Free Newsletters

   All InfoWorld Newsletters
Database Underground | Sean McCown » I just don't understand Red-Gate

April 30, 2007 | Comments: (0)

I just don't understand Red-Gate

I've been meaning to post this for quite some time, but I got hung up with a few things that took my attention.  However, I think it's important to post this update to the Red-Gate licensing post because they've really gone out of their way to make things right.  The question is... have they succeeded?  Here are the first 2 posts on the topic:

Use Red-Gate's backup... and Go to Jail???

Red-Gate Answers Back

In short, Red-Gate has changed their license to better reflect what they intended (I suppose), and they are no longer saying that you cannot transfer your license to another server if you need to.  What they're saying now is that you can transfer it once, and if you need to do it more, you can ask their permission.  Only ONCE?  Sorry guys, I just don't get it.  Why once?  A simple mistake could put me in the throws of Red-Gate support explaining how I deployed it to the wrong server by accident, or how our strategy changed all of a sudden.  And yeah, the license does say that they won't turn down any reasonable request, but still, I shouldn't have to do that, should I?

The problem is, I'm not sure they've really addressed all that much in their new license.  I mean, at least you can get permission from them, but how do you know what's going to change the license on a box?  You've still got the same problem you always did, only now at least you know how many activations you've had on a given box... assuming that you've written a little repository to keep up with that kinda thing.  See, that's what I mean though;  this is just getting harder to manage, because now I've got to write an application to keep track of all my activations, and that's extra work.  I'm assuming that you already know the reasons why you wouldn't use excel for such a thing.  Oh, I suppose you could half-ass it and just fly by the seat of your pants and not record any of your activations, and just take them as they come up.  But I know none of my readers would be that sloppy, so you'll have to write something that lets you enter in the keys and manage them when you decommission servers and throw your Red-Gate licenses back into the general pool.  If I were you, since they're in the UK, I would have 3 categories of keys:  those currently assigned to a server, those in the general pool waiting to be assigned, and Olivers.  Olivers are the ones where you're about to have to go beg for some more.

Anyway, for better or for worse, at least you know where you stand on your licenses now, so some good has come of this.  Is it the best you could hope for?  Probably not, but it's a good start.  If you guys are still sore about it, then be sure to tell Red-Gate, I'm sure they'll listen if enough of you complain. 

And as usual, here's the link to the license, and I've pasted the relevant portion here.

All software is licensed on a per computer basis. For example, if you wish to use SQL Backup on more than one computer you will need an additional license for each additional computer on which the software is downloaded and installed. Notwithstanding this, your license may be transferred once between computers or servers, for example where you are decommissioning or upgrading those computers or servers. If you exceed that number of activations, you will need to contact Red Gate Software to obtain their consent to the transfer. Red Gate Software will not unreasonably withhold their consent to your request.

Posted by Sean McCown on April 30, 2007 09:44 PM


RATE THIS ARTICLE:





 

  •  
  • COMMENTS




I hear you.

Red-Gate made the case that they operate on a trust basis, and that's all well and good. We all want to have a good relationship with our vendors and customers.

However, if that's strictly true, why do they have a license agreement at all? Part of the network of interactions that forms a trustworthy relationship, is that important agreements and understandings are codified and transparent.

My attitude is informed, in part, by a situation that happened some years ago. The vendor in question seemed trustworthy and reliable; we had a relationship for at least 10 years, dating back prior to my tenure with my company.

Anyway, we installed an upgrade to the vendor's application and the entire system slowed down. It was quite noticable and it even affected other systems running on the same hardware. By the way, the functional improvements we saw with the upgrade were minimal, but contractually the upgrades were required.

So, no biggie, we start planning for a hardware replacement. It's a bit early from a depreciation standpoint, but nothing we can't handle.

Part of the upgrade planning involves talking to the vendors to make sure we've got all the bases covered--technology, versioning, media, licensing, the whole works.

Turns out, that vendor licensed based upon the power of the computer it was run on. And, get this, even though IBM stratified their systems into standard categories, which most vendors used if they licensed by processing power, this vendor didn't. They were the only one I've EVER seen do this in that world!

Our new system was more powerful than the old one (of course), but actually fell into a lower IBM processor category because of the march of time and technology. However it didn't matter because the vendor didn't use those categories.

Now here was the final insult. We were required to talk to one of the vendor's marketing people. They wouldn't tell us why at the time, but it was the processor power licensing issue. And the marketing schlub didn't return our calls for about 1-2 weeks, because he was away from the office on some kind of sales junket.

In the end we paid more to this one single vendor than all of the rest of the costs of upgrading combined. We got soaked on an unbudgeted and unanticipated expense. And all because of an upgrade their own application triggered! Talk about self-dealing.

That's why many organizations won't permit license agreements with great big grey areas in them.

Posted by: Brian at May 14, 2007 02:14 PM

Technology White Papers

 

InfoWorld Technology Marketplace

» Technology White Papers Library

Technology White Papers by Topic

Technology White Papers E-mail Alert

Find out when the latest white paper is available:
 
 
» BUY A LINK NOW

Sponsored Technology Links