Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Citrix Systems (CTXS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Roger A. Babb who wrote (5257)	3/15/1998 11:23:00 PM
From: NicholasC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9068

Roger, You're legal staff is probably right about the licensing. Anyone implementing Winframe to solely beat some software company out of a software licensing seats is greatly missing the point. Licensing efficiency(legal) is a nice perk but if other issues like reduced administration, reduced cost of deployment and other ownership cost savings are not applicable, one might be even better off just implementing standard server and workstations. While one might think that Winframe allows one to save money by reducing workstation cost, it increases the cost at the server. In other words, you need a far more powerful, well designed server. Therefore, it might cost more for hardware ... and it could even cost more for software licensing. But, as I've mentioned, this is often a SMALL piece of the pie for a qualified installation. By the way, there are many installations of Winframe using more powerful programs than Excel and they perform fine and, often, better than expected. These installations had well thought out designs. I could see someone using a poor design or improper setup ending up with crummy performance. But, that happens all the time with all kinds of systems - there is a difference in the quality of system engineers out there. -N

To: Roger A. Babb who wrote (5257)	3/16/1998 1:46:00 PM
From: David Lawrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9068

Roger, I won't contest your first-hand experience and interpretation of the licensing requirements, but it still seems ambiguous to me. Network use: You may also store or install a copy of the computer software portion of the software product on the computer to allow your other computers to use the software product over an internal network. However, you must acquire and dedicate a license for the software product for each computer on which the software product is to be used. A license for the software product may not be shared on different computers. In my scenario, I'm not storing or installing a copying a copy of the software on the client. I am using - running - the application on the server, and using a client to monitor and control the server. If I want to run 20 concurrent instances of an application on the server, then it seems that I would only need 20 licenses. However, your (and others) interpretation is that I need a license for every potential client that might run the application. I can see how it could be interpreted that way, but the licensing wording you cited is ambiguous: However, you must acquire and dedicate a license for the software product for each computer on which the software product is to be used. Define "used" and we eliminate the ambiguity. Question: Say I install Office 97 on a machine, and use a remote control client such as Carbon Copy or Timbuktu to allow users access to that application. Is it your interpretation that I need a license for each user with a CC or TB2 client that can remote to the host PC and run the application? BTW, I was unaware that you had to license a Winframe seat for each unique user ID. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Finally, I agree that beating software vendors out of licensing fees is not the point of running a Winframe server. Regards, David