12 Responses

  1. Darryl Griffiths
    Darryl Griffiths at |

    Hi Michael,

    I remember reading the original post of yours, and it is true that these scare tactics seem to go round and round without any clear and concise clarification from Oracle. The confusion is probably in their interest.

    However, whilst reading your update, one thing did spring to mind. What is Oracle's definition of a processor?
    Do they mean a host with a physical processing chip or do they mean a virtually allocated processor, or do they mean both?

    Thanks,

    Darryl

    Reply
  2. paulmeehan2013
    paulmeehan2013 at |

    Hi Michael,
    great article and you might have seen my post on Twitter. It was from a friend in a company that specialises in software that saves customers money on true-ups etc. The problem acceding to my buddy is that rather than face the risk of an Oracle full blown audit or court action, many customers bow to pressure and bullying by Oracle and settle these discussions. It's entirely ridiculous. This is the challenge and it is entirely related to plunging revenue/profits at Oracle – this is how they plug the gaps. It's entirely unsavoury but in almost 20 years in IT I have seen many bad practices used by that company. It amazes me that they maintain their market share position.

    Paul

    Reply
  3. popovicbozo
    popovicbozo at |

    Hi Michael,

    i am constantly running into Oracle accounts and i need a small help understanding the definition of a “Core processor licensing factor” from Oracle’s document “Oracle Processor Core Factor Table”

    Do we have some Oracle official explanation?

    For example: If the factor is 0.5 like it is for the Intel x86 family, for a server with enabled 2 CPU socket with 2 cores and hyper-threading enabled how many Oracle CPU licenses do we need:

    1. (2CPU-sockets * 2CPU-cores) * 0.5Core-factor = 2 Oracle CPU licenses

    2. ((2CPU-sockets * 2CPU-cores) * 2) * 0.5Core-factor = 4 Oracle CPU licenses

    3. Something else?

    Thanks in advance.

    Reply
  4. J
    J at |

    Michael – I understand the argument you make and it makes sense – the contract is the binding document. Now the question is this – To your knowledge has anyone taken Oracle to task on this point and actually won?

    Reply
  5. Serge Vedrine
    Serge Vedrine at |

    Why do you state that the Phantom Menace does not apply to NUP licensing if the # of processors is used to calculate the minimum number of NUP licenses for Oracle Database Enterprise Edition (25 NUP X #processors) ?

    Reply
  6. Top 18 Tips & Quotes on the Challenges & Future of VMware Licensing

    […] into accepting some non-standard wording to your disadvantage).” – Michael Webster, Oracle FUD – The Phantom Menace: Licensing on VMware vSphere, Long White Virtual Clouds; […]

Leave a Reply