**

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

**

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

**

If I am not mistaken allowing multiple users to use the same login is a
violation of the license agreement.

Fred

-----Original Message-----
From: Gidd Calden [mailto:gidd@BUOYANTSOLUTIONS.NET]
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 6:24 PM
To: ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM
Subject: Re: Manipulating License Keys


**

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


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

**

actually i have posed this question to Remedy...the answer is that it is
fine....but not recommended because you cant have any accountability with
this....and the last updated by field becomes worthless....

-----Original Message-----
From: Grooms, Frederick W [mailto:frederick.w.grooms@XO.COM]
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 8:45 AM
To: ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM
Subject: Re: Manipulating License Keys


**

If I am not mistaken allowing multiple users to use the same login is a
violation of the license agreement.

Fred

-----Original Message-----
From: Gidd Calden [mailto:gidd@BUOYANTSOLUTIONS.NET]
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 6:24 PM
To: ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM
Subject: Re: Manipulating License Keys


**

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



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

**

On Fri, 11 Oct 2002 08:44:48 -0500, Grooms, Frederick W wrote:

Yes but surely the key thing is *at the same time*.

Some years back we had a setup whereby we had very few fixed licences
and not many more floats :-) Each support group had one person
designated to watch their queue per day. Because of the call rate the
rest of the group could get by with floats but this guy needed a
fixed to ensure he could always write back. We had workflow that the
outgoing guy fired that changed his fixed to a float and gave it to
the next guy in line.

Remedy knew what we were doing and even sat by whilst I told someone
else at a RUG about it - They said they did not have a problem with
it. The someone was a prospective customer they had invited. The
saleperson said they would rather have them take a few licences than
not buy the product at all and if that way accomplished it so be it.

I still don't think this is against the license - Only one person is
using the fixed at any one time, which is what it says. If my rota
says Joe is not on helpdesk today and therefore does not need a
license than why can't I give it to someone else manually? And if so
why not automate that process? Its up to me to decide at any given
moment how I distribute the licences I pay for and as long as I am
not letting N people use the same logon id, whether serially or in
parallel, then in my view I am kosha.

>**
>
>If I am not mistaken allowing multiple users to use the same login is a
>violation of the license agreement.
>
>Fred
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Gidd Calden [mailto:gidd@BUOYANTSOLUTIONS.NET]
>Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 6:24 PM
>To: ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM
>Subject: Manipulating License Keys
>
>
>**
>
>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: 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


--
Regards

Dave Saville
Please note new email address dave.saville@ntlworld.com


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

**

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

**

Interesting discussion thread.

In 1997 there was a product released that used Visual Basic to open up the
Remedy Administrator client and release floating licenses that had been
dormant for any period of time that the administrator wanted to set. There
was one customer that was able to get 13 to 1 contention ratio for the
floating licenses using this product. Remedy responded by eliminating the
ability to release the floating license more than once within the standard
timeout period (is it 1 or 2 hours?).

Another customer set Submitter mode to locked and allowed Submitter
read/write access to all fields on their form. This allowed the Help Desk
operator to create and modify their own tickets with a "read" license. If
the operator needed to modify a ticket that someone else created, they would
create a new record in a different form that included the entry ID of the
ticket to be changed and then let an escalation make the modification to the
real ticket.

Still a third customer used direct SQL to change the value of the Submitter
field at the database level upon login to the User client using an active
link, then using Submitter mode locked allowed anyone to be the "Submitter"
of the record and thus be able to access any record with a "read" license. I
think that this would be a clear violation of the license agreement.

Soapbox: For the value that Remedy provides the seat licenses are cheap.
Spend less time (and money) messing around with ways to defeat the licensing
scheme and help the struggling economy at the same time by purchasing those
needed licenses.

-----Original Message-----
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM]On Behalf Of Gidd Calden
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:24 PM
To: ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM
Subject: Re: Manipulating License Keys


**

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


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

**

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

**

It sounds like it boils down to whether Remedy wants to stay in business or
not. With the license, you are basically paying for connectivity to the
product. If you have 20 Fixed and 20 Floating licenses, that means at any
given time, 40 users can be accessing the system. It shouldn't matter who it
is or how they are accessing the system (license wise). As long as there are
not 45 people accessing the system with those same 40 licenses (Read
submits/queries aside) then the license agreement is being adhered to - read
it. The only difference between a fixed and floating license is the
guarantee with the fixed that you will have access. Who has that guarantee
can change. Responsibilities and usage activity changes over time and that
time could be in the space of a day, as some from 24X7 shops have pointed
out. If someone is on vacation, that will definitely impact license use. If
there is a large project going on, or a roll-out, the team involved may all
of a sudden need a much higher access time to the system.

The argument it sounded like some were making was the one you hear from the
db salesmen. It doesn't matter whether they are actually accessing the db or
not. If they have the potential to use it, they need a license. You can hear
the cha-ching and envision the two red Lambroginis in the driveway! Remedy
shouldn't be getting into that business!

As it is, the way their maintenance is structured is giving them more pad
than some would say is reasonable! Consider, if I am a decent size shop and
I pay for maintenance on 100 licenses with Express Plus, what kind of
service do I get compared with a shop paying for 20 licenses using Express
Plus? Exactly the same!!! Some would argue that there is more potential for
requesting service from the larger shop or the system is providing more
return. I would argue that, it doesn't matter as much how big the shop is,
as how much experience the support team has with regard to how many service
calls they place. Also, the return on the investment isn't that geometric!!
One of the reasons that Remedy was an attractive take over target by
Peregrine was not only that they were competition, it was that they had a
very attractive cash position! Where do you think that cash position came
from? I wonder!

The whole arguement crystalizes to this: I pay license fees for access to
the system. The way to access the system (for data change) is with a write
license. If I can't manage write license usage, then all of a sudden a
home-grown solution to the problem seems a WHOLE lot more attractive, no
matter how cool ARS is! Which was a topic of discussion, I am sure, in many
shops when Peregrine came in and raised maintenance prices - especially with
the economy the way it is! For helping the economy, Remedy should trickle
down some of the cash excess to its customers in the form of rebates and
lowered maintenance fees. Better 100s of shops are a little more viable than
1 a lot more viable!

My $.035 (inflation adjusted) cents and strictly my own opinion!

Garron





-----Original Message-----
From: Gidd Calden [mailto:gidd@BUOYANTSOLUTIONS.NET]
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:24 PM
To: ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM
Subject: Re: Manipulating License Keys


**

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


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

**

Please note the verbage you quoted doesn't say how often you may
reassign the fixed license nor any time limits on the switch. Making
the account generic 'shared' by three people is another way of saying
the account name is a pattern and the license is reassigned at the
beginning of each shift.

I think you made the case for 'sharing' license this way. But note that
this is a specific case where there is *no* overlap of usage. User1 on
shift 1 logs out at shift end and 'reassigns' the license to User2 who
then logs in and just happens to use the same login name. (Saves admin
time). The argument can, under these specific circumstances, be made
that there is no sharing, only reassignment which is allowed.


Dana Bourgeois
I'm not really a lawyer, I just play one in my dreams.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
> [mailto:ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM] On Behalf Of Black, Matt
> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 12:21 AM
> To: ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM
> Subject: Re: [ARSLIST] Manipulating License Keys
>
>
> **
>
> 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. (> form>,> out>, ,etc...) Can you imagine
> how little
> out>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
>


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

**

Gidd

If they do I would be interested to know their thoughts. I personally would
not like to see any regime change when it comes to the current license
situation, but it was an interesting, thought provoking topic of discussion.

Thanks

Robert

-----Original Message-----
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM]On Behalf Of Gidd Calden
Sent: 11 October 2002 00:24
To: ARSLIST@LISTSERV.QMXS.COM
Subject: Re: Manipulating License Keys


**

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


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

**

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