<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: License Audits&#8230;Enforcing Ethics</title>
	<atom:link href="http://wordofpie.com/2009/02/23/license-auditsenforcing-ethics/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://wordofpie.com/2009/02/23/license-auditsenforcing-ethics/</link>
	<description>Ponderings on Life, the Universe, and Information</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 11:29:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pie</title>
		<link>http://wordofpie.com/2009/02/23/license-auditsenforcing-ethics/#comment-26588</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Pie]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Jan 2011 15:46:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wordofpie.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/license-auditsenforcing-ethics/#comment-26588</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Real Story Group just posted about how the audit situation is still happening and is still upsetting people.

http://www.realstorygroup.com/Blog/2090-EMC-Documentum-continues-to-anger-with-impromptu-audits]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Real Story Group just posted about how the audit situation is still happening and is still upsetting people.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.realstorygroup.com/Blog/2090-EMC-Documentum-continues-to-anger-with-impromptu-audits" rel="nofollow">http://www.realstorygroup.com/Blog/2090-EMC-Documentum-continues-to-anger-with-impromptu-audits</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anon</title>
		<link>http://wordofpie.com/2009/02/23/license-auditsenforcing-ethics/#comment-26238</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anon]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Jan 2011 16:14:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wordofpie.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/license-auditsenforcing-ethics/#comment-26238</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have a customer who is undergoing an audit right now. The client is on a VM&#039;s. Each VM is allocated 2 CPUs, but the physical host contains close to 30 CPUs. When I asked the EMC rep why he and the auditors wanted the physical CPU count, he said &quot;Everything is taken into consideration&quot;. Why can&#039;t he give a straight answer? Cause it varies. The customer told me today, they are ready to drop the product all together if EMC gets nasty. So sad! 

This customer purchased in various rounds, 1 round was about 10 years ago and another one about 8 years ago. In both rounds, they were told that DEV is OK.  No one on either side can find &quot;signed&quot; documents that state that fact, so EMC is producing generic documents from their website that do state DEV/Test/UAT, etc are NOT included in PROD. The signed documents that exist, have no references to their website. Not sure what will become of this. I will try to update you all after this all shakes out. Lesson learned. GET IT IN WRITING! 

They also seem to be auditing companies that have many years into it. Why? Because they know the players who were around on both sides (EMC and client) likely are not around now. So, less documentation and less argument as to what any agreements were. Its very possible that both sides can&#039;t find the signed contracts, which is the case with this customer.

They are looking into Alfresca as I write this! This customer has plans to expand in other departments, but EMC&#039;s greed is likely going to force them to lose all the business, rather then get more over the years. EMC may think this customer is &quot;in-bed&quot; too much to drop it, but they aren&#039;t. Most of the usage is fairly out-of-box and the customizations that do exist, could be re-written or re-done in another product.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have a customer who is undergoing an audit right now. The client is on a VM&#8217;s. Each VM is allocated 2 CPUs, but the physical host contains close to 30 CPUs. When I asked the EMC rep why he and the auditors wanted the physical CPU count, he said &#8220;Everything is taken into consideration&#8221;. Why can&#8217;t he give a straight answer? Cause it varies. The customer told me today, they are ready to drop the product all together if EMC gets nasty. So sad! </p>
<p>This customer purchased in various rounds, 1 round was about 10 years ago and another one about 8 years ago. In both rounds, they were told that DEV is OK.  No one on either side can find &#8220;signed&#8221; documents that state that fact, so EMC is producing generic documents from their website that do state DEV/Test/UAT, etc are NOT included in PROD. The signed documents that exist, have no references to their website. Not sure what will become of this. I will try to update you all after this all shakes out. Lesson learned. GET IT IN WRITING! </p>
<p>They also seem to be auditing companies that have many years into it. Why? Because they know the players who were around on both sides (EMC and client) likely are not around now. So, less documentation and less argument as to what any agreements were. Its very possible that both sides can&#8217;t find the signed contracts, which is the case with this customer.</p>
<p>They are looking into Alfresca as I write this! This customer has plans to expand in other departments, but EMC&#8217;s greed is likely going to force them to lose all the business, rather then get more over the years. EMC may think this customer is &#8220;in-bed&#8221; too much to drop it, but they aren&#8217;t. Most of the usage is fairly out-of-box and the customizations that do exist, could be re-written or re-done in another product.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James</title>
		<link>http://wordofpie.com/2009/02/23/license-auditsenforcing-ethics/#comment-3784</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[James]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2009 23:50:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wordofpie.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/license-auditsenforcing-ethics/#comment-3784</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you annoy enterprises with licensing, you may force them to look at open source which Alfresco should benefit...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you annoy enterprises with licensing, you may force them to look at open source which Alfresco should benefit&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pie</title>
		<link>http://wordofpie.com/2009/02/23/license-auditsenforcing-ethics/#comment-3756</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Pie]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 01:25:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wordofpie.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/license-auditsenforcing-ethics/#comment-3756</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Great comments. The part about the Dev/Test/Coop is troubling. I used to always ask, but got out of the habit after always hearing the same answer.

The issue about having CPU and user models mixed is a solid point. It can be confusing. Another thing to remember is this…

1 CPU = 1 dual-core CPU

A quad-core is licensed as 2 CPUs. This is not just EMC, but includes other CPU licenses that I have run across in the last 2 years.

-Pie]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great comments. The part about the Dev/Test/Coop is troubling. I used to always ask, but got out of the habit after always hearing the same answer.</p>
<p>The issue about having CPU and user models mixed is a solid point. It can be confusing. Another thing to remember is this…</p>
<p>1 CPU = 1 dual-core CPU</p>
<p>A quad-core is licensed as 2 CPUs. This is not just EMC, but includes other CPU licenses that I have run across in the last 2 years.</p>
<p>-Pie</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://wordofpie.com/2009/02/23/license-auditsenforcing-ethics/#comment-3753</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:29:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wordofpie.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/license-auditsenforcing-ethics/#comment-3753</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have been through the EMC audit with some of my customers.  Frankly, it is a revenue grab that is an attack on it&#039;s customer base.  It is going to change how we look at  licenses and add-ons.

Let me give you some examples.

How are you licensed for dev, test, staging and coop?  Not sure?  Did you get an oral ok from the sales rep?  Well those days are over.  Get these environments included in your production licenses, get it in writing, or don&#039;t buy.

 Seat licenses for the IT department might cover you for your non-production environments, but what about CPU based modules such as TCS or BPM?

Don&#039;t think for a second EMC will treat you the same as anyone else.  Just as one customer was getting hassled for licenses on cold COOP another was getting all environments included in the cost of production.

Finally, don&#039;t cave to the pressure.  This is like the rule about not negotiating with terrorists.  If the audits pay, you will only see more of them.   Review all your licenses and abandon anything you won&#039;t be using.  Don&#039;t be afraid to take a hard look at who is using their seats and who is not.  It might be better to deactivate users who are not using the system.  It may also be an option to look at reconfiguring hardware.

The ironic part is that there is probably more EMC shelfware out there than license abusers.  Find out what you need and stop paying maintenance on what you are not using.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have been through the EMC audit with some of my customers.  Frankly, it is a revenue grab that is an attack on it&#8217;s customer base.  It is going to change how we look at  licenses and add-ons.</p>
<p>Let me give you some examples.</p>
<p>How are you licensed for dev, test, staging and coop?  Not sure?  Did you get an oral ok from the sales rep?  Well those days are over.  Get these environments included in your production licenses, get it in writing, or don&#8217;t buy.</p>
<p> Seat licenses for the IT department might cover you for your non-production environments, but what about CPU based modules such as TCS or BPM?</p>
<p>Don&#8217;t think for a second EMC will treat you the same as anyone else.  Just as one customer was getting hassled for licenses on cold COOP another was getting all environments included in the cost of production.</p>
<p>Finally, don&#8217;t cave to the pressure.  This is like the rule about not negotiating with terrorists.  If the audits pay, you will only see more of them.   Review all your licenses and abandon anything you won&#8217;t be using.  Don&#8217;t be afraid to take a hard look at who is using their seats and who is not.  It might be better to deactivate users who are not using the system.  It may also be an option to look at reconfiguring hardware.</p>
<p>The ironic part is that there is probably more EMC shelfware out there than license abusers.  Find out what you need and stop paying maintenance on what you are not using.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

