**

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

**

Definitely interested....Just curious though: What was the impetus behind this message?

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: Gidd Calden [mailto:gidd@BUOYANTSOLUTIONS.NET]
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 10:30 AM
To: ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM
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


*****
"The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers."


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

**

Question: I thought that changing the license only takes affect the next
time a person logs in. Am I mistaken? (Basically when a user logs in his
login name, login time, license type, and security groups are placed in the
server's cache. These items are not updated in the cache so a change to any
of them will take affect on the next login.)

In your scenario, the user logs in and his license type is set to Fixed.
Since the user is already logged in (which is what caused the license type
to change) the license type would not take affect until the user logs in
again.

Fred

-----Original Message-----
From: Gidd Calden [mailto:gidd@BUOYANTSOLUTIONS.NET]
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 9:30 AM
To: ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM
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

**

Fred,

Obviously there is a login / log out issue here but the
point of my message is manipulating license keys. My
scenario is just that a scenario and bears no resemblance to
fact.

HTH

Regards...Gidd

-----Original Message-----
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM]On Behalf Of Grooms, Frederick W
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 8:01 AM
To: ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM
Subject: Re: Manipulating License Keys


**

Question: I thought that changing the license only takes affect the next
time a person logs in. Am I mistaken? (Basically when a user logs in his
login name, login time, license type, and security groups are placed in the
server's cache. These items are not updated in the cache so a change to any
of them will take affect on the next login.)

In your scenario, the user logs in and his license type is set to Fixed.
Since the user is already logged in (which is what caused the license type
to change) the license type would not take affect until the user logs in
again.

Fred

-----Original Message-----
From: Gidd Calden [mailto:gidd@BUOYANTSOLUTIONS.NET]
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 9:30 AM
To: ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM
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


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

**

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

**

Gidd

Interesting thought, if I have ten fixed licenses, then it allows me ten
fixed connections, therefore in your scenario, I could create 10 users say
Helpdesk Op 1 - 10, these could be permanently logged in and just the bodies
in the seats would change, therefore I am not breaking any license agreement
as I only have 10 connections. I've paid for my license to be used all the
time, not just the hours that mere mortals work. So therefore as I want to
be able to track names to actions, why could I not automate the license
handover in the same method as a shift handover, i.e. I hand over the
running off the operation to the next shift and the tools for them to carry
out the work?

If I was forced to purchase 30 licenses, 2/3 of them would be idle 2/3 of
the time, it may be within the spirit of the license agreement but it would
not be cost efficient.

Stimulating question, lets have some more discussion/debate type questions.

Cheers

Robert

-----Original Message-----
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM]On Behalf Of Gidd Calden
Sent: 10 October 2002 15:30
To: ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM
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


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

**

Robert:

You could also use Floats. That way you could track who did what and be
within the spirit of the License agreement. That is what we plan to do here
as we add on users, we give them float licenses....

James Mckenzie

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Page [mailto:r.d.page@BTINTERNET.COM]
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 4:04 PM
To: ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM
Subject: Re: Manipulating License Keys


**

Gidd

Interesting thought, if I have ten fixed licenses, then it allows me ten
fixed connections, therefore in your scenario, I could create 10 users say
Helpdesk Op 1 - 10, these could be permanently logged in and just the bodies
in the seats would change, therefore I am not breaking any license agreement
as I only have 10 connections. I've paid for my license to be used all the
time, not just the hours that mere mortals work. So therefore as I want to
be able to track names to actions, why could I not automate the license
handover in the same method as a shift handover, i.e. I hand over the
running off the operation to the next shift and the tools for them to carry
out the work?

If I was forced to purchase 30 licenses, 2/3 of them would be idle 2/3 of
the time, it may be within the spirit of the license agreement but it would
not be cost efficient.

Stimulating question, lets have some more discussion/debate type questions.

Cheers

Robert

-----Original Message-----
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM]On Behalf Of Gidd Calden
Sent: 10 October 2002 15:30
To: ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM
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



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

**

Robert,

Now this is a totally different scenario and an interesting
possibility. I'll hope that my friends in the "know" over
at Remedy might contact me off-list to advise?

I have to admit it sounds legit to me?

Regards...Gidd

-----Original Message-----
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM]On Behalf Of Robert Page
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 4:04 PM
To: ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM
Subject: Re: Manipulating License Keys


**

Gidd

Interesting thought, if I have ten fixed licenses, then it allows me ten
fixed connections, therefore in your scenario, I could create 10 users say
Helpdesk Op 1 - 10, these could be permanently logged in and just the bodies
in the seats would change, therefore I am not breaking any license agreement
as I only have 10 connections. I've paid for my license to be used all the
time, not just the hours that mere mortals work. So therefore as I want to
be able to track names to actions, why could I not automate the license
handover in the same method as a shift handover, i.e. I hand over the
running off the operation to the next shift and the tools for them to carry
out the work?

If I was forced to purchase 30 licenses, 2/3 of them would be idle 2/3 of
the time, it may be within the spirit of the license agreement but it would
not be cost efficient.

Stimulating question, lets have some more discussion/debate type questions.

Cheers

Robert

-----Original Message-----
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM]On Behalf Of Gidd Calden
Sent: 10 October 2002 15:30
To: ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM
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



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

**

Floats used to cost 5 times the cost of a fixed license. So under the
scenario where you have thirty guys or which ten guys per shift stay
connected (never off for more than one hour during the shift) then
instead of paying 3x for used/idle fixed licenses, you pay 5x for the
floating licenses you use.


Dana Bourgeois


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
> [mailto:ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM] On Behalf Of James Mckenzie
> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 4:07 PM
> To: ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM
> Subject: Re: [ARSLIST] Manipulating License Keys
>
>
> **
>
> Robert:
>
> You could also use Floats. That way you could track who did
> what and be within the spirit of the License agreement. That
> is what we plan to do here as we add on users, we give them
> float licenses....
>
> James Mckenzie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Page [mailto:r.d.page@BTINTERNET.COM]
> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 4:04 PM
> To: ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM
> Subject: Re: Manipulating License Keys
>
>
> **
>
> Gidd
>
> Interesting thought, if I have ten fixed licenses, then it
> allows me ten fixed connections, therefore in your scenario,
> I could create 10 users say Helpdesk Op 1 - 10, these could
> be permanently logged in and just the bodies in the seats
> would change, therefore I am not breaking any license
> agreement as I only have 10 connections. I've paid for my
> license to be used all the time, not just the hours that mere
> mortals work. So therefore as I want to be able to track
> names to actions, why could I not automate the license
> handover in the same method as a shift handover, i.e. I hand
> over the running off the operation to the next shift and the
> tools for them to carry out the work?
>
> If I was forced to purchase 30 licenses, 2/3 of them would be
> idle 2/3 of the time, it may be within the spirit of the
> license agreement but it would not be cost efficient.
>
> Stimulating question, lets have some more discussion/debate
> type questions.
>
> Cheers
>
> Robert
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
> [mailto:ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM]On Behalf Of Gidd Calden
> Sent: 10 October 2002 15:30
> To: ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM
> 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
>
>
>
>
> 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

**

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