A year of challenges and differences to all (recent) others.
Perhaps not surprisingly the IT industry did its part in the battle with Covid-19. Mobility became essential - workers were confined to homes, offices were shutdown, usual communication and interactions were stifled. ... enter video conferencing on a whole new levelFrom Zoom, to WebEx, to Teams everyone had to find a way to adapt. Not only did meeting online become the norm for meetings but also for the social watercooler or coffee break gatherings, or even the swell of welcomes and farewells. That all worked well and is undoubtedly with us for good. But what about licensing? If you recall our March Blog we called out the possibility of easily becoming non-compliant in the rush to stay connected to your workforce and customers. With the new year imminent its now time to regroup and review. Are all of those rapid changes squared off? Have you reconciled usage to entitlements? Or are you perhaps uncertain of exactly what state you have now found yourself in? Be particularly concerned if you used the likes of Citrix to enable access to desktop applications - if unconstrained you could be liable for all potential usage, not just actual usage. Or if you inadvertently permitted a level of multiplexing by routing traffic or enabling access at the simplest level (think generic logons, or joint application connections) you'd best tidy things up. Don't be complacent thinking there has got to be some vendor leniency out there - we are already aware of audits being undertaken - there is no compromise when revenue is at stake. So as always, take stock of your situation - get on top of your compliance position and be ready to assert your view rather than just accept what state your vendor tells you you're in. ... and if you need help to do so, just contact us
0 Comments
If it seems that your vendors are unwilling (they'll say unable) to accept a termination for convenience clause these days, you're not alone. Often this will be justified by citing their companies accounting rules and practices aligned to the 2014 revenue recognition changes post Enron where they'll refer as below:
What they don't refer to is the fact that where termination charges are provided full contract revenue can be recognised:
Of course the "substantive" qualification is the issue - just how substantive should it be? Well there are no firm guidelines in that respect, other than simply compensating a supplier for services or deliverables provided up to the effective date of (early) termination will not be regarded as substantive. Guidelines only advise that "judgment has to be applied with consideration given to quantitative and qualitative factors". Government contracts typically require a termination for convenience clause and will state (in part) something similar to the below:
Having negotiated the termination for convenience clause we're now comfortable that all is good right? Well no, there are further issues to contend with. If (and thats a big 'if') the matter gets to court there would likely be consideration as to whether the contract was 'illusionary' based on the very right to terminate at will, or that the termination was not enacted in 'good faith', or even as far as not following the termination right explicitly which opens the door to damages! So what other options are there? Well that of course depends on what exactly is being contracted, but consider the following:
Key to all of the above is explicit language that clearly defines the criteria by which the clauses can be invoked - when things break down to termination your vendor will not be overly receptive to subjective positions, ambiguities, or plain old opposing points of view. And while the lawyers are endlessly debating the virtues of limitations of liability and insurances and everything else basically immaterial just ask yourself when you actually last went to court, and then ask what typically goes wrong with your contracts - invariably its performance based and for that, you just need an appropriate provision for ... ... a hasty, unequivocal exit, at the lowest possible cost!About to be hit by the RHEL6 and Windows 2008 double whammy?
If you're just organizing your Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 Extended Life (ELS) phase for the end of November don't forget Windows Server 2008 Extended Security (ESU) phase is about to rollover to year 2 in January! Unlike RHEL6 with WS2008 you'll need to cover all of the base licenses with ESU entitlements, and at 75% of the current list price that can prove to be a very expensive exercise. So if you won't have time to migrate off WS2008 your best option - depending on numbers - is to isolate them, either via host affinity in your virtual farms or by pushing them onto physical servers. Fortunately Red Hat licensing allows the choice of either physical sockets or virtual machines, so you can mix and match to suit. The tipping point is around 6 VMs, and again you can limit your exposure by applying host affinity rules in your virtual farms. There has been some conjecture as to whether the VM license covers one or two VMs - we are reliable informed that it does indeed cover two. The bottom line is of course, keep ahead of product lifecycles - it will always be more cost effective from a licensing point of view, but of course often difficult in the business context. The same situation will be upon us soon enough with WS2012 and RHEL7, so time to look ahead, ramp up the urgency, and get migrations on the agenda. So what do I get and what will it cost? Firstly - Microsoft: You'll need to be an Windows Server (for as many servers as need cover) Active Software Assurance (SA) customer. Costs are then dependent on the type of installation: In Azure: Customers running Windows Server in an Azure Virtual Machine will get Extended Security Updates for no additional charges above the cost of running the virtual machine. On-premises: Customers with active Software Assurance or subscription licenses can purchase Extended Security Updates for approximately 75% of the on-premises license cost annually. Hosted environments: Customers who license Windows Server through an authorised SPLA hoster will need to separately purchase Extended Security Updates under an Enterprise or Server and Cloud Enrolment, either directly from Microsoft for approximately 75% of the full on-premises license cost annually or from their Microsoft reseller for use in the hosted environment.
For Red Hat: You must have already have paid for a Red Hat Enterprise Linux subscription before purchasing the ELS Add-On subscription for it. ELS Add-On is applicable to Standard or Premium subscriptions and can not be applied to self-support subscriptions. Note that ELS should be purchased prior to the start date of the ELS period (December 1, 2020 for RHEL 6), otherwise the ELS Add-On subscription will be back-dated to the start date. The cost on the Red Hat store is US$250 for Standard or US$775 for Data Center, so around AU$500 (2x VMs) to AU$1500 (Socket Pair).
What do you need to do?All services, products, and offers in Open License program today will remain available until January 1, 2022. To plan for future purchases, ask the partner you’re currently buying software licenses from about your options. Your partner can help you decide the best steps for you, whether that’s new licenses or online services subscriptions. If you don't have one, you can Find a Microsoft partner. Are there any other options available?Yes - depending on what you want to purchase you can make use of the Open Value or the Open Value Subscription program:
Here's a reminder of the differences between the current programs:  So nothing alarming in this announcement, more just an evolution of a 20 year old program to align with Microsofts contemporary go to market structures. While 2022 might seem some time away you can be sure the changes will begin to emerge through 2021, so just something more to be aware of and prepare for in the ever changing world of software licensing!
Thinking to drop some Oracle product from maintenance to save some funds?... think again.You'd of course think that dropping product from your annual maintenance renewals would be treated as a simple removal of the line item and its associated cost - why wouldn't it be - you're keeping those remaining as-is so what's the problem?
Now this gem of a policy states: In the event that a subset of licenses on a single order is terminated or if the level of support is reduced, support for the remaining licenses on that license order will be priced at Oracle's list price for support in effect at the time of termination or reduction minus the applicable standard discount. Wait? ... What?? Yep, just because you were so brash as to drop maintenance on product you no longer needed, whatever you're retaining on that order is going to be repriced - and by reprice they of course don't mean down! Oh but the good news is in the next sentence: Such support price will not exceed the previous support fees paid for both the remaining licenses and the licenses being terminated or unsupported, and will not be reduced below the previous support fees paid for the licenses continuing to be supported. So rest assured loyal Oracle customer - any repricing will not exceed what you were already paying, it'll just match it. So those dollar savings that you put forward saying 'we're gonna drop product x, y, and z from the next renewal and save bucket-loads' is probably the opposite - depending on whats left you might end up paying exactly what you were before!
So, what has the uptake of Java SE Subscriptions been like?There have been regular communications from Oracle promoting the value of their Java SE subscription service since version 8 went end-of-public-update (EoPU) in January 2019, but what has the uptake actually been like? The latest (July 2020) statistics have been published as below, with 57 vulnerabilities reported since the EoPU of Java 11, with 7 attaining a CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) of 7 or more (reflected below). The question being, is that enough of a concern to pick up the phone and make the call to your Java Business Rep?  A reasonable question, and one for which we don't have a definite answer. Anecdotally, the view would be not generally, however this is unsubstantiated so we'd be keen to get a view from the industry - please take the time to complete our quick 2 question poll below: Thanks for taking the time to contribute - we'll publish the results soon!
An innocuous Announcement Letter may be more telling than it seems ...
While discounts will remain for hybrid and cloud platforms, as of 1st July these will no longer apply to your on-premise installations. With statements such as: "where we will continue to focus our investment and innovation" And ... "it is recommended that your company evaluate and plan a transition to the equivalent, cloud- and/or hybrid cloud-based offering" The message seems pretty clear that the future as IBM sees it is all in the Cloud, certainly if you're looking for discounts on your next purchase of PA software. It will be interesting to see what might follow in IBM's plans to further 'encourage' cloud migration, and how others might adopt similar strategies.
Data Recovery Environments using Copying, Synchronizing or Mirroring Standby and Remote Mirroring are commonly used terms to describe these methods of deploying Data Recovery environments. In these Data Recovery deployments, the data, and optionally the Oracle binaries, are copied to another storage device. In these Data Recovery deployments all Oracle programs that are installed and/or running must be licensed per standard policies documented in the Oracle Licensing and Services Agreement (OLSA). This includes installing Oracle programs on the DR server(s) to test the DR scenario. Licensing metrics and program options on Production and Data Recovery/Secondary servers must match.
Servers – Disaster Recovery Rights: For each Instance of eligible server software Customer runs in a Physical OSE or Virtual OSE on a Licensed Server, it may temporarily run a backup Instance in a Physical OSE or Virtual OSE on either, another one of its Servers dedicated to disaster recovery, or, for Instances of eligible software other than Windows Server, on Microsoft Azure Services, provided the backup Instance is managed by Azure Site Recovery to Azure. The License Terms for the software and limitations apply to Customer’s use of the backup Instance.
If its not specifically called out in the VMware Product Guide it will need licensing, and that means everything other than Continuent and vRelaise for Log Insight. Surprisingly, VMware deem an install to be 'use' of the software - yep - just binaries sitting on a disk.
RHEL Linux Subscription Guide: Cold backups: The server has software installed and configured, but it is turned off until the disaster occurs or for periodic disaster recovery procedure tests. For Red Hat Enterprise Linux, this means that the customer is allowed to preload the bits as a courtesy. However, Red Hat Content Delivery Network cannot be used to update the system until the disaster happens. Then, the paid subscription on the failed machine transfers to the cold backup sever. In this case, a customer does not need two subscriptions. The customer will consume only one subscription at any point in time. Red Hat will allow the customer to pre-provision the software bits onto the cold backup machine as a courtesy. If a customer is found to be running more units of Red Hat Enterprise Linux than the customer has subscribed for because the customer has found a use for these pre-provisioned servers other than this cold backup use case, the customer is obligated to pay Red Hat.
Backup Use Defined: For programs running or resident on backup machines, IBM defines 3 types of situations: “cold”; “warm”; and “hot”. In the “cold” and “warm” situations, a separate license for the backup copy is normally not required, no additional charge applies, and IBM does not need to be notified. In a “hot” backup situation, the customer needs to acquire another license. All programs running in backup mode must be under the customer’s control, even if running at another enterprise’s location.
All might not be as it seems - check this list of ILMT gotcha's
Here are out top five tips for trimming your PVU sub-capacity report counts: 1. Incomplete Vitualisation - the 'TVM' predicamentIf your ILMT configuration is not fully or properly implemented you're likely to find incomplete virtualisation heirarchies in your VM Manager connections, which result in every affected VM being treated as a stand-alone physical machine at the highest PVU rating of 120 PVUs per core). This can quickly add up where you might otherwise be entitled to the likes of 70 PVUs per core. 2. Missing Software ClassificationsCentral to the accuracy of ILMT reporting is the much dreaded 'Software Classification' process. If you choose to ignore this painstaking requirement you can be sure you'll pay the price either in real terms or in time-draining dispute at your next audit. Essentially, every exempt PVU count in your environment needs to be catagorised as such, meaning instances that are to be excluded from PVU counts (which depending on the License Terms are likely Developer, DR, or Test installs) need to be individually identified as such via this (ongoing) activity. 3. Unrecognised BundlingAs a follow-on to the Software Classification issue above, you'll then likely notice that where you have installed Supporting Programs on a different server - where entitled to do so under the License Terms - the program will magically form part of the PVU count, ie. bundling is not recognised across servers. So once again you'll need to identify these instances and exclude them from the relevant count, making sure you add comments to qualify the classification. 4. Reallocation High-Water MarksSo you dutifully maintain your vCPU's to your level of entitlement, which, as you're permitted to do, includes the occasional reallocation across servers to match processing and performance needs. Given you've balanced the core counts out all is good - right? Well ... no, ILMT will track the high-water mark for each server in the 90-day reporting period, so for example a taking a core from a 4 vCPU server to assign to a 3 vCPU server will see both reporting as 4 vCPU servers for that period. To be in a position to challenge this make sure you have or take - and keep - separate records that evidence the reassignment of cores to negate any double counting. 5. Ghost DecommissioningSimilar to the above, you might think that decommissioning one server to deploy another would be quite within your rights as long as you (as always) don't exceed your level of entitlements. Well ... no, the decommissioned server will also report within the same 90-day period as the new server - potentially a bigger problem than the issue with high-water marks. So again you'll need to either classify the server accordingly, or ensure you have the right artefacts to contest any double recognition, or both. ... a lot of overhead right?Yes.And that's where a secondary source of truth can prove essential ...
The world is certainly a different place than it was just weeks ago. From what was a normal days work to stay-at-home advisories, self-isolation and lock-downs, business and workers face enormous challenges. In such adverse times it's not possible to predict what the landscape will look like in the months ahead, but with the unfortunate loss of jobs and closure of businesses all we can know is that it will be a dramatically different place. Those that can and do keep operating are an imperative for the economy, both now and through recovery, and whilst it would be reprehensible of vendors to audit companies when the corner is turned, there are those that inevitably will still do so. So while there is much to contemplate and deal with in just keeping your business running, a quick check on some basic principles could avert some later issues. Consider some of the most common licensing pitfalls with typical BCP scenario's: Working From HomeWorking from Home means mobility - if you are allocating laptops and notebooks be wary of installation or device based licenses, all of which might be overlooked with the rapid deployment of SOE's and new devices. There may even be restrictions on what category of device the software can be installed on, or even where physically it can be used (eg. designated offices or specific geographic locations). Where applicable, check you mobility rights cater for your intended use, and are current (eg. Microsoft SA Benefits). Remote access can be another minefield where in the rush to get staff connected controls that would normally be in place might get overlooked. While solutions like an F5 BIG-IP Edge Gateway provide user based licensing to their own resources via secure VPN, other storefront and virtualisation products such as Citrix Gateway with VDI if not properly administered can be at greater risk of exposing applications unintentionally - make sure your access controls eg. AD Groups etc) are aligned to your licensing, and any additions to those secure groups have corresponding entitlements. Invoking DRIf you are in the position of having to invoke your DR (or partial DR) things will undoubtedly be more complicated. License transfer rights, powering servers up, or moving capacity from cold to hot can easily lead to over use. Migrating (or worse, extending) production workload to DR will certainly have conditions and constraints that if over-looked will leave you visibly non-compliant at a later date via audit trails such as SCRT or license server logs. Keep appropriate records that will help to mitigate any action you needed to take, and make sure you enable/track license migration alongside any workload you move. While we'd like to think some leniency would be afforded through these difficult times, keeping a good handle on your compliance position just makes good business sense. So stay compliant, but mostly, stay well, and stay safe.
Software Compliance partners with Digital Resilience
|
|
|
|
As a specialist provider of software licensing services and tools we're very pleased to announce our collaboration with Digital Resilience who are emerging leaders in the IT risk and cyber-security market here in Adelaide.
With our services across vendor arrangements and software / licensing, and Digital Resilience's coverage across information security and risk management, it's a great alignment to bring collaboratively to the market.
The Digital Resilience team are seasoned cyber security and risk management professionals with international exposure across a variety of industries. They bring a breadth and depth of experience to the field of risk management controls, principles and practices.
With exciting developments underway we're looking forward to making further announcements soon ...
|
Follow Us :
|
|
Announcing ComplianceWare 3.0 with the addition of Hardware Discovery and Inventory
As a logical extension to the extensive Software and Licensing functionality of ComplianceWare we've now added the capability to track Hardware as well. Using the familiar script extract and load process across hardware devices you can now inventory your IT assets by site, view associated attributes, and generate reports based on specific templates.
For companies with sub-entities there is also the ability to create a hierarchy of related sites to provide a holistic view across all assets - a valuable insight into what refreshes might be necessary and coordinated across all sites enabling:
- optimisation of cost through bulk orders;
- planning efficiencies for rollout projects;
- visibility of warranty expiry dates to assist with maintenance programs etc.
Future planned enhancements include the ability to interrogate failure rates to assist in determining which products and models are performing better than others, enabling procurement of least costly and more reliable IT assets.
Want to know more - check out the documentation or contact us for more information.
New for 2020 - Microsoft to reduce Software Assurance Benefits
Changes to Microsoft's SA Benefits have been announced effective 1st February 2020 which will see the end of some of the most useful aspects of the program, in summary:
- all cloud services will be retired from Deployment Planning Services in favor of FastTrack deployments;
- removing Azure training from eligibility and training days will no longer be used to convert to Planning Services days; and
- beginning in February 2021, support eligibility criteria and replacement of incident-based support with as-needed support and credit toward Unified Support.
| Deployment Planning Services | FastTrack is now Microsoft's primary implementation support offering applicable to Azure, Microsoft 365, and Dynamics 365 engagements. All on-premises Deployment Planning Services offerings and the respective engagements will be available until January 2022 and you can continue to redeem your deployment planning days through the current process from qualified partners or Microsoft Consulting Services to help you plan your deployment—whether on-premises or in hybrid environments. |
| Training Vouchers | Training vouchers can still be used until January 2022 with the exception of Azure training, which will be removed from the Software Assurance course catalog in February 2020. The Training Vouchers benefit will be fully retired on January 1, 2022. The right to access training vouchers expires with your Software Assurance coverage. If you create a training voucher before the expiration of your Software Assurance coverage, the voucher remains valid for 180 days after the date it was created. Software Assurance E-Learning was replaced with Microsoft Learn on November 1st 2018, which offers a free-of-charge way to learn about Microsoft products and services. Instructor-led training is available, and Microsoft are introducing role-based courses and advanced workload courseware, along with new certifications. |
| 24x7 Problem Resolution Support | Customers will no longer earn a limited number of support incidents based on spend, agreement type, and product(s) but instead will get as-needed support with a Software Assurance spend of $250,000 or more annually. Starting in February 2021, customers that spend more than US$250,000 per year on Software Assurance will get as-needed basic phone support for Severity A and online support during business hours for Severity B and C with a 24-hour response time. Customers will also have the option to upgrade to Microsoft Unified Support. Customers that spend less than US$250,000 per year on Software Assurance with no enterprise support agreement (Premier/Unified) will be directed to a partner for support or purchase Professional Support incidents from Microsoft. |
So time to review all of your enrollments and make sure you convert all of your SA Benefits to get full value out of your investment in these programs. As a refresher, take a look through the list below.
Check out this October announcement - It could save You Thousands!
Microsoft recently announced a new SQL Server SA benefit that is well worth reviewing – it could either release some currently consumed cores or save you buying more for any clustered environments you have now or are planning.
Starting Nov 1st, every Software Assurance customer of SQL Server will be able to use three enhanced benefits for any SQL Server release that is still supported by Microsoft:
- Failover servers for high availability – Allows customers to install and run passive SQL Server instances in a separate operating system environment (OSE) or server for high availability on-premises in anticipation of a failover event. Today, Software Assurance customers have one free passive instance for either high availability or DR
- Failover servers for disaster recovery NEW – Allows customers to install and run passive SQL Server instances in a separate OSE or server on-premises for disaster recovery in anticipation of a failover event
- Failover servers for disaster recovery in Azure NEW – Allows customers to install and run passive SQL Server instances in a separate OSE or server for disaster recovery in Azure in anticipation of a failover event
So considering a typical architecture per diagram below the number of SQL Server core licenses required to operate this topology would be only 12 cores as opposed to 24 cores in the past:
Now the FAQ’s in the announcement included a specific question as to the versions that were covered and was answered in the affirmative by a Microsoft representative:
Q1. Is this applicable to old SQL Server versions like 2014 & 2016?
Answer for Q1: Yes. The benefit applies to all supported releases of SQL Server.
Answer for Q1: Yes. The benefit applies to all supported releases of SQL Server.
Which raises the question – why do we once again see a potential conflict in the Product Terms which appear to qualify the benefit to SQL Server 2019 only:
4.2 SQL Server 2019 – Fail-over Rights
For each of its Primary Workloads, Customer is entitled to:
For each of its Primary Workloads, Customer is entitled to:
- One Fail-over OSE for any purpose, including high availability, on any Server dedicated to Customer’s use (subject to their new Outsourcing Software Management clause); and
- Two Fail-over OSEs specifically for disaster recovery purposes:
- one on any Server dedicated to Customer’s use (subject to their new Outsourcing Software Management clause) and
- one on Microsoft Azure servers
We shall (again) seek clarification from Microsoft. In the meantime, check out more comprehensive information and examples in the accompanying Licensing Guide.
Lets Straighten out On-Premise Rights Included with M365
A quick internet search is likely to find conflicting views on what on-premise rights you are granted with your M365 Subscription particularly in relation to server software. Many sites will state that you gain only user access rights with your USL licenses, ie. essentially a CAL license entitlement, and that you are still required to acquire the server licenses for the likes of Exchange and Sharepoint.
Simply, that's not correct.
Firstly though, be sure of the M365 Subscription you are dealing with as each will offer different content and scope. The CAL/ML equivalency table of the Product Terms provides a good overview to this:
Note for example that the common business E3 and E5 plans provide both Base and Additive access rights for Exchange and SharePoint Server. But what about the Server Licenses?
A quick browse through the FAQ of the M365 Site provides the first hint that certain Server software is indeed included:
| But we all know that relying on commentary - even on the Microsoft site - is not enough ... ... so where to? | The Product Terms of course. The definitive descriptor of Microsoft's Software licensing terms. |
While the respective sections covering the likes of Exchange or SharePoint Server software don't provide any clues, the Microsoft 365 section clearly articulates the entitlement (page 57 of the October 2019 document):
Assuming all of your users are properly licensed (and they should be) your on-premise Exchange, SharePoint and Skype for Business Server installations are covered!
... and that includes back-versions of course under the Universal License Terms part 3 - "Rights to Use Other Versions and Lower Editions".
So no need to True-Up those on-premise Server licenses for Exchange or SharePoint, and who isn't keen for less overhead and more funds right?!
IBM Announces its new "Authorised SAM Provider" Offering (IASP)
While it appears the disgruntled messaging from clients is finally starting to register with some major vendors, a recent announcement from IBM (outlined here by the ITAM Review) by no means makes it an all clear.
We're all for any move to make software licensing compliance simpler, and the IASP program for some large IBM customers might just do that - although by invitation only and accomplished by engaging one of just four designated IBM partners:
- KPMG
- EY
- Deliotte
- AnglePoint
OKAY, SO WHAT's THE OBJECTIVE?
In a nutshell, to offer those select few an alternative to IBM's License Reviews by operating a managed service that brings SAM expertise, tools, and knowledge to organisations who are perhaps struggling with those skills themselves - which happens to be exactly what we at Software Compliance have been offering our valued clients since 2016!
HOW ABOUT the APPROACH?
Once invited, an organisation selects an authorised partner who will then - through a defined scope of paid work - follow the standard licensing compliance process to create a baseline (using ILMT), perform an initial reconciliation, resolve any issues, and implement an ongoing management and control program, all done under an IASP Agreement that must be executed with IBM (covering a term of up to 3 years).
... And THE Benefits?
The major attraction is that any licensing shortfalls discovered in the initial baseline can be resolved at the customers entitled price without any back-dating of S&S - and - an apparent waiver of any sub-capacity issues (tbc).
... and we all know how problematic (ie. costly) issues in this space can be!
On the surface perhaps an admirable new direction from IBM, but does it really differ to how customers operating under the likes of an Enterprise Services & Software Offering (ESSO) have been treated for the last 10+ years? We think not - baselines were created, shortfalls resolved (albeit perhaps not as transparently), regular reporting was mandatory, etc ... so the only difference seems to be that the customer is required to engage one of just four designated partners.
OUR VIEW? | As with many IT functions companies are finding that they need help - they just don't have the in-house skills to perform every role, task and responsibility they need to cover. ... nor should they have to. While the IASP program from IBM targets large, specially invited customers with just 4 select partners, our purpose is to assist all organisations - small, medium or large - with the same goal: Provide the skills, tools, knowledge and process to solve your software licensing issues. |
Contact Us ... (before your Vendors do)
terms related to outsourcing rights and dedicated hosted cloud services Change 1-Oct.
Microsoft’s off-premise outsourcing terms are changing October 1, 2019, evidently to clarify the distinction between on-premises/traditional outsourcing and cloud services, and create more consistent licensing terms across multitenant and dedicated hosted cloud services, the core of the changes being:
- On-premises licenses purchased without Software Assurance and mobility rights cannot be deployed with dedicated hosted cloud services offered by “Listed Providers” being Microsoft, Alibaba, Amazon (including VMware Cloud on AWS), and Google (the changes don't apply to any other providers - yet - and if/when they do you'll get 12 months to get compliant).
- Microsoft licenses with License Mobility through Software Assurance can now be used on dedicated hosted cloud services with any Listed Provider who is also an Authorized Mobility Partner.
- Microsoft licenses with Software Assurance can be used with the updated Azure Hybrid Benefit, including on the newly launched Azure Dedicated Host.
Now there’s one statement that seems to negate it all (page 3 of the FAQ) given all of the Listed Providers are currently in the Authorized Mobility Partner list which we’re seeking clarification from Microsoft for (italics added):
Do the updates to the Outsourcing Software Management clause affect my rights to deploy licenses with an Authorized Mobility Partner? License Mobility through Software Assurance rights will be expanded to permit deployment of licenses with License Mobility coverage with Listed Providers’ dedicated hosted cloud services for those Listed Providers who are Authorized Mobility Partners. (and importantly) Rights to deploy licenses on Authorized Mobility Partners’ shared servers are not impacted by the outsourcing update.
Do the updates to the Outsourcing Software Management clause affect my rights to deploy licenses with an Authorized Mobility Partner? License Mobility through Software Assurance rights will be expanded to permit deployment of licenses with License Mobility coverage with Listed Providers’ dedicated hosted cloud services for those Listed Providers who are Authorized Mobility Partners. (and importantly) Rights to deploy licenses on Authorized Mobility Partners’ shared servers are not impacted by the outsourcing update.
But that aside, lets dissect it all ...
Firstly, what exactly are “dedicated hosted cloud services”? Microsoft’s states this to be the “services offered by major public cloud providers typically with elastic, ondemand, pay-as-you-go resources, like their multitenant cloud services.” Multitenant cloud services? Wouldn’t that be the opposite of dedicated?? Well for the Listed Providers examples given are “Azure Dedicated Host, Amazon EC2 Dedicated Hosts, single tenant nodes from Google” – all dedicated – and “VMware Cloud on Amazon Web Services (AWS)” – so perhaps the/an exception being SDDC architecture.
The first thing to note - the change won't impact the use of existing software versions under licenses purchased before October 1, 2019 so you can continue to deploy and use software under your existing licenses on servers dedicated to you, just not workloads under licenses acquired on or after October 1, 2019 (and don’t forget that just performing a Software Assurance renewal doesn't affect your perpetual use rights for existing versions). And secondly, rights to deploy licenses on Authorized Mobility Partners’ shared servers are not impacted by the outsourcing update.
So what to be wary of …. as usual, the limitations:
- Use of Windows Enterprise licenses with Listed Providers dedicated hosted cloud services will require Windows VDA E3/E5 user licenses, so if you’re in this situation but have existing SA coverage or E3/E5 subscriptions you’ll have until October 1, 2020 to migrate away from the Listed Provider if you want to avoid having to buy these additional licenses.
- A number of products do not have License Mobility through Software Assurance and are therefore not permitted to be run with Listed Providers’ dedicated hosted cloud services, such as:
- Office Professional Plus
- Windows Server (although you can move your External Connector licenses)
- Core Infrastructure Server (CIS) Suite
- System Center Suites (excepting Standard/Datacenter Management Servers)
Are there any alternatives? Well, besides any SPLA or otherwise ‘bundled’ licensing options available with the provider service, enter the Microsoft Azure Hybrid Benefit (!) where, solely with Azure Dedicated Host, there are exceptions (!!) if you happen to have current SA or equivalent subscription rights. And what might the Azure Hybrid Benefit provide:
- the option to license by virtual machine (Datacenter or Standard), or to license by physical host, but allocate core licenses only for the number of cores available to you (Datacenter only)
- use is governed by the Online Services Terms (OST) and therefore does not require base CALs
- permits you to host solutions on Azure for access by your customers
- equivalent of on-premises fail-over rights for SQL Server, and in the case of SQL Server Enterprise Core licensed at the host level, the equivalent of onpremises unlimited virtualization rights
- Both SQL Server and Windows Server are eligible for Disaster Recovery Rights and new version rights
Oh … and don’t forget – to make use of License Mobility through SA, you must ensure that you:
- Run your licensed software and manage its OSEs on shared servers under the terms of your volume licensing agreement;
- Deploy your Licenses only with Microsoft Azure Services or qualified License Mobility through Software Assurance Partners; and
- Complete and submit the License Mobility Validation form with each License Mobility through Software Assurance Partner who will run the licensed software on their shared servers.
For more information check out the Microsoft Announcement and associated FAQ's
NOW INCLUDING CLOUD CONSUMPTION REPORTING
We've been busy .... and our development efforts are now live
Cloud Consumption Reporting is here!
As of version 2.6 of ComplianceWare get your cloud consumption information in one easy view with the new ComplianceWare Subscriptions feature. Check your cost or license usage with simple and secure REST API connectivity to the following platforms:
- Microsoft Azure and O365 (AAD)
- Oracle Cloud (OC)
- IBM Cloud Platform (ICP)
- Google Cloud Platform (GCP)
- Amazon Web Services (AWS)
With standard configuration (typically IAM) through your selected platform you'll soon have ready access to your daily consumption levels, enabling quick action where usage appears to be at limits or following a worrying trend.
Cost figures will be displayed for the current month and prior year (where available):
Or for usage, your entitlements ... and where available, your consumption:
So no more need to open all of those portals and navigate through the layers of screens to your billing or license information, just one click and you're there! You don't even need a login - with ComplianceWare configured as a service all access is programmatic.
If you'd like to know more check out the Configuration Guide which provides step-by-step instructions on how ComplianceWare would be configured for each platform, and if you'd like to see it in action just Contact Us for a login to our demonstration site.
A great new feature - along with the new Vendor records administration - adding more value for our customers, keeping ComplianceWare the most functional, cost effective software discovery and license management tool on the market!
A New And WeLcome Direction in Consolidated, Direct, Licensing Information
Microsoft announced the 1st June 2019 as the date at which the new 'Licensing Terms Site' will replace the current downloadable document versions of the Product Terms (PT) and Online Service Terms (OST) (although at date of this publication it is still stating "under construction and for preview use only.")
Not only is this intended to consolidate the myriad of licensing documents and material rife across Microsoft sites, but according to the FAQ (available here) will also ease navigation through filters available by program and product, and also introduce a new 'compared-to' function which allows users to compare changes (albeit post 1st June 2019) to 'current' use rights going forward - a useful utility!
So what does it look like? - the landing screen as below (see it for yourself here):
A quick test run found the site easily navigable, presenting targeted information based on your selection in the familiar format of the Product Terms structure. Of course it can't solve the 'knowledge complexity' invariably attached to licensing - you basically still need to know what you are looking for, and then be able to apply what you find to your own situation.
A quick delve into the SQL Server section highlights the information then available by edition:
All in all though a timely advance in the overall licensing landscape that would be welcomed across other vendors with similarly broad and complex license terms and models, which makes us wonder ...
... is it too much to hope for a cross-industry standard?
Could the Change to IBM's PVU Core Table Signal a Refreshing SHIFT in Sub-Capacity Licensing?
While some vendors prefer to wallow in the mire of antiquated and irrelevant licensing regimes others seem to be moving ahead with revised models that provide clarity and ease in establishing your licensing and compliance position.
A case in point - IBM - who flagged a rethink with a shift from the messy PVU to Virtual Processor Core metrics (example in the hyperlink).
Starting April this year the x86 PVU Table has been culled down to just 6 entries with the Intel category now much simplified for the Xeon chipset, basically all determined by the number of sockets at 2, 4, and >4 (with the lower models in the listed ranges remaining at 50 PVU's):
There is however one complication - Symmetric Multiprocessing Servers - which you need to factor per definition below:
The PVU requirement for the Intel processor technology indicated is dependent on the maximum number of sockets on the server. If sockets on two or more servers are connected to form a Symmetric Multiprocessing (SMP) Server, the maximum number of sockets per server increases. Example:
- When sockets on a 2 socket server with 6 cores per socket are connected to sockets on another 2 socket server with 6 cores per socket, this becomes an SMP server with a maximum of 4 sockets per server and 24 cores, and requires 2400 PVUs (100 per core x 24 cores).
Good news from our perspective - anything that removes ambiguity is welcomed (with reference to the linked post at the start of this blog: "oh but you have to count the Physical cores, not virtual, on the Host, in fact all Hosts in the complex, actually in the Data Center, well let's say the Cloud then, so basically ...
... everything, everywhere")
All might not be what You think - It's time to Check
So all's fine with your Oracle Database - it's been installed for some time now, had a few upgrades, tweaks and tune-ups, you're across your NUP and Processor entitlements, so why have any concerns from a licensing perspective? Well, what about all of those Feature, Option, and Management Packs that lurk quietly in the background - have you checked on the status of those lately?
 | You might think there's no need to - nothings changed, configurations haven't been updated - well, consider setting selections during those updates and upgrades - perhaps revised defaults came into play (depending on version, database options and management packs are installed and many are enabled automatically!) |
Worth checking to be certain before that next, friendly ... 'Oracle License Review'.
To facilitate this Oracle provides a script - options_packs_usage_statistics.sql - which enables you to check Oracle Database feature usage, option usage, and management pack usage. The script lists, in two distinct sections:
- Oracle Database option and Oracle management pack usage
- Features used by each option and management pack
The script can be run manually on an individual database or you can use Oracle Enterprise Manager Job System to automatically run the script on multiple databases, giving output like the below (with formatting added):
Now with insight into the actual system settings a simple reconciliation to your licensing / entitlements will give you assurance that everything is in order, or alternatively highlight what needs to be resolved.
A simple task well worth scheduling at least annually.
and it's always good to keep a record for later comparison / compliance requirements (with ComplianceWare you can easily register the output as 'Verification' material alongside your licenses).
ADVERSE VIRTUALISATION TERMS
Could You Be At Risk From Covert LICENSING TERMS?
While some vendors are well known for their hostile terms towards specific forms of virtualisation (consider Oracle with VMware), others are not, slyly waiting for sufficient time to pass before issuing that dreaded ‘license review’ (aka audit) letter, hoping they can trap you with their archaic, antiquated, yet bizarrely enforceable terms that could see you severely punished if you have virtualised systems that fall under these conditions.
Two current protagonists are coming to the fore in this space for their equally aggressive – and global – onslaught, hounding their loyal customers with totally unreasonable findings and outrageous demands for compensation. The problem emerged from the days of licensing physical installations by cores – easily managed when applications ran in their own dedicated servers, but with the shift to now omnipresent server farms, be it on-premise or cloud based, where their terms have not changed and don’t automatically recognise virtualisation as a means to limit the licensable metric (cores) you are at risk of paying for all of the physical cores in your entire Host estate.
Consider the terms below extracted from the respective vendor agreements:
Micro Focus End User License AgreemenT
- MICRO FOCUS® ENTERPRISE DEVELOPER, MICRO FOCUS ENTERPRISE SERVER, MICRO FOCUS ENTERPRISE SERVER FOR .NET, MICRO FOCUS ENTERPRISE TEST SERVER, MICRO FOCUS ENTERPRISE TEST SERVER PREMIUM, VISUAL COBOL® , COBOL SERVER, DATABASE CONNECTORS
"Server License for CPUs. Licensed Software provided under this License Option gives Licensee the right to install the Licensed Software on a single machine or server ("Host Server"), or one or more Containers on the Host Server, and have the Licensed Software executed by up to the total number of CPUs, Cores, Integrated Facility for Linux processors ("IFLs"), Blades or other processing devices specified for the license in the applicable Product Order ("License Specification"). If the number of Cores is not specified for a CPU in the event a CPU is specified in the License Specification, such CPU shall be considered to be single-Core. A Server License for CPUs license covering all CPUs, Cores, IFLs, Blades and other processing devices that are contained in and/or can be accessed by the Host Server ("Total Processors") is required with all applicable license fees paid, even if one or more of such CPUs, Cores, IFLs, Blades or other processing devices are not accessing or running the Licensed Software. For example, if 32 Cores are the Total Processors on the Host Server, but only 16 Cores are utilized to execute the Licensed Software, a 32-Core Server License for CPUs license is required notwithstanding the fact that 16 of the 32 Cores may not actually be accessing the Licensed Software. Each Core on a multi-core CPU requires a Server License for CPUs license covering each such Core. For example a Host Server with Total Processors consisting of a single quad-core CPU will require a 4-Core Server License for CPUs license and payment of the license fees applicable to all 4 Cores."
OPEN TEXT – ECD Central Processing Unit (“CPU”) ModeL
Affected products are any of those on your Order From that have a UOM code of ‘ZA’:
"Licensing and pricing is based upon the total number of CPU cores present in the computer upon which the ECD Software will operate. The ECD Software is licensed per physical dual-core device (“Dual-Core CPU”). Licensee must purchase an individual Software License for each Dual-Core CPU on which the ECD Software is executed or made available to execute."
If you are in the unfortunate position of running any products that fall into the categories above, act fast. You will need to either move the affected applications to a right-sized physical box (with all of the accompanying issues that presents) or seek to agree with the vendor the appropriate virtualisation terms (and be wary – if they play this type of game that will likely just get their cash registers ringing).
We find it hard to believe that such terms remain in vendor agreements, more so even deemed enforceable. If you've had the misfortune to have gone through such an affront, or think you might be about to, get in touch - we'd like to hear of (or help with) your experience.
IT SEEMS AUDIT SEASON HAS STARTED EARLY ...
Revenue outlook must be a concern for a number of large, global corporates going by the number of audits we're aware of already this year - typically they seem to favour the mid to late part of the calendar.
And lets face it, an audit is the last thing you need when you're just getting back to those major initiatives that need focus. Of course often its that very focus that leads to compliance issues - lacking the necessary oversight and controls in your IT landscape its not uncommon for BAU changes to cause a world of difficulty - a simple server refresh that introduces more cores, a change in access permissions that broadens the user base, or perhaps just plain old virtualisation.
So what might target your organisation for attention by those loathed 'License Review Teams' waiting out there?
Well the answer is, more than you might think.
Typically something has got you to the top of the list. It can of course be within a common cycle such as at a contract renewal period, or an untimely prompt by one of those independent organisations whose entire income is through specialised and aggressive audits, but if not, what might cause it - and how might you prevent it?
First, consider the common triggers:
- The innocuous supply of current state to the vendor (or partner) to scope and price a new project or programme of work;
- A Vendor (or partner) who has been involved in one of your projects with access to your systems identifying and reporting a non-compliant situation;
- An aggrieved employee aware of compliance issues who has recently left the organisation with a grudge to bare;
- Failing to submit a required usage report;
- An unfortunate listing with the BSA as a result of failing another recent audit;
- Or perhaps just a naive and blissfully unaware employee contacting a vendor to ask for your own contracts or license information because "we don't have a copy".
If any of the above have you a little worried look for the most telling signal from your vendors of an impending audit - the unexpected communication that your "account team is going through some changes", which is simply a calculated, preemptive move to extricate any history and/or advocacy you might otherwise have had - prepare and get ready!
all of those "but" arguments will get you nowhere - "but we had an agreement",
"the account have known it was like this for years",
"it was the licensing sold to us", etc etc.
"the account have known it was like this for years",
"it was the licensing sold to us", etc etc.
Alternatively, if you're feeling comfortable that you're not under any imminent threat its still a good idea to take stock and review your position against the common triggers. The best defense is without doubt a robust and competent software licensing function within your organisation that maintains the necessary level of control (and has the added benefit of warding off those vendors who would rather take on an easier, less capable target).
When it comes to licensing and compliance its good practice to not treat your vendors like 'trusted partners' - keep in mind who they're actually working for, and who's paying their salaries.
So - what to do:
So - what to do:
- Be cautious and restrict the information you provide to your vendors (and partners) - vet it carefully before releasing data that might expose you to further scrutiny;
- Similarly, if you're letting the vendor gain access to your estate make sure they're only going to get what they need, and even go as far as to add contractual terms that ensure they only use the information they gain for a specific, permitted purpose, not to go back to the office and gleefully expose any failings they may have found;
- If you have an employee leave on disagreeable terms it would be prudent to delve into their area of ownership and review your license position - resolve any compliance issues as a priority, just in case;
- Always keep on top of your reporting obligations and ensure usage reports are delivered in full, and on time;
- And lastly, remind your teams that interaction with your vendors is not something that just happens, nor is it a mandate or the responsibility of all. Instead, it is a specific role for those who are appropriately experienced and are vendor savvy. All communication should traverse this one path to be vetted accordingly, and lets just say that any unauthorised 'open invite to audit' emails to a vendor should be subject to appropriate 'education' (and repeat offenders - reprimands).
Concerns? if you need any help, we're just a phone call away.
With a New Year ahead it's a good time to reflect on your IT Licensing status and Compliance Position - Are you confident that it's all under control?
|
While the costs of non-compliance are well documented companies continue to relegate software licensing and compliance to a 'will get to' task sometime in the future. With 2019 now upon us, is it time to perhaps resolve this once and for all?
Start by considering the reasons it's not been addressed as yet, or do you believe it is under control? Ask by whom - the respective teams who manage their software domain? Rarely do we see operational teams have an in-depth and expert understanding of the actual licensing requirements let alone an accurate deployment record. Unfortunately the only time this tends to become apparent is when the auditors roll in and put it to the test.
|
QUICK POLL |
Or does effective management of IT licensing just seem too vast and perhaps cost prohibitive to implement and maintain? It can seem that way - there are numerous and ever changing products, platforms, and models to complicate the situation, so how do you keep up?
And what about the cost? - yes, Software Asset Management and Licensing Compliance to many executives can seem like an unnecessary spend, much like the early days of Disaster Recovery where the prevailing thinking was typically "why would we spend so much on hardware that's just going to sit idle?". Well compare that to the contemporary thinking today where Service Recovery is a given with any robust application - the spend is seen as a worthy investment, not just additional cost.
At Software Compliance we recognised these factors as the perplexing problems the majority of organisations with broad IT solutions faced, and we decided to develop a solution that would work - and scale - to a vast array of companies, particularly SME's.
So how did we do it?
First and foremost we developed a tool to enable organisations to capture, contain and maintain that vast amount of software information important to them - their contracts, deployments, and licensing - the tool - ComplianceWare.
Not only does ComplianceWare discover and track your software deployments, but it removes layers of licensing complexity by automatically tallying installations, performing product bundling where appropriate, and providing direct links to vendor licensing information to help you decipher whats relevant - all kept current for you by the team here at SWC.
So if that solves the complexity issue, what about the next inhibitor - cost?
Again, that was something we were very aware of. While there were existing solutions in the market they are typically high-end, bloated products aimed at large enterprises at a cost to match. We took a different approach - build a lean, cloud delivered, simplified application that organisations could subscribe to based on their requirements, and be there to provide ongoing support and expertise as those ever-changing products and platforms emerge and evolve. All at a such a compelling cost you'll wonder why you paid such exorbitant remediation fees in the first place (or perhaps might be about to!).
So as holidays come to an end and we embark on another year it's a good time to reflect and ask yourself, in 2019 will we be:
| Compliant! | or | Complacent. |
It's not nearly as hard or as costlier a problem as you might believe it to be - find out more - get in touch and let's see how we might be able to help you gain more success in 2019.
effective January 2019 ORACLE HAS ANNOUNCED THAT Java SE 8 public updates will no longer be available for "Business, Commercial or Production use" without a commercial license.
What does this mean to your organisation?
... For Commercial Users (being those "entities other than Oracle Customers that use Java SE for free for business, commercial or production purposes as part of a Java application delivered by a third party or developed internally" Oracle will not post further updates of Java SE 8 to its public download sites after January 2019. If you need continued access to critical bug fixes and security fixes as well as general maintenance for Java SE 8 or previous versions you'll need a long term support subscription through Oracle Java SE Advanced Desktop, or Oracle Java SE Suite.
... For Commercial Users (being those "entities other than Oracle Customers that use Java SE for free for business, commercial or production purposes as part of a Java application delivered by a third party or developed internally" Oracle will not post further updates of Java SE 8 to its public download sites after January 2019. If you need continued access to critical bug fixes and security fixes as well as general maintenance for Java SE 8 or previous versions you'll need a long term support subscription through Oracle Java SE Advanced Desktop, or Oracle Java SE Suite.
Of course if Java is licensed for use under another Oracle or other third-party license you are exempt. You'd be entitled to ask - what exactly is Oracle's justification for this new charge, well simply put their contention is captured in this statement:
"As the main contributor and steward of Java SE, Oracle is the only company that can guarantee long-term support and updates on a timely and predictable schedule. The Java SE Subscription from Oracle provides access to tools that consistently manage updates, enables enterprises to monitor their own Java platforms, and provides direct access to a specialized Java SE support team"
Where to next? ... What do I need to do??
Assuming you have broad use of Java SE like most organisations - noting the Java Platform, Standard Edition (Java SE) and Oracle Java SE Advanced and Suite products are currently shipping from Oracle in the form of the Java Development Kit (JDK), and Java Runtime Environment (JRE) - you'll need to inventory your entire software landscape to identify what installations you have, under what license. For those that aren't captured by an over-arching entitlement you will need to assess the level of support and currency you are willing to operate.
Put simply, that all means:
- If you're comfortable with rolling through six-monthly updates you can do so for free - there will be no additional requirement;
- but if you're not, you're going to need to purchase a subscription.
And what's that all going to cost? ... Well the latest Oracle Technology Global Price List (June 19, 2018) states the following under Fusion Middleware:
... however the literature surrounding the Subscriptions appears to indicate a more reasonable cost profile:
So with January 2019 looming the priority needs to be getting full clarity of your position:
- what do I have deployed?
- whats covered by Oracle or other third-party product licensing?
- what do I need to do with those installations that aren't?
... and then quantify what that might cost.
It would be fair to predict that Oracle will no doubt scrutinise this space at some point in the near future ... best to be prepared.
... and that's where Software Compliance and our ComplianceWare tool can help ...