remedy for their clear answer to this rather
unambiguous question. I believe that for the most part they know what
is going on out in the world.

As to the question of which, if any, of our various schemes is legal I
think that the simplest way to view it is as follows:

Take a look at what you are doing, and then ask yourself if you would be
comfortable talking about the system that you use with your Remedy
representative. If the answer is no then really, no matter how much you
believe that you've found a loophole, in you heart of hearts you know
that you are breaking the agreement. Then you have to live with it, or
not.

Adam D Pederson
Remedy Consulant
Adam.D.Pederson@verizon.net


-----Original Message-----
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM] On Behalf Of G. David Frye
Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 8:36 PM
To: ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM
Subject: Re: Manipulating License Keys

**

Matt,

You left out perhaps the most important clause of the license section
you
quoted:

(1)(c)(iii) Use of an alias to allow multiple individuals to share the
same
license (either fixed or floating), or attempts to disable or circumvent
any
of the licensing mechanisms within the Software each constitute a
material
breach of this Agreement.

I think this clause, as well as the definition of fixed license as you
quote
it below, makes it crystal clear that fixed licenses are tied to
individuals,
not seats or hours of the day or phases of the moon or whatever.

Black, Matt wrote:
> **
>
> Robert, (all)
> I hate to even comment on this thread, but I have to.
>
>
> I'm all for optimizing any system. It is our jobs to try to
"get the
> most" from the hardware and software that we use. However....
>
> Please read the Software License Agreement again.
> I'm referencing a copy from my v5.1 doc set. (earlier Agreements may
be
> worded slightly differently.)
>
> Specifically the section labeled:
> "
> Definitions
>
>
>
> Fixed License shall mean a license that is assigned to a specific user
for
> that users exclusive use. The Fixed License grants (i) users with
write
> licenses to right to change data at any time, and (ii) users with
Remedy
> Full Text Search Option license the right to perform searches using
the full
> text search capability at any time.
>
> Floating License shall mean a license that is available to named
individual
> users within a license pool. Each Floating License is represented by
one of
> a number of "tokens" in a pool of licenses commensurate with the
number of
> licenses Licensee has obtained. Users access tokens from the pool as
others
> users release their tokens. The Floating License, like the Fixed
License,
> grants (i) users with write license the right to change data, and (ii)
users
> with Remedy Full Text Search Option license the right to perform
searches
> using the full text search capability at such time as a license token
is
> available from the license pool.
> "
>
>
> So. IMHO: (I'm not a lawyer, but you may need on if you try some of
the
> ideas in this thread. :)
>
> If you "reassign" a fixed license to a new user while the "original
user" is
> still "using it" then you are likely breaking the "is assigned to a
specific
> user for that users exclusive use" clause.
>
> If you use 10 Fixed licenses, and allow 20 people to use those 10
"generic
> logins", then you are likely also violating that same clause.
>
>
> I guess there might be some "wiggle room" on what "user"
means. Is
> it a ARS 'Login Name' or is it a person? (However, I doubt that
argument
> would standup in court.)
>
>
> Strictly speaking, the text that I quoted does not mention
concepts
> like "timeouts" for the floating "tokens". So I guess if you
constructed a
> front end that would compartmentalize every transaction to the ARS
server as
> a "", and you only used floating
licenses. Then
> I guess, the users would only "hold the token" as long as it took to
execute
> "".
>
> Not sure I want my users doing that many login/logouts. Nor do
I
> want to have to "make my own user tool/web tool" to operate in such a
> fashion. (,field>> out>, ,etc...) Can you imagine how
little of
> ARS workflow (Forms, active links, menus, buttons, etc...) would
really make
> sense to use is such a "login conscious" model?
>
> If this theoretical improved user tool could know the
difference
> between "read transactions" and "write transactions", and if it could
use
> two connections to the server at the same time with different
> usernames/passwords, then maybe most of the workflow could still be
used.
> The idea would be to hold a read license open for the majority of the
> interactions. Then switch to the float user, login, do what you need
to do
> and logoff as soon as possible. [Push actions, and macros, in Active
Links
> might still be a bit of a problem.] But this design might be "ok"
legally.
> (So who is up for rewriting the entire User tool and/or Mid-Tier?)
>
>
> Just my 2 cents... The hassle is not worth the effort or possible
legal
> consequences.
>
> If ARS is to expensive to use without going to extreme
> optimizations, then start coding your own ARS.
>
> (I mean, how hard can it be? It only took Remedy [that is something
like
> <800 people] 10 years to get the product to its current state. So a
good
> consultant should be done next month right? :)
>
>
> --
> Carey Matthew Black
>
> Solution = People + Process + Tools
> Fast, Accurate, Cheap.... Pick two.
>
>


> You may control your subscription options, including UNSUBSCRIBE,and
ACCESS THE ARCHIVES at http://www.ARSLIST.org


--
G. David Frye
gdf@uiuc.edu
CCSO Communications Engineering (217)
333-7439
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign



You may control your subscription options, including UNSUBSCRIBE,and
ACCESS THE ARCHIVES at http://www.ARSLIST.org. For ARSList support,
please send eMail to support@arslist.org


You may control your subscription options, including UNSUBSCRIBE,and ACCESS THE ARCHIVES at http://www.ARSLIST.org. For ARSList support, please send eMail to support@arslist.org

**

I respectfully disagree. I would read this clause as meaning that you
can't mess with or fool the licensing system into allowing more people
to use the system than you are licensed for. I think a strong argument
can be made that at no time are more people using the system than there
are licenses under the 30-people-3-shifts-of-10 scenario.


Dana Bourgeois

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
> [mailto:ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM] On Behalf Of G. David Frye
> Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 8:36 PM
> To: ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM
> Subject: Re: [ARSLIST] Manipulating License Keys
>
>
> **
>
> Matt,
>
> You left out perhaps the most important clause of the license
> section you
> quoted:
>
> (1)(c)(iii) Use of an alias to allow multiple individuals to
> share the same license (either fixed or floating), or
> attempts to disable or circumvent any of the licensing
> mechanisms within the Software each constitute a material
> breach of this Agreement.
>
> I think this clause, as well as the definition of fixed
> license as you quote it below, makes it crystal clear that
> fixed licenses are tied to individuals, not seats or hours of
> the day or phases of the moon or whatever.
>
> Black, Matt wrote:
> > **
> >
> > Robert, (all)
> > I hate to even comment on this thread, but I have
> to. > > YOUR OWN RISK!>
> >
> > I'm all for optimizing any system. It is our jobs to try to
> > "get the most" from the hardware and software that we use.
> However....
> >
> > Please read the Software License Agreement again.
> > I'm referencing a copy from my v5.1 doc set. (earlier
> Agreements may
> > be worded slightly differently.)
> >
> > Specifically the section labeled:
> > "
> > Definitions
> >
> >
> >
> > Fixed License shall mean a license that is assigned to a
> specific user
> > for that users exclusive use. The Fixed License grants (i)
> users with
> > write licenses to right to change data at any time, and (ii) users
> > with Remedy Full Text Search Option license the right to perform
> > searches using the full text search capability at any time.
> >
> > Floating License shall mean a license that is available to named
> > individual users within a license pool. Each Floating License is
> > represented by one of a number of "tokens" in a pool of licenses
> > commensurate with the number of licenses Licensee has
> obtained. Users
> > access tokens from the pool as others users release their
> tokens. The
> > Floating License, like the Fixed License, grants (i) users
> with write
> > license the right to change data, and (ii) users with
> Remedy Full Text
> > Search Option license the right to perform searches using the full
> > text search capability at such time as a license token is available
> > from the license pool. "
> >
> >
> > So. IMHO: (I'm not a lawyer, but you may need on if you try some of
> > the ideas in this thread. :)
> >
> > If you "reassign" a fixed license to a new user while the "original
> > user" is still "using it" then you are likely breaking the "is
> > assigned to a specific user for that users exclusive use" clause.
> >
> > If you use 10 Fixed licenses, and allow 20 people to use those 10
> > "generic logins", then you are likely also violating that
> same clause.
> >
> >
> > I guess there might be some "wiggle room" on what "user"
> > means. Is it a ARS 'Login Name' or is it a person?
> (However, I doubt
> > that argument would standup in court.)
> >
> >
> > Strictly speaking, the text that I quoted does not mention
> > concepts like "timeouts" for the floating "tokens". So I
> guess if you
> > constructed a front end that would compartmentalize every
> transaction
> > to the ARS server as a "", and
> you only
> > used floating licenses. Then I guess, the users would only
> "hold the
> > token" as long as it took to execute
> "".
> >
> > Not sure I want my users doing that many
> login/logouts. Nor do
> > I want to have to "make my own user tool/web tool" to
> operate in such
> > a fashion. (,> > field>> > out>, ,etc...) Can you imagine how
> > out>little of
> > ARS workflow (Forms, active links, menus, buttons, etc...) would
> > really make sense to use is such a "login conscious" model?
> >
> > If this theoretical improved user tool could know the
> > difference between "read transactions" and "write
> transactions", and
> > if it could use two connections to the server at the same time with
> > different usernames/passwords, then maybe most of the
> workflow could
> > still be used. The idea would be to hold a read license
> open for the
> > majority of the interactions. Then switch to the float
> user, login, do
> > what you need to do and logoff as soon as possible. [Push
> actions, and
> > macros, in Active Links might still be a bit of a problem.]
> But this
> > design might be "ok" legally. (So who is up for rewriting
> the entire
> > User tool and/or Mid-Tier?)
> >
> >
> > Just my 2 cents... The hassle is not worth the effort or possible
> > legal consequences.
> >
> > If ARS is to expensive to use without going to extreme
> > optimizations, then start coding your own ARS.
> >
> > (I mean, how hard can it be? It only took Remedy [that is something
> > like <800 people] 10 years to get the product to its
> current state. So
> > a good consultant should be done next month right? :)
> >
> >
> > --
> > Carey Matthew Black
> >
> > Solution = People + Process + Tools
> > Fast, Accurate, Cheap.... Pick two.
> >
> >
>
> >
> > You may control your subscription options, including
> UNSUBSCRIBE,and ACCESS THE ARCHIVES at http://www.ARSLIST.org
>
>
> --
> G. David Frye
> gdf@uiuc.edu
> CCSO Communications Engineering
> (217) 333-7439
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>
>
>
> You may control your subscription options, including
> UNSUBSCRIBE,and ACCESS THE ARCHIVES at
> http://www.ARSLIST.org. For ARSList support, > please send
> eMail to support@arslist.org
>


You may control your subscription options, including UNSUBSCRIBE,and ACCESS THE ARCHIVES at http://www.ARSLIST.org. For ARSList support, please send eMail to support@arslist.org

**

Hi, take this scenario then, we have 50 floating and 50 fixed. 100 can log
in. Checking status in RA shows that 50 floating are used but only 35 fixed,
10 users are complaing we can't use the ars system...the missing 15 fixed
users are on vacation, meeting, are sick or so.

ADMIN can give the 10 users on queue to come in those 'free fixed'.

Next day new fixed users are sick, and those on meeting are back, suppose 35
used of 50 available is a expexted result each day, if not reassigning.

For optimal use, all fixed should ne used each day. Do we have the right to
reassign every day so all fixed are used?
Suppose all users enter the ars system with a floating, easy to build
workflow to let them change to a fixed, like pick on there own 'from a
pool'until all are used. But that solution is unacceptable, but can I see
that clear in the licensagreement?

Any difference if ADMIN set fixed or users change by workflow?

I agree that the rules are a bit vague, and good for both us and Remedy if
it had been possible to read in the licenceagreement the rules for fixed,
fixed lifetime? fixed for a week? OK to reassign by not by workflow? What is
acceptable frequence of reassigning fixed?

One thing is 100% clear, with 50+50 licences, no more than 100 unique users
shall be able to get a licence at any time, all use of alias or two users
sharing the same license is wrong.

Good discussion upon this issue!

L ars

-----Original Message-----
From: Dana Bourgeois [mailto:kunda1@TELOCITY.COM]
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 8:46 AM
To: ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM
Subject: Re: Manipulating License Keys


**

I respectfully disagree. I would read this clause as meaning that you
can't mess with or fool the licensing system into allowing more people
to use the system than you are licensed for. I think a strong argument
can be made that at no time are more people using the system than there
are licenses under the 30-people-3-shifts-of-10 scenario.


Dana Bourgeois

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
> [mailto:ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM] On Behalf Of G. David Frye
> Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 8:36 PM
> To: ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM
> Subject: Re: [ARSLIST] Manipulating License Keys
>
>
> **
>
> Matt,
>
> You left out perhaps the most important clause of the license
> section you
> quoted:
>
> (1)(c)(iii) Use of an alias to allow multiple individuals to
> share the same license (either fixed or floating), or
> attempts to disable or circumvent any of the licensing
> mechanisms within the Software each constitute a material
> breach of this Agreement.
>
> I think this clause, as well as the definition of fixed
> license as you quote it below, makes it crystal clear that
> fixed licenses are tied to individuals, not seats or hours of
> the day or phases of the moon or whatever.
>
> Black, Matt wrote:
> > **
> >
> > Robert, (all)
> > I hate to even comment on this thread, but I have
> to. > > YOUR OWN RISK!>
> >
> > I'm all for optimizing any system. It is our jobs to try to
> > "get the most" from the hardware and software that we use.
> However....
> >
> > Please read the Software License Agreement again.
> > I'm referencing a copy from my v5.1 doc set. (earlier
> Agreements may
> > be worded slightly differently.)
> >
> > Specifically the section labeled:
> > "
> > Definitions
> >
> >
> >
> > Fixed License shall mean a license that is assigned to a
> specific user
> > for that users exclusive use. The Fixed License grants (i)
> users with
> > write licenses to right to change data at any time, and (ii) users
> > with Remedy Full Text Search Option license the right to perform
> > searches using the full text search capability at any time.
> >
> > Floating License shall mean a license that is available to named
> > individual users within a license pool. Each Floating License is
> > represented by one of a number of "tokens" in a pool of licenses
> > commensurate with the number of licenses Licensee has
> obtained. Users
> > access tokens from the pool as others users release their
> tokens. The
> > Floating License, like the Fixed License, grants (i) users
> with write
> > license the right to change data, and (ii) users with
> Remedy Full Text
> > Search Option license the right to perform searches using the full
> > text search capability at such time as a license token is available
> > from the license pool. "
> >
> >
> > So. IMHO: (I'm not a lawyer, but you may need on if you try some of
> > the ideas in this thread. :)
> >
> > If you "reassign" a fixed license to a new user while the "original
> > user" is still "using it" then you are likely breaking the "is
> > assigned to a specific user for that users exclusive use" clause.
> >
> > If you use 10 Fixed licenses, and allow 20 people to use those 10
> > "generic logins", then you are likely also violating that
> same clause.
> >
> >
> > I guess there might be some "wiggle room" on what "user"
> > means. Is it a ARS 'Login Name' or is it a person?
> (However, I doubt
> > that argument would standup in court.)
> >
> >
> > Strictly speaking, the text that I quoted does not mention
> > concepts like "timeouts" for the floating "tokens". So I
> guess if you
> > constructed a front end that would compartmentalize every
> transaction
> > to the ARS server as a "", and
> you only
> > used floating licenses. Then I guess, the users would only
> "hold the
> > token" as long as it took to execute
> "".
> >
> > Not sure I want my users doing that many
> login/logouts. Nor do
> > I want to have to "make my own user tool/web tool" to
> operate in such
> > a fashion. (,> > field>> > out>, ,etc...) Can you imagine how
> > out>little of
> > ARS workflow (Forms, active links, menus, buttons, etc...) would
> > really make sense to use is such a "login conscious" model?
> >
> > If this theoretical improved user tool could know the
> > difference between "read transactions" and "write
> transactions", and
> > if it could use two connections to the server at the same time with
> > different usernames/passwords, then maybe most of the
> workflow could
> > still be used. The idea would be to hold a read license
> open for the
> > majority of the interactions. Then switch to the float
> user, login, do
> > what you need to do and logoff as soon as possible. [Push
> actions, and
> > macros, in Active Links might still be a bit of a problem.]
> But this
> > design might be "ok" legally. (So who is up for rewriting
> the entire
> > User tool and/or Mid-Tier?)
> >
> >
> > Just my 2 cents... The hassle is not worth the effort or possible
> > legal consequences.
> >
> > If ARS is to expensive to use without going to extreme
> > optimizations, then start coding your own ARS.
> >
> > (I mean, how hard can it be? It only took Remedy [that is something
> > like <800 people] 10 years to get the product to its
> current state. So
> > a good consultant should be done next month right? :)
> >
> >
> > --
> > Carey Matthew Black
> >
> > Solution = People + Process + Tools
> > Fast, Accurate, Cheap.... Pick two.
> >
> >
>
> >
> > You may control your subscription options, including
> UNSUBSCRIBE,and ACCESS THE ARCHIVES at http://www.ARSLIST.org
>
>
> --
> G. David Frye
> gdf@uiuc.edu
> CCSO Communications Engineering
> (217) 333-7439
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>
>
>
> You may control your subscription options, including
> UNSUBSCRIBE,and ACCESS THE ARCHIVES at
> http://www.ARSLIST.org. For ARSList support, > please send
> eMail to support@arslist.org
>



You may control your subscription options, including UNSUBSCRIBE,and ACCESS
THE ARCHIVES at http://www.ARSLIST.org. For ARSList support, please send
eMail to support@arslist.org


You may control your subscription options, including UNSUBSCRIBE,and ACCESS THE ARCHIVES at http://www.ARSLIST.org. For ARSList support, please send eMail to support@arslist.org

**

lars.j.pettersson@VATTENFALL.COM wrote:
> Hi, take this scenario then, we have 50 floating and 50 fixed. 100 can log
> in. Checking status in RA shows that 50 floating are used but only 35 fixed,
> 10 users are complaing we can't use the ars system...the missing 15 fixed
> users are on vacation, meeting, are sick or so.
>
> ADMIN can give the 10 users on queue to come in those 'free fixed'.
>
> Next day new fixed users are sick, and those on meeting are back, suppose 35
> used of 50 available is a expexted result each day, if not reassigning.

It seems to me that all of these schemes merely implement a floating license
scheme by circumventing the intent of fixed licenses. In addition, they
are floating licenses that are unencumbered by timeouts or by being tied to
a particular server and which cost 40% of the going price for an official
floating license.

Some of the discussion participants argue that, because the license
allocation mechanism allows this behavior, it must be OK. My take on it
is that the license agreement constitutes explicit acknowledgement on your
part that, even though you can abuse licenses in certain ways, YOU AGREE
NOT TO.

--
G. David Frye gdf@uiuc.edu
CCSO Communications Engineering (217) 333-7439
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign


You may control your subscription options, including UNSUBSCRIBE,and ACCESS THE ARCHIVES at http://www.ARSLIST.org. For ARSList support, please send eMail to support@arslist.org

**

You missed a point here. If you have 100 licenses and 100 users, then
each gets an account and can log in with one or the other license type
depending on how you set up the user form entry. No problem.

Now if you are saying that you have 50 fixed licsense and give them out
to 50 people and have another 70 people assigned a floating license but
all of them try to get in and 20 whiners show up at your door, then heck
yes, you can find out that 20 fixed licenses are free today because 20
people are off-site and reassign the licenses on the fly. Why not? You
have purchased the right to have 100 people log in with a write license.
As for doing this under program control, sure, go ahead. Again, you get
to reassign licenses at any time for 100 people.

What you are not allowed to do is figure out a way to fool the floating
license manager into releasing floating licenses in less than an hour.
You are not allowed to implement your own floating license manager out
of fixed licenses. At what point does a reassignment become a floating
license manager? I dunno. I don't think the reassign-per-shift scheme
is a problem since there is no attempt to float licenses among a group
of people larger than the group using it and the time limit is much more
than one hour. Releasing and reassigning a license on demand would be a
violation, IMHO.


Dana Bourgeois

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
> [mailto:ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM] On Behalf Of
> lars.j.pettersson@VATTENFALL.COM
> Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 4:03 AM
> To: ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM
> Subject: Re: [ARSLIST] Manipulating License Keys
>
>
> **
>
> Hi, take this scenario then, we have 50 floating and 50
> fixed. 100 can log in. Checking status in RA shows that 50
> floating are used but only 35 fixed, 10 users are complaing
> we can't use the ars system...the missing 15 fixed users are
> on vacation, meeting, are sick or so.
>
> ADMIN can give the 10 users on queue to come in those 'free fixed'.
>
> Next day new fixed users are sick, and those on meeting are
> back, suppose 35 used of 50 available is a expexted result
> each day, if not reassigning.
>
> For optimal use, all fixed should ne used each day. Do we
> have the right to reassign every day so all fixed are used?
> Suppose all users enter the ars system with a floating, easy
> to build workflow to let them change to a fixed, like pick on
> there own 'from a pool'until all are used. But that solution
> is unacceptable, but can I see that clear in the licensagreement?
>
> Any difference if ADMIN set fixed or users change by workflow?
>
> I agree that the rules are a bit vague, and good for both us
> and Remedy if it had been possible to read in the
> licenceagreement the rules for fixed, fixed lifetime? fixed
> for a week? OK to reassign by not by workflow? What is
> acceptable frequence of reassigning fixed?
>
> One thing is 100% clear, with 50+50 licences, no more than
> 100 unique users shall be able to get a licence at any time,
> all use of alias or two users sharing the same license is wrong.
>
> Good discussion upon this issue!
>
> L ars
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dana Bourgeois [mailto:kunda1@TELOCITY.COM]
> Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 8:46 AM
> To: ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM
> Subject: Re: Manipulating License Keys
>
>
> **
>
> I respectfully disagree. I would read this clause as meaning
> that you can't mess with or fool the licensing system into
> allowing more people to use the system than you are licensed
> for. I think a strong argument can be made that at no time
> are more people using the system than there are licenses
> under the 30-people-3-shifts-of-10 scenario.
>
>
> Dana Bourgeois
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
> > [mailto:ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM] On Behalf Of G. David Frye
> > Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 8:36 PM
> > To: ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM
> > Subject: Re: [ARSLIST] Manipulating License Keys
> >
> >
> > **
> >
> > Matt,
> >
> > You left out perhaps the most important clause of the
> license section
> > you
> > quoted:
> >
> > (1)(c)(iii) Use of an alias to allow multiple individuals
> to share the
> > same license (either fixed or floating), or attempts to disable or
> > circumvent any of the licensing mechanisms within the Software each
> > constitute a material breach of this Agreement.
> >
> > I think this clause, as well as the definition of fixed
> license as you
> > quote it below, makes it crystal clear that fixed licenses
> are tied to
> > individuals, not seats or hours of the day or phases of the moon or
> > whatever.
> >
> > Black, Matt wrote:
> > > **
> > >
> > > Robert, (all)
> > > I hate to even comment on this thread, but I have
> > to. > > > YOUR OWN RISK!>
> > >
> > > I'm all for optimizing any system. It is our jobs
> to try to
> > > "get the most" from the hardware and software that we use.
> > However....
> > >
> > > Please read the Software License Agreement again.
> > > I'm referencing a copy from my v5.1 doc set. (earlier
> > Agreements may
> > > be worded slightly differently.)
> > >
> > > Specifically the section labeled:
> > > "
> > > Definitions
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Fixed License shall mean a license that is assigned to a
> > specific user
> > > for that users exclusive use. The Fixed License grants (i)
> > users with
> > > write licenses to right to change data at any time, and
> (ii) users
> > > with Remedy Full Text Search Option license the right to perform
> > > searches using the full text search capability at any time.
> > >
> > > Floating License shall mean a license that is available to named
> > > individual users within a license pool. Each Floating License is
> > > represented by one of a number of "tokens" in a pool of licenses
> > > commensurate with the number of licenses Licensee has
> > obtained. Users
> > > access tokens from the pool as others users release their
> > tokens. The
> > > Floating License, like the Fixed License, grants (i) users
> > with write
> > > license the right to change data, and (ii) users with
> > Remedy Full Text
> > > Search Option license the right to perform searches using
> the full
> > > text search capability at such time as a license token is
> available
> > > from the license pool. "
> > >
> > >
> > > So. IMHO: (I'm not a lawyer, but you may need on if you
> try some of
> > > the ideas in this thread. :)
> > >
> > > If you "reassign" a fixed license to a new user while the
> "original
> > > user" is still "using it" then you are likely breaking the "is
> > > assigned to a specific user for that users exclusive use" clause.
> > >
> > > If you use 10 Fixed licenses, and allow 20 people to use those 10
> > > "generic logins", then you are likely also violating that
> > same clause.
> > >
> > >
> > > I guess there might be some "wiggle room" on what "user"
> > > means. Is it a ARS 'Login Name' or is it a person?
> > (However, I doubt
> > > that argument would standup in court.)
> > >
> > >
> > > Strictly speaking, the text that I quoted does
> not mention
> > > concepts like "timeouts" for the floating "tokens". So I
> > guess if you
> > > constructed a front end that would compartmentalize every
> > transaction
> > > to the ARS server as a "", and
> > you only
> > > used floating licenses. Then I guess, the users would only
> > "hold the
> > > token" as long as it took to execute
> > "".
> > >
> > > Not sure I want my users doing that many
> > login/logouts. Nor do
> > > I want to have to "make my own user tool/web tool" to
> > operate in such
> > > a fashion. (,> > > field>> > > out>, ,etc...) Can you imagine how
> > > out>little of
> > > ARS workflow (Forms, active links, menus, buttons, etc...) would
> > > really make sense to use is such a "login conscious" model?
> > >
> > > If this theoretical improved user tool could know the
> > > difference between "read transactions" and "write
> > transactions", and
> > > if it could use two connections to the server at the same
> time with
> > > different usernames/passwords, then maybe most of the
> > workflow could
> > > still be used. The idea would be to hold a read license
> > open for the
> > > majority of the interactions. Then switch to the float
> > user, login, do
> > > what you need to do and logoff as soon as possible. [Push
> > actions, and
> > > macros, in Active Links might still be a bit of a problem.]
> > But this
> > > design might be "ok" legally. (So who is up for rewriting
> > the entire
> > > User tool and/or Mid-Tier?)
> > >
> > >
> > > Just my 2 cents... The hassle is not worth the effort or
> possible
> > > legal consequences.
> > >
> > > If ARS is to expensive to use without going to extreme
> > > optimizations, then start coding your own ARS.
> > >
> > > (I mean, how hard can it be? It only took Remedy [that is
> something
> > > like <800 people] 10 years to get the product to its
> > current state. So
> > > a good consultant should be done next month right? :)
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Carey Matthew Black
> > >
> > > Solution = People + Process + Tools
> > > Fast, Accurate, Cheap.... Pick two.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> > >
> > > You may control your subscription options, including
> > UNSUBSCRIBE,and ACCESS THE ARCHIVES at http://www.ARSLIST.org
> >
> >
> > --
> > G. David Frye
> > gdf@uiuc.edu
> > CCSO Communications Engineering
> > (217) 333-7439
> > University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
> >
> >
> >
> > You may control your subscription options, including
> UNSUBSCRIBE,and
> > ACCESS THE ARCHIVES at http://www.ARSLIST.org. For ARSList
> support, >
> > please send eMail to support@arslist.org
> >
>
>
>
>
> You may control your subscription options, including
> UNSUBSCRIBE,and ACCESS THE ARCHIVES at
> http://www.ARSLIST.org. For ARSList support, > please send
> eMail to support@arslist.org
>
>
>
> You may control your subscription options, including
> UNSUBSCRIBE,and ACCESS THE ARCHIVES at
> http://www.ARSLIST.org. For ARSList support, > please send
> eMail to support@arslist.org
>


You may control your subscription options, including UNSUBSCRIBE,and ACCESS THE ARCHIVES at http://www.ARSLIST.org. For ARSList support, please send eMail to support@arslist.org