On TV.com: Alien-Invasion Lessons Learned From V
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet

March 2nd, 2007

Why is there software licensing by the core?

Posted by Larry Dignan @ 8:29 am

Categories: General, IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, Software Infrastructure

Tags:

Stephen Shankland is reporting that Oracle has quietly cut database prices on some low-end servers using multicore processors.

It's clear that Oracle's move is because Microsoft doesn't charge that way and is making some database inroads. With any luck perhaps Oracle can be prodded to drop increased software charges for all applications running on multicore processors.

Why? It just doesn't make sense. Multicore processing is a hardware advance. Why should you have to pay more for your applications just because they run faster. More usage? It's a weak argument. Intel and AMD invest in the R&D and software vendors get to charge more. Great deal if you can get it.

Charging more for software because it runs on multicore chips means the following: As you upgrade your hardware infrastructure you get whacked with higher software fees.

Does that sound fair? According to Yankee Group analyst Laura DiDio, software licensing should be based on the number of processor sockets–not the cores. Microsoft is the good guy in this one with Oracle sticking to its multicore story. DiDio says IBM also will do the multicore licensing scheme, but back off if you have enough heft.

"Vendors are responding to demands for more power and better performance by messing with their licensing," says DiDio. "Microsoft took the high ground here. A multicore licensing model is going to have a big impact–especially as virtualization takes off."

I don't get the rationale for charging by the core for software. And comment from software makers is hard to come by. Nevertheless, customers may want to examine how they are being charged for multicore processors.  Customers I've contacted have seemed pretty reticent about commenting on multicore software licensing models.

Perhaps these folks should speak up. After all, multicore licensing may explain why software costs are going up more than you expected.

Larry DignanLarry Dignan is Editor in Chief of ZDNet and Editorial Director of ZDNet sister site TechRepublic. See his full profile and disclosure of his industry affiliations.

For daily updates, follow Larry on Twitter.

Email Larry Dignan

Subscribe to Between the Lines via Email alerts or RSS.

  • Talkback
  • Most Recent of 10 Talkback(s)
Exactly
EULA means processor sockets and matches what MS has been saying all along.

Each computer can have 1 or more sockets, and each socket can have a processor with 1 or more cores.

So in the... (Read the rest)
Posted by: croberts Posted on: 04/10/08 You are currently: a Guest | | Terms of Use
Why is per socket OK while per core not?  ye | 03/02/07
Per socket isn't ok either  maldain | 03/02/07
I don't belive it is quite that simple  JackPastor | 03/04/07
Imagine  Not average Joe | 03/02/07
Nothing new here, it has always been this way in the IBM Mainframe world.  piglet@... | 03/02/07
"I don't get the rationale for charging by the core for software."  Henry Miller | 03/02/07
Have you read Windows EULA?  devlin_X | 03/04/07
Depend on the definition  JackPastor | 03/04/07
Exactly  croberts | 04/10/08
... because there's no other real way to assess "value"  jigordon | 03/04/07

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
Click Here

Recent Entries

Archives

Favorite Links

ZDNet Blogs

White Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

SmartPlanet

  • Thought-provoking progressive ideas on diverse topics that intersect with technology, business, and life, and matter to the world at large. Visit SmartPlanet
  • More from IBM
  • Innovate your business' process model, play against the market, compete against others on our scoreboards and WIN! Try INNOV8 2.0: A BPM Simulator
  • Enabling Real-World Business Transformation through IBM Service Management Read the EMA Analyst Report
Click Here