Oracle actually has a valid point (logically) on this one, but I don't know how it fits in with their licensing agreement language.
It is quite possible (and I've done it, several times), to build an entire data warehouse with all of the back-end batch processing and all of the necessary front-end applications for accessing the data using a single "named user". In fact, with web-based applications and languages and application servers that support connection pooling, fewer and fewer systems rely on the "database user" for authentication and access control.
I remember when Oracle first offered its web-based tools, the talk was of licensing the database based on a "theoretical maximum" number of users that the server running the database could support. This evolved, eventually, into the "processor" or "power unit" based pricing model, and it is a reasonable way to license software.
Anyone running a data warehouse on a server that is licensed under the "named user" scheme that does not count EVERY end-user who accesses the system, plus one (at a minimum) for the processes that perform the batch loads knows that they are skirting the intent of "named user" licensing. It may be perfectly legal under the terms of the license to say I have only one "named user" when an administrative assistant generates and distributes reports from the warehouse based on requests from 20 different marketers. After all, the only "user" of the system is the assistant. At the very least, it is intellectually dishonest. If "named user" licensing is prohibitively expensive because so many people rely on the data, then the right thing to do is to license by processor, where you pay based on the ability of your hardware to run the software (how many concurrent queries, how fast are they answered, etc).
The Meta Group knows how this is supposed to work. Do you think that if they sold their research based on the number of "named users" who could access it they would be happy if their clients to had just one employee who subscribed to their research and then just passed the information on to 20 others in the office? Telling people "don't pay, take them to court" makes a much better news story than, "just be happy you got away with it for this long, now it's time to pay up".
-Michael |
